Sometime in the future, package it and put it out in the community to other groups to train their trainers for them to do the same thing for their employees. And the training has really gotten great feedback from the people who have taken the training. They've really enjoyed it. I know when the commission, when we first developed the training and kind of did it as an activity ourselves, it was really eye-opening. I had never participated in anything like that, and I think it will be a great thing for anybody who takes it and anyone in the community. So, you know, if you're a business owner and have employees that you would like to participate in this training, reach out to the commission and let us know. We would love to deliver that to your group. One of the things that I didn't mention earlier that the Commission has really advocated for was a change in our signalization at crosswalks for pedestrians. The Commission really advocated in the past to get audible signals in the community. These help people that may have a vision impairment. They can't see the signal to stop you from entering the crosswalk or let you know when it's safe to cross. We advocated for that so that now there's a sound that alerts you when to go as well. So, you know, like Roger and Laura said, some of the issues that we work on really come from constituents in the community. They are far better eyes and ears, if you will, to let us know of things that are creating issues in the community. So don't hesitate to reach out. We have a Facebook page. We don't have a lot of followers right now, but we would love for you to follow us so that we can continue to make you aware of things that we're doing, and you can let us know things that are issues in the community. Hence, we are doing? Yes, we are doing a public meeting on Thursday, September 17th. We want to create a forum just to hear issues and concerns in the community. Our group meets every month, but not everyone is able to make those meetings. Lots of people don't know that this group exists, so we just want to create an avenue to let people have their voice heard. We may not be able to respond to everything, but as long as we have a way to contact you, we will take your issue, try to give you an answer or some resolution in the future. That meeting is on Thursday, September 17th at the BCTC campus on Newtown Pike. It will be in the Police Academy, which is at the rear of the campus. We will be getting a map together to put out so people have a better indication of where that meeting is held. We will start at 6.30 p.m., go until about 8 o'clock. And one of the things that we are hoping to do to get people like yourselves to attend is get some door prizes to make available for all of our attendees to choose what they would like to enter to win or go through a raffle, but those things will be available. Our main thing for having this meeting is we've had people come to us and say They can't make these 9.15 a.m. meetings, and we understand that. So we're really trying to reach out to the public. So we'd love to see you there. If you have any concerns, you don't have to have a disability yourself. You could be a caregiver. You could be someone that has a friend. Just anyone that wants information, wants to give us your concerns, this is your opportunity to come and speak directly to commission members. And we'll also have some experts there, too, to give you some information as well. In just a few moments, you will hear from Jennifer Billeter. Jennifer attends our commission meetings as a guest pretty regularly. ¶¶ ¶¶ ¶¶ ¶¶ We have moved up our start time and our council has been very elastic and they've showed up and we have more than our quorum so we're ready to move. I appreciate everybody else taking their time early to come to our meeting today. First we want to step up and have a look at our summary which is on the first three pages of the agenda. Are there any additions or corrections to the minutes that's submitted? Anyone? Can I ask for a motion to approve? Motion by the Vice Mayor. Second by Councilmember Evans. All those in favor? Opposed, like, signed. Thank you. All right. Next item is the downtown speed limits. This is an item the administration asked me to place in, and it begins on page 4. Who's going to speak to this first? Downtown speed limits. Downtown speed limit reduction. Environmental Quality and Holy Works Committee, September 15th. Hello. Hello. Madam Director. Good afternoon. Thank you, guys. I guess for anyone watching who doesn't know, my name is Dowell Hoskins Squire. I'm the Director of Traffic Engineering. This presentation is a result of some ongoing activities that we have through our pedestrian safety. Do you have to turn this on? Sorry. One of ongoing activities that have been part of our pedestrian safety working group, the pedestrian safety working group, just to give a little background, was formed last October. Last late summer to early fall, there were a whole bunch of pedestrian vehicle collisions that made the news. It was in the newspaper, and the Pedestrian Safety Working Group was formed as a result of that. Additionally, another item that we have been engaged with the USDOT on related to pedestrian safety is Mayor Gray accepted Secretary Fox's challenge for safer people and safer streets initiative. We had a kickoff meeting with the city. Some council members attended that meeting back in March. We've made significant progress in seven challenge areas, and I sent out a status email about that last week and feel that we've really made progress and I'm happy about that. Additionally, you know, we formed the Pedestrian Safety Working Group last October, but didn't have any funding that was dedicated specifically to address pedestrian safety issues. So in fiscal year 16, the Division of Traffic Engineering requested funding specifically for pedestrian safety. On the engineering side, what that would accomplish would be ADA ramp upgrades, pedestrian signals, push buttons that would be outside of a typical signal upgrade, as well as crosswalk markings and signage, typical infrastructure improvements. We're also going to use a portion of the money for an educational outreach program. The MPO already has a program called Move It People. We are basically going to supplement an existing contract they have with Group CJ and do a fair, a good amount of educational outreach related to pedestrian safety, and we're about to get started on that. Thirdly, the Lexington Police Department has a representative that sits on the pedestrian safety working group, which has been great, and so all of the initiatives that we have in the group are coordinated with the Division of Police, which I think is really important from an enforcement perspective. The collision data, I included the collision data just for anyone that's not aware of the magnitude of vehicle to pedestrian collisions that happen in a year. As you can see, in 2014, there were 164. There were 10 more the previous year, but if you look at the five-year trend, it's increasing. So, ped vehicle collisions are increasing, and I think that's particularly alarming. not unlike the rest of the country. The rest of the country, ped vehicle collisions are increasing. In fact, ped vehicle fatalities are increasing as a total percentage of traffic fatalities. So it's not just a problem that we have in Fayette County, but it's something that we would like to address. I know this slide is a little bit difficult to see. This shows in, I guess, the downtown core. These graphics were developed by the Division of Police. It shows ped vehicle collision locations. You'll see the highest, the majority of the crashes are on the Broadway corridor. As a result of that, we prioritized corridors and we prioritized intersections based on the number of ped vehicle collisions. We went as a group, the ped safety working group, in combination with the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet and physically visited each one of those intersections on Broadway and did a safety audit. Recommendations were made, but ultimately those recommendations will have to be implemented by the Transportation Cabinet. This is the real reason for reducing the speed limit downtown. It's the impact of vehicular speed on fatality risk and severe injury. As you can see by the table, if you're going 40 miles per hour or above, and you hit a pedestrian, 85% chance that pedestrian will die. The fatality risk reduces significantly if you're in the 30 to 35 range, And then even more, considerable reduction if you're in the 20 to 25 mile per hour range. And you hit a pedestrian, a 5% chance that the pedestrian will die. So I think that's why we're here. That's why we made the recommendation. It's really about safety. Not only is it safer, slower speeds are safer for pedestrians, it's safer for bikes, it's safer for vehicles. If you hit another car going 25, you're going to do less damage to your car than if you hit it going 40. So I think, you know, from a safety perspective, it's not just about pedestrians. It's about everybody. This was a graphic that I stole from New York City's Vision Zero program. Vision Zero, for those of you who aren't aware, is New York City's policy towards zero traffic deaths. So it's vehicular traffic deaths, pedestrians, and bikes. They're one of a number of cities that have adopted the Vision Zero policy. The city of Lexington obviously has not. But this would be one step towards reducing pedestrian injuries and fatalities. And I thought the graphic was pretty telling. You know, if you just to see the impact of five mile per hour speed difference, it's about 50 feet. So if you see a pedestrian and you're going 30 versus 25, you've got about 50 feet more stopping distance. And so that's significant, especially in a downtown area. I know this is going to be difficult to see, and I did send a separate PDF if we want to zoom in on any of the areas in particular. but this just shows the boundaries of the proposed speed limit reduction. On the west side of downtown, it's bounded by Jefferson Street. On the east side, it's bounded by Ashland. The south side by Cooper and Waller, and the north side by Loudon. I know it's incredibly difficult to see. The streets that we are proposing be changed to 25 are the streets that are highlighted in green. Those are the city streets. The state routes, which are highlighted in yellow, the transportation cabinet is currently reviewing our request that they lower the speed limit on those streets. Can you zoom in on this for us, please, so we can get to the green streets a little easier, please? Sorry to interrupt you, ma'am. It's okay. I will say just to list off some of the streets, the north-south streets would be Jefferson, Upper, Limestone, MLK, Elm Tree Lane, Woodland, Walton, and Ashland. The east-west streets would be, starting at the south, Waller and Cooper, Virginia, Maxwell, the city-controlled portion of High Street, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 7th, and Loudon. Additionally, we've coordinated with the University of Kentucky, and I want to thank Chief Monroe for attending the meeting. The university is in support of the speed limit reduction in the campus area, and they have also committed to reducing the speed limit on two streets that they control, which is University and a portion of Hilltop. Have you guys thought about that? I was waiting until he zoomed in. Okay. I think there's a separate PDF. And maybe we can zoom in after. You want me to just finish? There's only one more slide. If I just finish the last slide, and then we can zoom in. Yes, ma'am. Just a little bit about implementation and the financial cost of doing this. There are approximately 160 speed, 35-mile-per-hour speed limit towns within the identified project area, which is about a $6,000 fiscal impact. That will be funded out of our pet safety money for fiscal year 16. and like I said, the UK administration is in support. Also, our division of police is in support of this proposal. We've also worked with Brenna in advance talking about pedestrian safety in general and making sure that we craft the PR message in a way that not only gets the message out to the public but also explains a little bit about our pedestrian safety initiatives in a way that everybody can understand. And then, like I said, we work with the police on enforcement once this is implemented to make sure that it's not just a matter of changing out a sign, that there's actual reduction in speeds on the streets. That's it. That was it. Questions, comments? Council hope. Interested parties. Council Member Evans. Thank you, Chair. Okay, so if I understand correctly, going back to, yes, to that map, the request is to change the green streets to purple. Is that the request? Yeah, if purple represents 25 miles per hour, I don't have the key right in front of me, but yes, I believe so. To change the green streets, they're currently 35 mile per hour posted speed limit to 25 mile per hour posted speed limit. And yes, I think you're right. The purple streets are currently 25. Okay. Okay, and do we know when you might know about the state roads? You said that they were reviewing the request. I don't have a timeline on that. Okay. Do you anticipate what some of their concerns might be? They, as a policy, they post speed limits based on 85th percentile speed. So basically they do a speed study on the road, and if 85% of the people are going within 10 miles per hour of that speed, they see no reason to change the speed limit. So from that perspective, I guess that's how they determine speed limits, which has nothing to do with the safety impacts associated with bikes and pedestrians. Okay. I think those are my questions for right now. Thank you. Thank you, ma'am. Next up is Council Member Fred Brown. Thank you, Chair. There's a lot of streets there that's impacted here. Is there any, did we do any study on individuals? Some of the streets, you know, may not, will still be safe at 35. Others, you know, won't be, depending on how wide they are and what the system is. I don't know that I'm asking a question. I'm just, I didn't know if that was entered into when you were looking at the data. No, I understand what you're asking. I think, you know, I wouldn't say that the streets are currently unsafe at 35, but I think they'll be safer at 25, and that's the goal. Well, no kidding. I mean, that's a no-brainer as far as the 25, but how does it affect everything in relationship to traffic flow? The other thing in this is that we have attempted to have our streetlights synchronized, and I don't know which streets downtown are synchronized. Some of them are supposed to be. Will that affect the synchronization? I'm sure it will, and will you all deal with that? Right. There are 75 traffic signals in the downtown core that are run on a coordinated system. So if we change, for example, when we wanted to change signal timing on Main Street last fall, it affected all of those 75 signals. I will say that the progression speed that's set in our signal model is 25. So it shouldn't significantly change that signal timing. Did you all look at anything for a compromise like a 30-mile speed limit for all downtown? down. Was that, was anybody bring that up at all? You know, I'm looking at a compromise here from 25 to 35 with a complete 30 mile. And I realize you have every five miles you show the impact of how much it takes to stop. Right. And that's my second part of my question to this. Sure. No, we haven't talked about compromise with the cabin at this point. You haven't? Have not. Okay. And And the other thing is the statistics, I've been seeing these for years about the stopping distance. Have those been updated by the federal government, or what's the date on those stopping? And the reason I say that is it don't take me that many feet to stop my vehicle. Now, I've got good brakes. And is that an average, or is that, you know, where is that at? Because it's got to be all over the place. But these new cars that are out there, especially probably in the last eight or ten years, they can stop a lot quicker than the cars I grew up in. Right. I did have a problem with those. Right. It's a combination of factors. There's perception reaction time built into that number. Okay. The American Association of State Transportation Officials, the AASHTO, that makes the Green Book, which is basically the roadway design handbook that all state DOTs use, They provide the formula for stopping site distance, and that's where it's calculated from. So we really don't have any scientific stopping analysis like, you know, you see all the automobile makers. They're talking about collision effect and stopping distances and things like that. I'm just curious about, you know, what that takes. And then, of course, we've got other. If they're entering in the distractions, I don't think you can put a stopping limit on distractions, people on the phone and texting and things of that nature. Right. The distances may be greater. Yeah. Well, I'm sure it would be. But I just had some concerns there. Cart block, 25-mile speed limit. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Next up is Council Member Gibbs. Thank you, Chair. Dahl, thanks for all the work on this. And I just want to say that I represent the 3rd District. Probably half of this is in the 3rd District, and I'm a very strong supporter. I'll always take safety over traffic flow. Thank you. Thank you, sir. And, Council Member Hensley, is this your first meeting with us? Yes. Welcome. We are very glad to have you, sir. Thank you. I'm glad to be here. And looking through some of the data that you presented, I'm looking at clusters of these collisions. It looks like Broadway and Rose Street would probably get 80% of these. Is that a fair assumption? Something along those lines. And when you looked at these, I mean, what was the actual speed of the vehicle when it hit the pedestrian? I mean, we're making an assumption that speed was a contributing factor, but were they doing 10 miles an hour when they hit them? Because I've been downtown 17 years, and I've seen many of these, and a lot of them, the car's doing like 2 miles an hour and hit somebody. Right. No, that's a great point. And I think we looked at police reports for all the collisions along that Broadway corridor, which was the highest concentration of ped vehicle collisions. There are a variety of factors. Speed is not the only factor. You know, people are not crossing in the crosswalk. They're wearing dark clothing. You know, there's a whole variety of factors. Demographic plays into it. So will we address all of those issues with reducing the speed limit? No, we won't. And that's why we're taking the education component into account. So this is just one thing that we're doing in a collective effort of a bunch of different things to increase pedestrian safety. So reducing the speed limit would be one. Improving the infrastructure would be another. Improving pedestrian safety education would be another. And then working with the police on enforcement. So it's actually a multi-pronged effort. Okay. And that is one of the issues I had was if you have a transition in these speed limits. I mean, in my business, I drive about 60,000 miles a year. So I'm on the road a lot. Right. And, you know, having a standardization of the system in the city where people were transient through going from 25 to 35 or the people that have lived here all their life and now we change it. I can see citations going through the roof and having some transition period in there built in. Right. And there will be, if this is, if it moves forward and if it's approved, we will work on a PR message and an educational campaign to make sure that everyone's aware that the speed limits are changing. I think that's a good point. Anything else? You're good. Thank you, sir. Council Member Maloney. Richard. Yes, sir. Thank you. It brings back about a few years ago when I was on the council and I pushed for 25 miles speed limit in residential areas, and we passed that, and this was a lot more larger magnitude than what we're looking at here. and there were some streets that were still left 35 miles in certain neighborhoods, and we were able to get those down to 30. And I am convinced a lot of this area that we're looking at, it should be 25. I've always said it should have been 25 for the pedestrians we have walking around that area in the residential. And I want to commend this. I mean, personally, I wanted 25 miles in all residential area in Lexington, and it seems like we're getting back on track of that. there are some few streets that still have 35 miles an hour in their neighborhoods, and I still think it should be 25 because as long as that home's in there and it's basically for residential, I really feel that should be 21. I want to come in. I see this is a good setup. I have no problem with this. I think they all should be 25 in that area. So whoever makes the motion, I know I would support this. Thank you. Thank you. I thought that 25 mile per hour legislation was mine, not yours. But maybe you remember better, perhaps. It's always starts and ends right over there. Yes, sir. Thank you. Councilmember James Brown. Thank you, Chair. I would also like to thank you for the work that you've done on this project. I think making the speed limit consistent in that zone will answer some of the concerns I have for residents about inconsistencies on certain streets in the neighborhood where the speed limit is 25, moves to 35, and then goes back to 25. So I think that would help with that issue on numerous streets. What are the next steps if we bring it out of committee to move it forward? What are the next steps in the process? Speed limit changes need council approval. Once we obtain council approval, then we would move forward with either purchasing or fabricating the signs, likely purchasing since it's 160 signs, and we can purchase them cheaper probably than we can make them, and then installing them. So we're looking out, you know, at least a couple months, two to three months, before we can get them installed and maybe longer. I also have two streets I would like to include in the area. It kind of messes up the way the map looks because it kind of puts an antenna on two of them. But North Limestone in between Loudon and New Circle Road is a street that runs through residential areas. And there's schools. There's a school, a few churches, some businesses on that street. There's a lot of pedestrian activity. And also Bryan Avenue. You run into the same situation as far as being in a residential area. There's a big city park on that street as well as a few churches. So I would like to include those two streets in this program. I think that's a good recommendation. Okay. So with that being said, I would like to make a motion to include Loudon Avenue between, I'm sorry, North Line between Loudon and New Circle Road and Bryan Avenue between Loudon and New Circle Road into this study. So you're including those into the study? Is that what you said? Yeah, I said study, but I guess the study area. Is that good for you? It's good for me. because we really haven't don't have anything else on there nothing else to debate right now so we're going to add these two to the study area is that it we had a motion a second so we're in discussion on that any comments and all in favor of adding those two signify by saying aye aye opposed like sign so we've added something to something we haven't done yet this is good all right uh council member evans it seems like there's enough support for this to go through but i guess i am kind of curious and help me um if i'm if i'm wrong in my understanding of what's going on um if because i'm thinking when when i have a neighbor neighborhood come in one a stop sign or you know something in the traffic plan, the first issue is, is there a safety issue? And so I'm a little confused on if this is not a safety issue, if the roads are safe at 35, why aren't we looking at what the other factors are? Because that's what neighborhoods are told when they feel like their streets are unsafe, when they really aren't it seems like maybe we're taking a different approach to the downtown roads than we normally would in in the suburbs or somewhere else outside of downtown um so it seems like it's a bit contradictory and i guess i need help in understanding why we're so willing to reduce the speed limits in downtown streets when you say that the roads are safe. There are other issues. So why aren't we addressing those issues instead of? Sure. It's a pedestrian safety issue. So we have a number of initiatives as part of our pedestrian safety working group. Lowering the speed limit is one step towards making the streets more walkable and safer for pedestrians. Gell Studio, who's doing work for the Lexington Downtown Development Authority has done a study of the downtown core, I think people would be astonished at the volumes of pedestrians that are walking downtown, significantly more than in any of our suburban neighborhoods. And so the concentration of pedestrians, the concentration of vehicles, and the potential conflict is the reason. Okay, I guess I would have to challenge that one, saying it's, I mean, a pedestrian is a pedestrian. And as Council Member Hensley pointed out, it seems that there is a concentrated area where those accidents occur, why not focus on those areas as opposed to all of downtown? I mean, I get there are more people walking, but I think someone in my district is going to say, well, we've got people walking in the neighborhoods too. So it's still a pedestrian safety issue. in their minds. So again, it's just trying to figure out what that, why not focus on the education pieces as opposed to doing something that seems rather drastic. But again, it seems like there's enough support for it. But it does seem drastic when you say that the speed is not really, it's not unsafe because of the speed limit. Okay, I'm not sure if you have a question, but I will just let you know. We have funding available for requests for pedestrian safety, so several council members have already contacted us about specific intersections where they want us to make pedestrian safety improvements. And so if there are intersections within suburban neighborhoods that you think could use improvements, please let me know, and we have funding to address those issues. This is a comprehensive effort specifically about downtown and downtown pedestrian safety, as well as campus. Well, I appreciate that. I guess I'm just saying that my constituents don't have the option of reducing their speed limit, yet we're doing that for downtown. So I guess that's my point, and that's my concern, is that we're doing something that otherwise wouldn't happen in a district that is downtown. You're kind of going to a policy point that is good to take up, I think. when we passed Richard's legislation we made all of the neighborhood streets or any street otherwise unmarked 25 miles per hour but what I hear you saying and I don't disagree with this if we as district council members have specific requests we have to jump through a lot of hoops to kind of get even a standing and then get something studied and then get it done And this is kind of rolling through kind of at least for the first 30 minutes of this meeting kind of quickly. I agree. I don't know. I think this is where we get to decide, you know, do we like it or do we not like it? What do we want to do? Didn't mean to take up your time. Thank you. Council Member Gibbs. Thank you, ma'am. Thank you, Chair. First of all, I just wanted to announce that Commissioner O'Mara is in the House. I just saw him walk in, follow Bill. Nice to see you. and I just want to make a quick point safety is the primary concern here surely and I think by dropping it makes it safer but there are other considerations, it's really a quality of life issue if we lower the speed limit in the downtown area I think people would be much more likely to sit in an outdoor cafe allow their children to come downtown be more willing to be a pedestrian when you feel safer I'm primarily a pedestrian and have been my entire life. And things like Vine Street. Vine Street is one of the worst streets in the universe. And we need to give more thought to what not just safety, which is the primary thing, but the feel that a city has. And by lowering the speed limit, it improves the feel of an area. And I'd be willing to go 25 miles an hour the whole city. I support you. If you want your 6th district, 25 miles an hour, I'm on board. But for downtown, I think it's really important, given the volume of people who are there. We need to not just make it safer. We need to improve the feel of it. So thank you. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, sir. Council Member Fred Brown. Thank you, Chair, for letting me speak again. Just the point there that came up. But I'm having a dilemma here because this is not my district, so I don't know if this is a safety need, if the people in the district want it. And I guess is there a couple of districts involved in this particular area that is it one, two, and three? Well, I would assume one, two, and three have contacted their people through neighborhood associations and public hearings. But there's a lot of people use these roads that aren't in your district. And I guess my underlying question is, should not we have some public input on this because of the volume and the mass of the changes there, which really affect anybody that comes downtown? And I'm not opposed to 25. I mean, I think it ought to be uniform, but I don't know the streets. And I know there's some streets in there that wouldn't necessarily have to be 25, and safety factors and other things would prove that they don't. So that's where I'm coming from, just a little problem there. Do you have an apparatus for public input in this issue, or have you thought about one? We have, like I said, just on stakeholder coordination. So I've talked to the council districts that are affected. We've talked to U.K., and we've talked to the Division of Police. Those are the key stakeholders. but as far as actual community outreach, I would not say that we've done that. I mean, nor do I think it's necessary. I think it's all about safety and who could argue with safety, with improving safety. I don't think anybody can argue about anything. I mean, this is the council. Right, right. No, I understand. All right, then let me follow up then. So for purposes of the discussion, who is the public safety working group? The Pedestrian Safety Working Group? Yeah, pardon me, Pedestrian Safety Working Group. Sure. It is the Division of Engineering, the Division of Planning, the MPO, Traffic Engineering, Lex Tran, Division of Police, and KYTC. And this group meets? We meet on a monthly basis. And it's very well attended. Generally, a representative from each division or organization is in attendance. Did you meet over in the Phoenix Building or something? Uh-huh. Right. And take up all things, pedestrian, safety. For one hour, the first Thursday of every month. Thank you. And then you've mentioned in your bullet point here the mayor has taken a challenge from someone about something. Secretary Fox. Tell me a little bit about it, if you would. Secretary Fox is the secretary of transportation for the U.S. DOT. He issued a challenge to city mayors to improve safety on city streets, and it was called the Safer People and Safer Streets Initiative. There were seven challenge areas associated with that, all of which are related to pedestrian and bike safety. And so lowering speed limits is a consideration for a number of the challenge areas. And so you're not asking us to lower the speed limit today. You're asking us to do a study about lowering the speed limit. Is that it? No. It's our recommendation to move forward with lowering the speed limit on the streets that have been identified as well as the streets that Council Member Brown has identified. Okay, thank you. And then we'll go back. Well, let's go first to Vice Mayor Kaye, then we'll come back to Council Member Hensley. Thank you, Chair. I guess two points. First, I'm in support of the proposal. It seems to me that we have an opportunity to affect pedestrian safety without really causing any that I can see disruption for folks. Cars are not going to be held up very much by lowering the speed limit by 10 miles an hour, we have an opportunity to do something positive. But I also agree with Council Member Evans' point that when we have a concern about pedestrian safety and we want to make alterations in neighborhoods, I want to be careful how I say this, but traditionally there's been a lot of pushback from traffic engineering, which seems to be more interested in moving cars. I think that was the previous mentality. I expect that's true, and I certainly hope that's true, but I guess what I'm hoping is that as we move forward and council members raise issues about specific streets and particular neighborhoods where some kind of traffic calming would be useful, that we get the same kind of support that you have given to this set of recommendations. But I don't think we ought to hold this one up. I think it's a good one. I think we ought to go forward. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, sir. So people are trafficked too is what it gets down to. Councilmember Hensley. I just want to circle back around, and I know Councilmember Evans was agreeing with me on some of these things, and I don't want to seem to cast the thought that I would support this, because looking at the data that you've presented, You know, to me, it seems like you've got two clusters of two gateways that have predominance of the issues, and you're throwing the baby out with the bathwater kind of approach. The issues along Road Street, I mean, I would have to see more data about time of the collisions, the speed of the collisions, or these people that are drunk and walking out into traffic. I mean, this is, I can't clearly see that this is a motor vehicle issue versus a pedestrian walking into traffic issue at this point. And you may have that data. No, and that's why I mentioned previously that it's a multi-pronged approach. This is just one thing that we're doing to improve pedestrian safety. We're also doing a pedestrian safety education outreach campaign. We're also making infrastructure improvements, enhanced crosswalk markings, ped signals, push buttons, signs. So we're working with the Division of Police on enforcement. So it's a multi-pronged approach. It's not just the speed limit reduction. and we think that that's going to solve all the ped vehicle collision issues, because it's certainly not. It's a multi-pronged approach. I mean, you know, as a business owner, I mean, I have 20-some employees that show up every day, and I can tell you everybody in the building is against this before I walked across the street today. So when you say there's no public input that needs to be heard on this, I heard it before I walked across the street. And so I would support something that was more granular into the targeted areas that seemed to be the issues, But from my standpoint, you know, this is a big approach to what I see as two clusters. Thank you, sir. Council Member Maloney. Thank you. A question I have, and I guess it's for police enforcement, and I just want to know how they feel about it. I think it would be more consistent with the 25 if they have in residential. I just wanted to get a feedback on that. And the only other question I have is that I see there might be a problem of all the 25 miles an hour. Is Maxwell from Broadway all the way to Ashland going to be 25 miles an hour there? I'm just wondering, is that going to be, is that, I mean, that should be a 35 or 35. I just want the only one I see questionable on that is that block of cars because it is a lot longer than most. But, I mean, I'm fine with whatever the police want to do in force. Did you want police to respond, or do you? Yeah, the question is, are you all okay moving to be, I mean, we do residential 25, and seeing at this area, do you feel comfortable with the 25-mile speed limit for enforcement? Is it going to be confusion, or do you think it's going to be more easier because of what you have 25 everywhere else? From an enforcement standpoint, it's not an issue for us to be able to enforce that. We do have neighborhoods now that are currently 25 miles an hour. A lot of the concerns I've heard from the council today are things such as areas where it's 25 to 35 back to 25. Those things make it very confusing and very tough to enforce. because you go into a neighborhood and people come out of a 25 zone, and there have been instances in the past where we've had there's not been enough room for people to slow down. We've gone out there and said, look, we can't enforce that because of that discrepancy and the closeness of it. So if everything is 25 and you don't have that fluctuating 25 zone to the 35 zone back to a 25, it's going to be more consistent. It's going to be easier. We're going to do the same things we do now. We have officers that we can assign to special enforcement as requested, just the way we do now in neighborhoods. So from the enforcement standpoint, it's not going to be an issue that I foresee. And as our personnel numbers get up, we'll have more people to dedicate to that. And then we've also set on the Pedestrian Safety Committee. I go to these meetings. I know we have enforcement grants in the works that we're going to have to be able to go out and enforce other issues concerning pedestrian safety. And also, being in the Collision Reconstruction Unit, I can answer some of those questions about stopping speeds and safety issues. There have been scientific tests and studies conducted that show that you can stop quicker at 25 than 35. It affects the reaction time at 35 miles an hour. I'm traveling about, it's going to say, including my perception reaction time of the tested average of one and a half seconds. I'm traveling 76 feet per second. At 25 miles an hour, I'm traveling 54 feet per second. So that gives me 22 feet that I'm traveling at that higher speed. If I'm traveling at 25 miles an hour, I've got 22 extra feet to be able to see that pedestrian step out in front of me. So I can react. It allows me to react quicker. And then on the other end, it doesn't take me as much distance for my car to get stopped. And there's different factors that factor into that. And then there are also, if I hit you in my car at 35 or 40 miles an hour, a pedestrian takes on the speed of that car. So if I get hit at 40 miles an hour, now I get projected forward at 40 miles an hour. That's the physics. That's the laws of physics. That 40 mile an hour, what we call a delta V or change of force, that's when you start to see fatal injuries at that 40 mile an hour change of force or change of speed. So now if you hit me at 25 miles an hour, basically I'm taking on the speed of the car at 25. Now my change of velocity is going to be 25 miles an hour. I've got a better chance of, that's why there's a better increased survivability factor at those lower speeds. The other question I have is that I, personally, I think, I mean, North Limestone is perfect for 25, because you've got all the schools on that road, you've got Sarah, you've got on the other side, I think that's a great, but going back to what I'm talking about, Maxwell, we had an article in the paper today about the curves, or there's a story going on about how bad curves are and all that, But I still want to know, do you think the 25 miles an hour from there to all the way to Tate's Creek intersection, is that a good number for that? Because you do have a lot of light to consider farther away than most of the other ones. I'm just wondering, is that a good idea to leave it at 25? Or do you think we should leave that one at 35? To me, I think that one, it makes more sense to make that one 25. If you travel that stretch of road by the park, is that the area you're talking, or the tennis courts and the pool, that area, you've got parking on that side of the street, on the park side of the street, and that right lane is very narrow. If I'm in my car or there's a lot of pedestrian traffic that crosses, not in a crosswalk there. And then you've got the school zone. Again, I'm coming inbound, Tates Creek Road. It's 35, and that drops to 25 for the school zone. Then I'm back up to 35 once I get out of the school zone. And if it's 25 uniform throughout, then that eliminates that whole issue there. That's what I want to hear. Thank you. Please introduce yourself so that I will know. Oh, I'm sorry. My name is Ron Keaton. I'm a sergeant with the traffic section assigned to the collision. I'm in charge of our collision reconstruction. So I would respond to these pedestrian collisions. Just trying to put a face with a name. All right. Thank you, sir. All right. Council Member Mazzani. Thank you, Chair. And I apologize for attending the meeting late. No, it's all good. Dowell, I just wanted to say I appreciate the work that you've done. I think this is something that's necessary. It'd be great if it was consistent throughout, not only downtown, but as the officer said, some of these other subdivisions have 25 to 35 to 25. And, you know, I'm a big walker. I walk a lot every day, five to six miles. And drivers don't pay attention anymore. They text. They're on the phone. They don't look at stop signs. They don't yield to pedestrians. I think if there's one way we can do to kind of slow down the traffic, I certainly would be in favor of this and applaud your efforts. Thank you very much. Thank you, ma'am. Council Member James Brown. Thank you, Chair. I just wanted to speak to the feedback from the public input. You know, I think getting public input from as many people as possible is good, but the public input that I've been getting from neighborhoods that fall in this area is that speed is a concern. And like I said before, I think this is a holistic approach to addressing the speed and the inconsistencies of the pedestrian safety in those neighborhoods. So from the neighborhoods in the area that this encompasses, I've heard that this will be a welcome change in speed. And then I guess the other input that you would get, I guess it just depends on who it comes from, whether it's people that walk through these areas or people that pass through these areas in cars. So I guess you would get the input as far as the concern for safety and walking or the concern for convenience as far as getting through there as quick as possible. So, and another part of the data that's probably, that's not included in this study is, are the near misses. I mean, there's probably numerous near misses that just aren't documented. And, you know, that's part of the concern, the reasons a lot of people choose not to walk or allow their children to walk in some of these areas by themselves. So, I just would ask, you know, to take that into consideration. I know I can't quantify it, but from what I hear, it's a lot of near misses that are not in this study, which is a big concern. That's all I had. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Council Member Scutchfield. Chair, thank you for recognizing me, although I'm not on this committee. I'm going to voice the same concern I believe some of my other colleagues have voiced. My biggest issue with this is not 25 miles an hour, because I think that's a good thing if we slow people down. My issue is the process that is being used to move this forward is not what is used out in the rest of the districts. This seems to be something just for downtown. And I think the message we're giving to the districts is you have to get 65 percent of your neighbors to sign a petition. You have to have public info sessions. You have to do this, but then when we don't require it for downtown, I'll tell you, my district, we need slower streets and people to slow down, too. So that would be my issue. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. I'm glad I recognized you. All right. Council Member Bledsoe. I'll just quickly say amen to what Council Member Scotchville said, just for the record. well no one else has signed up so we're right for either further discussion or a motion or we can hold this or ask for more input about it or ask for the public's input about it it would be the pleasure of the council council member Evans I think again it goes along the lines of of what council member Hensley was saying it would help me to have more hard data numbers. Because, again, the 12 of us up here would have to get a count from the police to see what are the speed limits or how fast people actually are going. So that would actually help me in decision-making to see if people really are going 40 miles an hour down Broadway or wherever. But right now, yeah, I don't feel like I have enough information to change it, you know, 10 miles or, you know, a 10-mile difference. So that would be something that would make me feel more comfortable. All right. We can potentially craft on that. Council Member Maloney. Dale, I need to ask you a question. You remember when we worked on the management plan for a couple months ago, and I'm sorry I wasn't here. I had another emergency that day. To plead my case, what council members are concerned about, they don't know how, there's no policy in place right now of how we do 35 miles and hours of speed. It's 20, just stop signs and all that. That was in your, that plan that we have. I know that the council did not, is it still in the committee? It never did come out. It's still in the committee. I think, if I could just clarify, I think the neighborhood traffic management policy is separate from the downtown pedestrian safety issue. Okay. So, I'm just going to clarify that. I think that is what some of the council members, and I have to understand the downtown, When we did the 25-mile speed limit throughout 12 years ago or whenever it was, we went ahead and made it mandatory for all the residential area. We didn't have the signatures because we were every day in the service committee at that time, and Mr. Brown could clarify that. That was most of the meetings was on how it was lowered the speed limit. But by allowing us to go to 25 miles an hour in the residential area, we were able to put a lot of that out of the problem. I don't want to sit here and have to have everybody in these streets here have to come in here with a petition, which I still think it is the same definition that I proposed. Because where I've got this information was down in Cincinnati, northern Kentucky, was in the downtown area where everything was 25 miles an hour, and the residential went on and adopted. It really was the other way around. Downtown started at 25 miles an hour, and then the residential. We're going the opposite. We're going from residential to downtown 25 miles an hour. And I don't want this to be held up because of what they're concerned. And that's why I think that traffic management needs to come back up so everybody can get clear on how that is posted. And I thought we would solve a lot of that problem, and hopefully we can bring that back up. But I think just downtown is totally unique, and I really feel for the University of Kentucky, for the activity that we have going on downtown now that I think the 25-mile speed limit and for the schools that we have downtown are the best you do in the day. I mean, I know we have 25 miles to come up. I think we need to be consistent 25 all the way through. So I hope it doesn't delay it. I mean, I know I'm not the councilman for this area, but I assume that most of the councilmen in this area are getting the same concerns that what the neighborhoods were for the other council members represented on the suburbs, that this is too fast as a concern. So hopefully we can get this going on, and I hope we don't delay it. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Council Member Masati. Again, my apologies for coming in late, and I hope I'm not reiterating what some of the other council members have already said. But it's all about safety. That's what you primarily said. So why should we have two different policies, as Councilmember Scutchfield said? Why should we have one certain policy for the neighborhoods and one certain policy for downtown? I don't understand that. If I'm not mistaken, and Roger can answer this much better than I can probably, but the majority of residential streets are posted 25, and if they're not posted, then they're 25 by default. So that's the majority, and I believe collectors are 35 per the ordinance. I don't know if you want to add anything to that. So in this mix, we have some collectors that you're proposing to be 25, which is different with what we have out in the suburbs, correct? Can you bring us something that would be a little bit more consistent? Because I think that may be the issue. Because there's, again, just like everyone has set up here, it makes no sense to have one area at 25. Then you go outside a new circle, and you've got 25 and 35. I think there's a confusion issue, but most of all, it's a safety issue. Yeah. No, I agree. And I think, you know, every every pedestrian's life is important. The volumes of pedestrians downtown are a thousand or two thousand or three thousand times what they are on neighborhood streets. So that's the issue. I mean, Gell Studio out of New York counted pedestrians recently downtown and they map pedestrian flows based on a heat map. And so you could see where it was dark red was at least 1,000 pedestrians over a peak hour, over a lunchtime, or over a morning peak hour, or over a happy hour period or evening. And so we saw those concentrations of pedestrian flows in these areas. And I think the volume of pedestrians alone is significantly more downtown than it is in neighborhoods. And that's why this is the first priority. But we can certainly look at adopting. And I don't think anybody disagrees with you, but somebody on a bike that gets hit out in the suburbs, their life is just as valuable as a person downtown. I agree. So my feeling is more of one of consistency, and maybe we can move forward that way. That's why I said it's more of a policy issue than anything else. Thank you. Thank you. I believe if we want to talk about this issue again next month, we can. If we want to take action today, we can. And if we decide to keep in committee, I think that it would be imperative to have a very accurate and worthy map for us to look at, as well as a listing of the streets involved. Because I think that part of this presentation hasn't been the strongest in terms of what actually are we going to change. And I know it's complicated, and I think that adds to the decision-making process up here mixed in with some of the policy discussions. So unless someone has a motion to try to do something with this, I would ask staff to come back to us next month with some more information based on the questions that were asked here today. Any comments? Councilmember James Brown. Now, if we make a motion, or if a motion is made to move this forward, and we change all the streets, the speed limits of the streets that's encompassed in this study area. And say we come back and find out a month later that the situation on Maxwell is unacceptable. I mean, we still have the flexibility and the authority as a council to adjust the speed on that individual street. Is that correct? That's correct. Anything we want to. I think, too, that part of the public, if we decide not to act today and ask staff for more information, I think the month's time gives the public, as well as each of us, more time to talk with folks about it and come to understand it rather than just having had a presentation on it. But again, it's up to the will of what we do or don't want to do as a group today. Okay. Councilmember Hensley. If they come back next month, you know, I would ask if they'd have an alternative plan if the whole thing didn't pass, too, because 55% of these data points are on two streets. Understood. Could you tailor a presentation along the lines he just mentioned? Sure. Would be a, I guess I would quote-unquote call it a lighter version of what the proposal is based on his description. Meaning an analysis of all the collisions that are within the downtown core? I mean, I don't really understand. Well, I think what he's saying is if you look at the map, you said that the police had generated that map, right? If you look at that, he and others have made comment to the fact there's a couple of data clusters there. And what he's saying is perhaps the style of the outcome could be around those clusters rather than throughout the downtown. He's asking for kind of a plan B presentation is what I would call it. If I can just say one thing. Unfortunately, the cluster that you're speaking of on Broadway is a state route, and we have no control over the speed limit on the state route. So we have done what we can in coordination with the Transportation Cabinet, but there's nothing that we can do to compel them to reduce the speed limit if they choose not to. So 55% of those are on those two state routes, and you're proposing to change the rest of this, which won't address over half the issue? I think it's about a broader vision for downtown. And like Councilmember Gibbs said, it's about livability and it's about walkability. And the city has a number of initiatives that are moving in that direction. It's about the economic vitality of downtown, frankly. And if you have a walkable urban downtown and people feel safe walking and people feel safe sitting on the street, it increases the economic prosperity of the area. And so it's not just about pedestrian safety, but it's about really a broader economic vision. And I think that's the vision of the city. And I understand what you're saying. I've worked downtown for 17 years, and speed limits never have been an issue across my mind across the street. So this, I guess this goes back to the map. So this would then not include Broadway then? Correct. Would it then not include Main Street and Vine Street? That's correct. Because they are also state and browns. That's correct. All right. Well, absent of motion, Council Member Akers. Just really quick as a follow-up on the state road discussion. I work a lot with the state myself, with Leastown and Citation and New Circle in my district. So I guess my question is, what have you all done to try to encourage the state to reduce their speed limits in the downtown area? There is a representative from District 7 that sits on our pet safety working group. Actually, three people from District 7 came to the last meeting. We have coordinated with the chief engineer, Kelly Baker, at District 7. He has sent the request to the central office. He yesterday told me that they were still reviewing the request. So it's not a no. It's not a no. The city of Louisville downtown has a comprehensive 25-mile-per-hour speed limit, And that's just one example of many cities across the country that have a 25-mile-per-hour downtown speed limit. So does that include state roads in Louisville? It does. And that's where the cabinets conflicted because that was done by city ordinance in the 60s or something, 60s or 70s, and they don't have a whole lot of documentation that they followed their policy to evaluate speed limits like they would do today. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. All right, then. We will keep this item in committee, and we will provide some different and more specific documentation on it, and we will discuss it again next month. And I appreciate your time with us today. Anyone else on that? All right. Thank you. All right. Pavement management system implementation. This is on page 13 of the packet, and I guess, Commissioner, you're going to start us off, sir? I wish Mr. Chairman to introduce Bill Vavik. He is the Vice President and Principal Engineer for ARA, which is Applied Resource Associates out of Champaign, Illinois. They have been our consultant on the pavement management, producing all the data and information that we have been sharing with you, and he is here to prepare to make his presentation to the council. Very good, sir. Thank you. Mr. Vavik, welcome to Lexington. We appreciate your time and your expertise. Thank you very much, counsel, for inviting me here to give this presentation today. I want to walk through a bit of what pavement management's about so that you folks have an understanding of what we have started our journey on here today. So I'm going to talk a little bit about the project background and objectives, why we're here, talk about what a pavement management system really is, how we collect data, what data we collect, and then what we do with that. Because at the end of the day, the pavement management system is about helping you make better decisions on what roads to fix when and through what means and methods. That's really what this is about. Pavement management is a decision support tool, and that's what it's all about. There was recently something I saw online. It came from a city in the northwest part of the country. and they were advocating that every jurisdiction ought to be able to have this statement ready to go, whether that's a mayor or a council person, right? So my city, right, so for us here, the urban county government, we have this much pavement and it's worth this amount, and this is what it's going to cost us to maintain it or to preserve the quality of that infrastructure. So I'm going to start today the presentation with the premise that we're going to answer all the questions. We're going to fill in all the blanks, if you will, in this statement so that all of you, when you walk out of here, will be able to understand what investment is needed. What infrastructure do you already own? What is it worth? And what is it going to take to maintain the quality of that infrastructure? So we start with a pavement management project, right? And the project has a number of specific objectives, things we have to get done. First of all, we have to measure the condition of the road. You cannot manage what you don't measure. So we make a very definitive measurement, right? Then what we do is we look at the measurement of the conditions of the road, and through physics and engineering, we take those conditions, and we predict what the future condition of the road is going to be. And if we know what the future condition of the road is going to be, that will help us understand where am I today, where am I going to be next year, and two years, and three years, and five and ten years from now. And then we look at our budgets and we know how much it costs to overlay a road and we know how much it costs to rebuild a road or to do crack sealing or other types of treatments. We look at what the mix of fixes is, right? What are the what are the tools in the toolbox that we have to address our road conditions? And then we take what's in that toolbox and we take our road network and knowing what condition it's going to be in the out years, we figure out what is the best way to spend the money. That's really what this is all about. And that's the information and the data that I'm here to present to you today. So a number of steps that we went through to get there, and I'm not going to go through these in real good detail, but I do want you to understand that we started off with a communication, right? A number of us came in from around the country to sit with the staff here and really go through what the practices are. What are we doing today? What's working well? What's not working well? We do a records review. And as Albert can attest, that's where I go and look for the gray-haired folks who've been working here a really long time and have that institutional knowledge and can understand what's been done in the past and what's worked and what hasn't. And payment management does require, because we're doing some higher-order math, right, it does require software. There's some software components to it. And then we go out on the field and do some testing, evaluate the roads, put all that data into a database and start doing these calculations of what to do to the road and when. So the objective of what we're after is to develop a true objective system that optimizes return on investment for the city. For every dollar you invest in roads and pavements, you want to be assured that you're getting the best bang for the buck. That's really what a pavement management system is about. And by doing that, you enhance the credibility of those investment decisions that you're making. It also gives you a pavement management system, lets you do a trade-off analysis. What happens if I? What if we don't do this? Well, in the past, when you asked those questions and you own thousands of lane miles of roads, There's a little bit of engineering judgment that will help you answer the question, but it's hard to answer in a precise way. The payment management system helps you do that, and it takes good people. It takes good processes, good data, good tools to make this all happen. I love the moniker here, and we see this all the time with people who talk about systems. You can take garbage data, run it through a perfect tool, and what you get is garbage. Or you could take perfect data and run it through a garbage tool, and you get garbage. The goal is to have good data and a good tool, a set of toolbox, right? So you've got to have the right tools in the toolbox. So we have condition data. We have performance models. That's how we predict what the future condition is, right? It's based on engineering and physics. We have, we'll call this treatment matrix, the mix of fixes, the tools in the toolbox, if you will. And then we do budgeting and analysis tools, and that's done in software. Many of you may remember there were a number of press events when the vehicle was here in town collecting data. There were two different vehicles. This was one of them. It collected the majority of the roads. And I've got articles from different places from Better Roads off your website, and even a little Twitter comment there that came out from the mayor as the vehicle was driving around town. What that vehicle does is it takes pictures and uses sensors to scan the road and understand what the quality of the road is. This is not a subjective process. This is objectively looking at every crack in the road and deciding what is that crack about and creating what is called a pavement condition index. The pavement condition index is actually a standard. It's an ASTM standard. or think of it as an industry standard. It's existed since the early 1980s for measuring pavement quality. It looks at the surface condition of the road, and it assigns it a value of 100 when it's perfect or zero when it's completely failed and you really shouldn't hardly be driving on it. So we look at surface condition. We also look at outside of the PCI, or pavement condition index, we look at the roughness of the road. And we look at that through a term called the International Roughness Index. This is basically a set of sensors in the vehicle that we drove around that monitor how bumpy the road is. How does your bottom feel when you're driving around town in your car? And road roughness is actually what the motoring public cares the most about. You can actually take a road that's got lots and lots of cracks on it from an engineering perspective, it's falling apart. But if it's smooth, often the public will tell you it's a decent road. But you can take a brand new road that's built really rough and it's got bumps in it, and we just built it that way because who knows why. And even if it's not a flaw at all in that road, the public will tell you that's a bad road because it's bumpy. So what we do is, the engineering really does hinge a lot on that pavement condition index. That's kind of the engineering, if you will, number that's out there. The road roughness is really the user perception of the quality of the road, we blend those two together and create an overall condition index. And it's 80% weighted by the pavement condition index and 20% by the road roughness. And this is our overall condition index, or our overall ranking or rating, if you will, of road quality. So the first thing to do is to kind of show you some of the data. All of the data that we have presented here, we've got broken down into categories, very good, good, fair, poor, and very poor. So if you look at the bar on the far left, that looks at every road that you maintain. And you can see that one of the things I like to do is I like to look at where is the break point between yellow and blue, right? That's the difference between good and fair, right? So anything that's green or blue is good or very good. Anything that's yellow or as you're getting into the oranges and red is fair or getting worse. So in general, all routes, well, we're only at about 40% there. But the major arterials, those are maintained in a higher condition. The minor arterials, a little bit lower. The collectors, a little lower. The locals, even lower yet. So we have a higher standard of road quality on roads that more people drive on. Kudos. That's a good thing. Right. You want to do that. You want to put the more of your emphasis on roads where more people use them. And while we do enjoy having very high quality local roads, they are used by fewer people. So if you're looking for bang for the buck, how can you take limited resources and impact the most number of people concentrating your funding and your program on the more used routes is an important thing to do. And everything we do in pavement management here in the pavement management system is based on what category of road we're looking at. So the overall condition, you know, the average is pretty much right there at that break point between good and fair. I don't know. Technically, we're at 60.1. So because we defined good as 60 or above, we're ever so slightly into the good, but not really. Right? We're right on that break point. I've done this type of presentation. I've worked with payment management systems literally all over the country. And I will tell you that most organizations strive to be somewhere in the 65 to 70 range as an average. That's what I see. Now, I've worked in the city of Chicago. They've got a long way to go before they'll get to that point. Nashville, Tennessee, not too terribly far from here, spends quite a bit in their infrastructure. And they have a requirement that I believe their council put together that 70% of their roads are a 70 or better, which is a pretty I mean, that's a really high bar to achieve. So we're starting at a 60. It's good to know where you are as an idea of where we're going in the future. Right. And we talked a little bit about this pattern of of what the condition are based on different roads. This is that overall condition index, again, by roads, and we're keeping the higher trafficked roads in better conditions. So kudos, again, to the staff and the council making this happen because you're putting the emphasis where more people drive. All of the data that we're presenting here, we talked about maps in the previous presentation, is available in the GIS, the geographic information system. Anything that we have here can be mapped, and it can be mapped. Presented to you last week was a dashboard as well as lists of the different roads in your districts and their condition. And, you know, please don't hit the print button. You'll kill a lot of trees on 600 and some pages if you printed everything for everybody. There's a lot there. But it's to give you an idea of the volume of data we collected. And seeing it on a map is actually quite important. But I'm not going to go through the maps in a lot of detail today. We can dig into that later. Yes. Take a breath just for a second. Absolutely. Councilmember Maloney has a question. I just want to go back to the overall network condition. Sure. A couple slides back. So basically what you're saying is we've done a pretty good darn job of making sure the roads stay in pretty good shape. but we only have 0.8% in serious condition. And the poor, which is normal, 14.7%, which is we have $10 million. We're trying to build this 14 back up to the 35, 33. So overall, the roads are in pretty good shape. Overall, the roads are, it's hard to put a lot of adjectives around them. If you were to compare yourselves to similar cities of similar size, You're not doing as well as I would say is typically around the country because I would say typically the average is 65 to 70. But you're doing a good job of maintaining, you know, right there at the average, at the bottom of good is where you're maintaining your average condition. What I'm saying is what we've been doing and blacktopping and everything, it's been pretty darn good. and we're going on, we're doing pretty good pace of what we're doing right now. Because from what I see here, I was looking for that the very poor and the very end poor was going to be way, way down here. But I'm just looking at 14.7. When you got $10 million, you can put a big dent in it at 14.7 and 0.8 and also the fair move it back up. So we're really on track to doing the right thing. So the difficult part of this is, and you have to look at it as the network on a whole, Yes, you could take the funding you have, and if you wanted to, and we're going to talk about this in a minute, you could make a real good dent at your very poor, which is very low, less than 1% very poor, right? 14.7% poor. You could take your money and concentrate it on those poorest of the roads and make a good dent at making that go away. But every year you go out that you don't spend money on your very good and your good and your fair, they're going to get worse. Well, we are spending money every year on that. But the problem I have is the scope, what you were supposed to do, was supposed to grade the street so we could start paving. And what I'm seeing here is you got more than just one outside the scope. And I don't know if that's something. I didn't see that. When I voted on in the council, we were going to grade these things, get them done, and start sometime in August, September, start blacktopping here. Now I'm seeing all these other scopes here. Would that your scope, was to get into outside and just grading and getting to people? My understanding, thank you, that's a great question. My understanding is that our scope of work is to implement a pavement management system that will allow you to understand what is the right level of investment and how to prioritize. You've got a list of, there are 9,800 sections of road. How do you know which one to work on next year? And I'm going to, if you'd allow me to go a few slides further, often... Pick up where you were and continue, please. Yeah. So often what happens is folks will tend to say, well, let me sort the list from good to bad. I'll start at the bad and I'll make my way better. I'm going to explain to you for a minute why that's not the best thing to do. What I'd like to do is change that paradigm so you're spending money where you get the best bang for the buck. Right? We're going to look at benefit-cost ratio because it's not always best to spend all your money on the worst roads. For every different category of road, we go through and we develop a performance model. And this says that the roads are in some condition now, and I want to predict what condition they're going to be one, two, three, four, five years from now. So we look at the age of the road as it sits today and what its overall condition is. And you can see that that's not some real tight line, some perfect model, right? These are roads. They're made of asphalt and concrete and other things, and things happen. And so we find a general model that fits through that data, and it's not just one model, but it's actually several. We have a model that predicts the condition of residential roads. We have a model that predicts the condition of collectors, and we have a different one for arterials. Arterials and collectors are pretty close there. We also have a model for the concrete pavements. And these are different because they last a different amount of time. they change condition differently because of how they're used, what they're made of, kind of what family they're in, if you will. You can almost think of these things as families, right? There's our family of residential streets and our family of arterials and collectors, right? And each one of them behaves a little bit differently. So we're going to evaluate them based on what family they're in. And then what we do is we're not just going to have one tool in the toolbox, right? So a relatively good road that's in relatively good condition, 80% an OCI overall condition of 80 to 90, we're going to start doing preventive maintenance on those roads. For roads that are in 60 to 80, we're going to do things like surface treatments to take care of the cracking that's starting to happen. Then once they fall below 60, We're going to do resurfacings, and it gets more invasive as the road gets in worse condition, right? More base repairs and what have you. Yes, sir. Do you think the balance of your presentation would take 20 more minutes? I can make it as fast or slow as you want. I can do it in 20 minutes, yes. Let's just. Well, I'm just trying. I can do five, too. No, no, no. I mean, we started early to have time, and we want to use it correctly. Our usual time frame for you has expired. Some of it was expended on a question here. But I just wanted to have we need to make a motion to give you 20 more minutes for your presentation. So I would take that motion from Evans all those in favor Good go ahead 20 very good. Thank you, right So we have a more tools that we're putting in the toolbox and that's really what this decision matrix is about right this treatment matrix So we choose the right thing to do on the road at the right time and here Some of these things you've seen before you're familiar with things like crack sealing right? You've seen that, right? Sealing up the cracks. Things like rejuvenators have been used in the, here in the city with some reasonably good success. And we want to continue doing those preventive maintenance things. I wanted to introduce something new that's not quite to the point where we need to overlay, but maybe a little bit beyond where we're doing crack seal or rejuvenator. And that's something called microsurfacing. Hasn't been very common here, is used tremendously throughout the U.S. The contractors that do it will come just about anywhere because it's a relatively mobile process. A couple of trucks put down a mixture of a sand aggregate, so a sand mixed with a polymer-modified asphalt and a little bit of cement that's thrown in there. But it's a designed material that gives you designed performance, and it keeps your good roads in good condition. And you've seen, obviously, the overlays that happen, the resurfacing of the streets. And we also want to make sure that when we're resurfacing our streets, we're handling any sort of patching of the asphalt that may have trouble or the underlying aggregate or the base or soft soils. We need to make sure that we address all of those problems in the road with the fix that we're proposing. All of these mix of fixes are in the pavement management system to help make decisions. This is a quick aside that really looks at that benefit-cost analysis. That is the condition model, if you will. It starts at 100. Look at the top one. It starts at 100, and over time, it drops off. The way that most agencies go about figuring out what to do is they, well, let me just take the list of roads, sort it by good to bad, and I'll start working on the bad ones first. Well, let's look at the cost of doing that. If you let it fall off and then you do a major rehabilitation, it costs you about $375,000 a mile. But now let's look at a different way of maintaining the road where we don't just do that. When the road is young and the first set of cracks appear, we go out and we seal those cracks. And a few years later, we go out and maybe we put that rejuvenator down. And then we go out and put the microsurfacing down. And then when it gets time to do a rehabilitation, we don't let it get so bad that I have to darn near rebuild it. I do it a little bit earlier in life where I can do a more minor rehabilitation. When you add the total cost of those two things up, in the top one, I spent $375,000 a mile, and I extended the life of the road 22 years. In the bottom one, by doing preventive maintenance, by doing the right thing to the right road at the right time, I've only spent $360,000, so I've spent less money, and I've extended the life of that pavement by 45 years. So worst first, which is what you're and it's not you, it's like an entire industry. It's there have been studies done of cities across the North America. And it's something like 60 percent of agencies do worst first because it's easy. I can get a condition. I can sort and I go. But if you do it based on benefit cost, what's the right thing to do at the right time? You can spend less money and extend the life of your infrastructure. So pavement management is about figuring out what roads are we going to pave this fall and next fall and the fall after. But it's also deciding which ones need to be paved with base repairs and which ones just need to be resurfaced and which ones should be doing crack sealing rejuvenator and some of these other surface treatments. It's about figuring out what the right thing to do is to the road at the right time. The way we make decisions is on a benefit-cost basis. So again, that same curve of condition, depending on when I do something, I improve the condition, and then the condition falls off again. The area underneath that is benefit. This is kind of the math behind it, if you will, that goes in there. So if I do something that only the quality gets a little bit better, the area is small. So hopefully that would have a small cost. But I look at the benefit, which is the area, and the cost. And I divide one by the other. And when I do that, I end up with a benefit-cost ratio. So instead of sorting the whole list of roads by overall condition and starting at the bottom and working my way up, I'm going to sort based on benefit-cost ratio. And I'm going to pick the projects that give me the best benefit-cost ratio. And from there, I move forward. That's what the pavement management helps you do. It's not about picking the worst roads. It's about picking the roads that give you the best bang for the buck. So when we put this data all together, the first thing I did is I ran through and said, okay, based on the current budget, which is roughly $10.5 million a year, right, the $10 million for the residential plus the other preventive maintenance and the base failure and specialty programs that are out there, I put those into the pavement management system, and I said, well, I'm going to run a couple scenarios. Let me run it as though we spend $10.5 million a year on the system for the next five years. Let's pretend money's no object. I'm going to do whatever I can. Whatever's feasible, let's do that. That kind of lets you know the backlog of potential work that's out there. We also run, what if I do nothing? Nobody thinks you're going to do nothing, but it will tell you how fast it'll fall off if you don't do anything. And the result kind of gives us that pavement condition by year. moving the five years out in the future. There's another way we can do analysis in a payment management system, and that's to say, look, right now we're sitting at 60 as an average. We have roughly 15% of the network that's below 40, right? Let's set up a target. Let's say I want to, what's the right target? Well, that's going to be for you to decide. The targets that I'm presenting today are kind of based on my engineering experience and doing this around the country and moving you forward to make a little bit step to be a little bit better in the future. So here's the funding scenario, the funding scenarios that we looked at. And I'll go through these one at a time and you can see the outcomes. First, we looked at no funding. In no funding, you go from a 60 to a 47 in five years. and the amount of deficient, which is below 40, goes from 15 to 28. So if you stop spending money on roads, they're going to fall apart pretty quick. That's what that says. Now, the unlimited funding scenario, and nobody has unlimited money, I know that, but it does let you see that backlog. If you could do everything that was feasible, it doesn't mean you fix every road. It means you look at where it is, and on some you do crack sealing, and on some you do micro. And some roads you do nothing because there's nothing. They're in good shape. You don't need to do anything. But if you did everything that was possible, you'd spend $176 million in one year. Or if you average that out over five years, what the five-year needs were, you're looking at about $40 million a year. And if you do that, the average condition of your road goes from 60 to over 80. I'm not advocating you do that. I'm just putting that out there as a data point. So let's look at a couple scenarios. One of them is to keep the current budget. the top chart, the top table is the current budget. So I broke this down into what is the average condition of your arterials and collectors? What's the average condition of your residential streets? And if you keep the budget the same, your arterials and collectors are going to be in worse condition over time. We're going to go from 60 to 57 to 54 to 52 to 51. It actually does bump back up in 55. Again, spending money on those things that are the best benefit cost. all the while your residentials are going to hover right around 6, just a little bit above 60 at the current budget levels. I also looked at increasing the budget by 10%, right? 10.5 million will go up to 11 point whatever. And you can see that the residentials really didn't change much. They still hover right just above 60. And the arterials, while better, it's still 57, 54, 52, 54, right? That's an improvement over the 51 that was in the current budget. And then 59, it's another improvement. But we're still on the wrong trajectory, even spending 10% more than you're spending today. This is what the future of your road condition is. This is not made up. This is physics and economics. It just comes together. It's really quite simple. This is what's going to happen to your roads and what condition they'll be in depending on your budgets. So I flipped this analysis around and said, you know what, let's stop putting budgets in. Let's put in targets. So here's the target that I made up, and I'll take full responsibility for this, and this wasn't staff. They said, Bill, we hired you to figure this out. You tell us what we should do. Well, I said, you know what, on your arterials and your collectors, on your more heavily trafficked routes, I want to go from where we are now, which is roughly 60. I want to gain a point a year so that we get to 65 and we maintain 65 from that point out on the arterials and collectors. And I don't want more than 10% of the arterials and collectors to be below a 40. Right? Less than 10% below 40. That's, you know, I think that's a reasonable standard. On the residentials, I said let's keep the average at 60 on the residentials. Slower traffic, we can accommodate a little bit more distress. and not more than 10% below 20. So we've kind of lowered that bar. It's still 10%, but the bar is lowered down to 20. What happens when I do that? This is your needs for the entire network. This needed to be in the packet, not up there. You need to tender your exhibits to us so that we can partake in them rather than show them to us now. I'm sorry. I don't know what a number of these analyses. Well, the last three slides were not part of the packet, so we're having to look at them fresh and cold right now. Very good. And I will take all the time that you want, and these are available. Obviously, they're here on the computer. Onward. The result is, using the targets that I established, which does improve your arterials a bit and leaves your residentials where they are, the bottom line the bolded numbers right 38 6 million 38 million 39 million 15 and 15 that is the budget required year by year in order to hit those targets that i talked about earlier making the arterials just a little bit better and keeping your residentials in the condition they are. I said, that to me seemed like a lot based on your current budget. So I went back and I pulled the residential streets out totally and said, all right, well, let's just look at the arterials and collectors and see, you know, maybe there's something going on there because those seem to be in a little worse condition. When we did those other budget scenarios, we were able to maintain with our current budgets. And this is what we see when you just look at the arterials and collectors, right? Roughly spending 13 and a half, 14 million dollars a year for the next three years. And then we've addressed a backlog of bad conditions on the arterials and collectors, and we get to a normal situation of spending between three and five million a year. And I've actually extended this analysis. I don't have it in the presentation or the materials. Oh, really? You don't? onward let's leave finish i'm having a hard time hold right now sure so these are the budget levels that are that are needed to maintain those condition targets right for the arterials and the collectors and it is it is more than you're spending today which basically is saying if you took 20 percent more than what you're spending today and only worked on your arterials and your collectors for the next three years, that would relieve the backlog of projects you have in your arterials and collectors. And from that point on, you'd be able to maintain them in very good condition for much lower budget. But basically, the system is saying that you have a backlog of need and that the budgets that we have today, if we maintain them, the overall condition of the network will continue to get worse year after year moving forward. Let me just go to this last slide, which was what we started with. This is the first slide that also wasn't in our packet. You're right. It was not. I am right. Go ahead. So this slide talks about that statement, if you will, on your infrastructure. And again, this is only the pavement. This isn't the curb and gutter. This isn't the sidewalk. This is just the pavement, from edge to edge of pavement. You have 2,580 lane miles of pavement, roughly. It has a value of over $2.5 billion. And if you really wanted to maintain it with the targets that I just talked about, it would require $28 million a year for the next three years and $16 million a year from that point moving forward to maintain it and preserve it at those target levels. So the pavement management system allows you to understand where you are today and where you're going in the future at various different scenarios of how to best allocate the resources you have in roads. So with that, I thank you for your time and attention. I will take questions until you don't have any anymore. I do apologize for not having all the slides in there. This particular slide was something that I just came up with earlier that I thought would be impactful based on some things going around the industry right now. And I thought it would be important for you to be able to have in your back pocket what you own, what you are managing as a government. I appreciate your data. I'm sorry it wasn't encapsulated into our package so that we could actually play a role in the conversation actively. I'm really, did you tender your information to us in this form and someone else edited it out? Or how is it that what is up there isn't in here? Did you do that? Did someone else do that? The issue that got to be was that, it goes back to the very start of the project. There was some delays, literally, in getting the project kicked off in the time we needed, so getting council approval, getting contracts in place, so that we could start collecting data with the van on the road. And the entire time we've been shooting for this date, all of the data finally got in the database. I was working with this literally until it was sent to you and continue to work with it since then, because it is that fresh. It is that fresh information. You're calming me down. Thank you. Yeah. Yeah. No, there's no deception, no issue with that. I mean, we had to buy into the whole gig from the get-go. Yeah. That there isn't going to be paving done because the state's doing this. We've got time to do this study. Then you'll roll in here and we'll be ready to go. Now what you've got is 12 district council members that are anxious to move and need all the information as accurately as possible and immediately as possible, and you show up with the homework half done. We're going to have to work through this in the next few minutes. We're going to start with Council Member Maloney. It's a good thing you've done this elsewhere because you're going to do it here today. No problem. No problem at all. Council Member Farmer, I think we're on the same page here. I've got some concerns what the scope was really meant for. I thought when we voted on this, we were supposed to get the votes degraded, but it seems like they've gone beyond a call of that. One thing I'll give you an example on this model cost slide where you were saying $360,000 for 45 years. Right now it costs us $100,000 a year to do per square mile. You're talking $360,000 per square mile. And ours go anywhere from 15 to 18 years. So let's take 15 years. We can blacktop this thing three times for what you just did one time, which I don't really nobody trusts to go 45 years. But from the average, what we've done over the years, we're averaging anywhere 15, 18 years. I really question where we're coming with if we're really saving money during this 45 years when we can do it three times and still save money on what we're doing. And that, I mean, you may say it'll go up in 12 years, 15, 20 years, But I don't think it's going to go that considerably up as much as when we can still do it three times in 15 years. Council Member Villani, thank you for that comment. I do want to clarify, and I guess it's not clear in here, because we were literally rushing to get this to you, and the timetable was very tight to make this happen. This example is not using Lexington cost data. And I just couldn't get it done in time. I'm happy to repeat this same analysis using Lexington cost data, but I will assure you that this type of analysis has literally been done hundreds of times around the country. It has been done by the Federal Highway Administration, nearly every state DOT, and the answer is always the same. That pavement preservation, preserving your infrastructure, is always better than a worse first or reactive situation. And that's been, there's hundreds of literature documents on that. It's just confusing to me. But when did you finish this study? Last week. And that goes back to why I'm having a serious problem, guys. I mean, we were told to get this thing done. And nothing against you and whatever you've done, but it just seems like to me we're on a wrong track here. We've always seen slides that we didn't get. But I'm just wondering, did we get what we paid for or whatever? But it seems like we've got a lot of council members sitting here on edge who have not gone blacktop. And personally, when I was commissioner of public work, we did 12 million in four months. We blacktopped 12 million streets in four months. We ran it like a chip. We ran it like a program. This is showing me we're not running anything. We're just doing a pipe dream. and nothing against what you're doing but there's some other problems I have and I've got all day to do this I've got questions about the scope on the microsurface and thin asphalt I'm not big into that I've got so many things that I could talk about that that's the last thing I want to see us pay waste taxpayers dollars on if we're going to do something like that but council I just feel like I don't feel very that we got what we studied for Thank you, sir. Council Member Stennett. Thank you, Chair. And I appreciate the presentation, and you answered the question. I just want to reconfirm it. None of the data in here is Lexington numbers in terms of the cost that it costs the paved roads here? No, no, no. Only this chart is not Lexington. All of the other cost data is Lexington data. So the charts that we don't have that you showed, is that Lexington numbers? Yes. Yes, so like this chart here, those are Lexington numbers. So how do you get that it's going to cost $256 billion to pave 2,580 roads? How do you get that number? The $2.56 billion is the vast – if you were to take every road and had to rebuild every road. Repave it, resurface it. Repave every – So do the math, $100,000 a mile, how do you get $2.56 billion? You said you didn't use Lexington data. That's what I'm trying to get. It cost us $100,000 based on our contract to do a mile. So is that what you're basing it on then? Yeah, reconstruction. Again, the reconstruction is from a perspective of, and this is backup slides. This is not here, but it's in the system. If you were to go back and all the way down to soil, So when you talk about the value of your infrastructure, and this is more of kind of an accounting perspective, if you will, or what is the value of that road, you always take that from the perspective of what if I had to rebuild it all the way back down to dirt and build it all the way back up again. And you would not be able to do that for $100,000 a lane mile. The $100,000 a lane mile, I believe, is a resurfacing. It's a mill and overlay, not going back down through all of the layers and coming all the way back up. Well, and when will we ever do that? I mean, you're talking about something that we would never, ever do in 99% of the cases. Now, we actually are doing one of our first one. That's Fortune Drive right now. We're doing that. But to me, that number is just so unrealistic. And the goal of that number is to help you, is not to say that you're going to do, nobody's claiming that you should do $2.5 billion worth of work. It's that's the value of the infrastructure you're managing. That's the size of your asset, right? You have a $2.5 billion asset that you are managing as a council. The other numbers, the $28 million for the first three years and the $16 million thereafter, is what it costs to maintain that asset that's worth $2.5 billion. Well, let me go back. You said there were some delays in the contracts, and this council actually gave second reading, and we sped the process up from our end, so I'm not sure what delays there are, and maybe the administration can answer that. But my biggest concern is what did you deliver to us? Did we get a list of roads, the conditions of those roads, and the cost associated with fixing that road? Yes, you did. So we got the deliverable. Yes, you did. That's what we paid for. Yes, you did. We got that. What you've shown us today probably went a little beyond that. So I guess from the administration standpoint, where are we at now? Are we ready to move forward? I mean, we have our list, and I know my colleagues are saying yes. I understand the question. I want to hear it on the microphone for the public watching. What we got was our list, road conditions. Are we going to go with what the consultant recommended, how to fix it? Are we going to choose that? Who's making that recommendation? Council makes that decision. You need to tell us how you're going to allocate the $10 million? No, that's not what I'm asking. I'm sorry, sir. Who's going to make the decision on how to repair the roads? Whether we're going to do a full resurfacing, we're going to do micro seal, crack seal, refurbishment, whatever it may be. And so you all will have to decide. In the past, what you have done is said you allocate the funds by under 65, 65 and under rankings. You have the rankings. You have them by street segment. You have the dollar amount to do the fixing of them. It's based on the recommendation that he showed you on what kind of treatment doing by the ranking. If you choose to do something different, we'll do something different. ATS is meeting with us on Monday. They are ready to start moving forward. They need to have finished citation, which is supposed to open the end of this week. They still have some work to do on Lee's Town, and they still have some work to do on New Circle Road, but they are ready to start committing for paving. So we're ready as soon as we get directions from you on how to allocate the funds and what roads you want to have done at what level you want to have. We wanted to have a recommendation to bring to you. which he's given you, but it's within your prerogative, as it always has been, to decide on how to do this. The one thing that's very important for you all to keep in mind was there was going to be no residential paving until after ATS was freed up from Citation, Lee's Town, and New Circle Road. So there was not going to be any residential paving until the end of September, and that's why we planned this out the way we did. that they've worked hard to try to meet that time frame for us. They did have some issues in terms of the data that was being collected, but we're here. We apologize that a couple of the slides were new to you all today. I'm sorry about that. But you do have the rankings, and you do have the dollar amounts, and you do have the segments by council districts alphabetically and by order. So, Chair, if I could ask my question differently. It still hasn't been answered. So is the administration agreeing with the consultant's recommendation on how to fix each segment? And we're sticking by that. Because the 15 council members, we don't know whether you should crack seal it. We're not the experts. We don't know whether you should micro. We're going to even do microsurfacing in Fayette County because the state just did one two weeks ago. And guess what they had to open up on the side of the road? A car wash because the micro sealing got all over people's cars and it wasn't even done right. So, you know, we haven't even explored that method. So are you endorsing every recommendation? Because we don't know how to fix a road. Normally, all we've done is resurface. We have not used microsurfacing in the past. We would like to experiment with microsurfacing to see whether it is a technique that is usable for us here in Fayette County. Yes. Are we endorsing what the consultant says from the administration? Has Albert looked at it? Have we talked to our contractor? Because the cost, my problem is the cost the districts have to choose from is based on the type of repair. And if you're not endorsing that and you're asking us to pick how we're going to repair a road, that's... We have always used crack seal, as you well know, in the past. We will continue to recommend that we use crack seal. We've used rejuvenator in the past, too. But if you've reviewed it and you're telling us that the costs we've received are adequate, accurate, and that's the best use of the money, then, okay, I'm satisfied. But I didn't hear that. I heard you want us to choose, and that's not what we're asking for. Well, we do decide what streets get preventative maintenance. Sure. Today. Yes, you already do that. Yes, and it's a three-year program, five-year program, and it's worked real well. So the recommendation that comes from you all, the council, is you figure out which way you want to go as far as 65 and below or 70 and below or what it is, and I think you all do have that list, and we're ready to get started. I understand. What I'm asking is resurfacing versus microcealing. There's a big difference. So are you all recommending us do the micro resurfacing? We have never done it. I know. So I'm trying to get us to a list that we can work from. And right now there's recommendations on that list from a consultant that we don't know what that process is. I would agree with that. But there are quite a few communities that use it. It's just something that we have not used around here. Our CAOs here. Here's what I would recommend, Chair. Your council, go ahead. I mean, your time may have run out, but you're doing a fine job. I've got so much more. I know, I know. But I would recommend going with a list that's straight resurfacing. And any of these new processes, we just need to either experiment somewhere else because there's members that want to get moving this fall. We need to use a list with the ratings and move on. These new processes, new type of repairs, we need to explore further. We agree with you, and we were talking about doing that in the spring and doing our current resurfacing this fall, starting on the current resurfacing this fall, attempting to see what micro paving would do for us in the spring. Thank you, Chair. You are quite welcome, sir. Council Member Brown, it's your turn. Oh, boy. Thank you, Chair. You know, I didn't support this plan and this whole thing here. But, you know, I am now glad. I'm sorry that I didn't support it to the extent that this is a wake-up call, ladies and gentlemen. And I, from the past and being on the council before, I was aware of some of these things because that was always one of my number one things that I did in my district was paving. And people know the history's there that I tried to get as much money as I could. Now, having said that, we're in the, it's a reality check, and I think we need that. What we're looking for is the next step for us district people. We've got 12 districts. We've got so many millions of dollars. There's got to be an allocation plan, and I think each district member is going to have to figure out in their district. And I'll say I don't have any problem in my district because the analysis that was made, and I rode probably 90% of my streets, did my own analysis, and I'm very comparable with the analysis that come through on this because most of the streets that I want to get repaved have grass growing in them. So that was kind of a given. So anyway, I'm not going to have any problem once somebody gives me the money. Whatever you're going to allocate to me, the rest of the council, I'm going to take it and go and work with streets and roads because I've got a list that probably I'm going to need four to six years to remedy. But I'm going to do the worst ones first, but I'm going to also do it cost effectively. Let me ask a couple questions. I've still got some time. The OCI that you did on our list, I got one about two weeks ago, and I got this latest one that was sent to us yesterday or the day before. The numbers are different. What's the reason for that? Every one of mine was different, OCI's. Every one of the numbers is different? Every one of my OCI's was different from the two weeks that I got. And I'm just looking at 8th District because that's all we pulled off was the particular council district. That shouldn't be the case. I will go back and look at those. I got it right here in front of me. I can show it to you. They all came from the same spreadsheet. Well, there's a computer glitch someplace. I will go and remedy that. And the other, sorry, go ahead. I noticed I think maybe a couple of streets that wasn't even included on the analysis that I looked at because I was doing my own analysis. And then when you're doing this, and I'll ask this maybe from Albert. I've still got a couple minutes. When we're doing a street, in the past we've done this, and I've always been against it, but we've done sections of street. And as your analysis showed in this consulting plan, it's every street. You go from every street, and you've got every section there. So you look at a street that may have four different cul-de-sacs or something on that. So you go from one cul-de-sac to the next. And so you have a 25. You have a 30. You have a 40. Then you have a 25. So isn't the best approach there just to do the whole street if it's under a certain number, like 50 instead of concentrating on all the 25s? The reason why it was done in segments is because of the budget. And a few years ago, you all know that we were pretty lean. So we were trying to get the worst sections of those roads. And you know what that does? It just doesn't make good common sense because you've got a lot of people that live out there. the condition of their streets makes a difference in the value of their property, believe it or not. So we've got to make a concentrated effort. I'm going to do it in my district. If this street is below 50, I want the whole street paved if I've got the money. Plus, I want every cul-de-sac paved at the same time. If I can't do it this year, I'll do it next year. Because you do one cul-de-sac and you don't do the next one, then you get all kinds of language from the one that you didn't. So, you know, it gets a little political, so I'm not afraid of that, but I'm saying there's some common-sense approach that I'm going to take, and, you know, I wanted to address that right there. I noticed Man of War was on the list here, and I saw one section there from Sharon Drive to Tates Creek Road or something. It's 100%, but your list said it was 40, 30 or 40%. It was probably done after. I'm sure it was because Man of War shouldn't even have been on here. And it looks great. And then there was another one. Let's see. Oh, there was one of mine in the district. I don't know if anybody had that. I had a five on it. I've gone over that road at least three times, and it's not a five. I don't know where you all got that five. But anyway, I just want to point that out, that I had worse streets than that. But I'm going to abide by this plan here for my district. That's going to be my approach, so nobody can criticize me. I'm going to try to fix the worst streets, but I'm going to try to fix it in a specific area. So I don't know anything else better to do. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, sir. Council Member Akers. Thank you for recognizing me, Chair. Yes, ma'am. Albert or Mr. Sorry. Do the scores that you provided us, do they indicate the type of needed repair based on your presentation? They do, right? So if you go back, I'll flip to it very quickly. So a score of poor would need milling and paving. A score of fair could use the micro resurfacing. Correct. A score of good could be? Yes, good is micro-surfacing generally. Fair is resurfacing. As it gets lower down to pour, it's resurfacing with base repairs, repairing more of the underlying, you know, taking out more asphalt or doing more patching, sometimes even taking out some of the stone base that's under the road because that's what's causing it to fail. Because I agree with other council members that we are not the engineers. We don't study asphalt. We don't know anything about which is the best. I don't feel comfortable providing recommendations on which one you should crack seal, which one should be micro or resurfaced or milled and paved. Some of them maybe are more obvious. So I think that that's helpful to see where it falls on that chart, and then I hope that that's what Albert and crew would utilize. Because I don't want to waste money either. If we can get away with micro-surfacing versus resurfacing, and I can do more roads with that, then that's what I would rather do. and extend the life of the roads. It seems to make sense to me. And then is ATS our only provider of paving? And I did not ever hear that we would not have any paving done until October or until they were finished. That was publicly stated in this committee on several occasions. I'm not normally a member. I understand that, and I'm just saying that it was. and ATS is our sole source provider. They are our sole source provider. Are there other providers? No. Yeah. Yes. It's a bid contract, and they are always, always coming in under. Yeah, we do a bid contract on it. Okay, but when they did the bid. Traditionally, and they are on our PO right now to be able to do this work this fall. I understand. But when they did the bid, if we knew at the time that they submitted the bid that they couldn't pave anything until October, why didn't we take that into consideration and maybe consider another vendor so that we could have started sooner? I can't think our contractors are involved. But you all probably aren't involved in that, so. Yeah, we didn't have a list to go off of, but we have been paving. Fortune Drive is one and that's the one that Council Member Stenet was talking about that does a total rebuild and then Manowar was another one between Tate's Creek and Nicholasville Road and then after we get done on fortune we're going to move to Stone Road it's got some shoulder issues so we're going to be doing some rebuild on the shoulders and stuff so we are continuing to pay we just didn't have the list yet from council. Okay. And I think that's all I have right now. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Vice Mayor. Thank you, Chair. Commissioner, if I could, I just want to see if I understand where we're at. There seems to be a fair amount of confusion. Is it the case that essentially consultants have done a... technical analysis that gives us a list of the condition of all the roads in the county that's correct okay so we have that list you do okay what we also have received from the consultant is what sounds like a set of policy recommendations which would urge us to shift from a worst first policy to a pavement management system because it would save us money in the long run That is correct. Okay. Now, my real question is about timing. What is it possible to do in terms of what needs to be done this fall? Is it possible to make decisions based on a shift in policy or not? Or do we need, given where we are, we need basically to stay with the worst first, take the list, do what we've always done, and then look at revamping the policy? We would not be able to do any micro-surfacing in the fall. We can only do the crack seal and rejuvenator and the resurfacing in the fall. The rest of that would have to wait until spring. How much paving we will be able to do this fall is dependent on how many teams ATS can mobilize for this job. and what the weather will be like and how long the asphalt plant will stay open. Typically, the asphalt plant stays open until sometime in December. We would be able to pave until sometime in December. If it is colder or warmer, we have to adjust accordingly. We will not know how many teams ATS will be able to dedicate to us until our meeting on Monday with them. Okay. Whatever they tell you at that point, I guess my question is, is it possible, if we wanted to, to shift to a management system that looks at the longer term or for the fall and I don't know about the spring, for the fall, should we basically stay with what we've always done, which is worse first? So to do the resurfacing, as you can see from the list he's got up there, that's under fair conditions. So those would be the worst kinds of things. What we are saying, those are the kind of roads that we will need to be repaving in the fall. Those are the kinds of roads that ATS will be able to mobilize and get into the residential areas and pave shortly. We would have to save for spring any of the new techniques of microsurfacing. So then decisions about which particular roads in each district, how are they to be made? That would be in accordance with there, the worst first kind of things right now for the fall, yes. So for the fall, but going forward, we should look at at least consider a management system that shifts from that. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Council Member Evans. Thank you, Vice Mayor, for that question. I might be a little bit clearer, but first of all, I'll say as a new council member that this was extremely helpful for me. So I thank you for that because, as Council Member Brown said, it is a wake-up call. And I think this is an opportunity for us to do something different that we are, in fact, in control of and to set some policies in this area. I'm kind of feeling like we might be a little adverse to that idea, but clearly based on the conditions of what's going on, of the roads, we need to have a much bigger plan. And apparently the worst case, worst road is apparently not the way we should be doing it. So I guess I'm a little confused on if I pick the worst road, which I think part of this, my hope was that I wouldn't be picking the roads. That would be what the results would say, that this is the road and kind of taking it out of our hands, which I know some council members probably don't like. But I think this is just a way and an opportunity to do something different. Because quite honestly, some of my worst case roads are $40,000. And that doesn't seem right, economical, whatever you want to say. It doesn't seem like the best choice either. So I'm still kind of confused on how to help me if it is going to land on my plate, which, again, I think we need to have a much bigger discussion about how do we now use this information. And so are we, as council members, just supposed to now look at the fair category? Is that what I understood your answer? That would be the case for this fall, yes. That doesn't preclude us from changing over to the new suggestions in the spring. Okay. So in looking at just the roads that are categorized as fair, what is the recommendation on how to select those? Because, I mean, I guess I'm going to the consultant at this point. What is the recommendation in that category? So the spreadsheet that was provided to you has the roads with their OCI, and you have what is feasible to be done, basically what category does it fall in, and you have the cost associated. I could get back to council very quickly and get back to staff with another column on there, which is that benefit cost ranking. I talked about you can make their decision based on sort it from OCI, good to bad, which is what I think you've historically done. One step in the direction of a payment management system without all of it is to take the same list and I'll add a column to it, which is the benefit cost ranking. And then you can just start going down the list. And one of the other council members made a comment about, well, if I do this particular road and I want to do all the cul-de-sacs that come off of it. Yes, absolutely. The pavement management system is about figuring out where the worst sections are, but it doesn't take away human judgment. I mean, somebody's got to sit down and say, well, it says to do this main road this year and four years from now come and do the cul-de-sacs. Well, no, I'm going to do it all when I go out there. So it does need to be tempered with the judgment of council and the judgment of staff in what is the best way to do that. But I'm happy to provide back to you again, and I can do this by tomorrow very easily, the benefit cost ranking of every one of those. And I think as it's been mentioned by the commissioner, microsurfacing is not something that you've been doing. I don't recommend changing what you've been doing for the fall, except that maybe we could pick the projects maybe not based on purely on worst first, but maybe on benefit cost. And I can provide that information to you by tomorrow. Council Member Gibbs. Thank you, Chair. I appreciate the nuanced presentation. It certainly led me to question my worst first assumptions. This is my first time around on this, and I'm certainly open to microsurfacing once the spring comes along. So hopefully get guidance from Albert and David on this. I have a question, I think, hopefully for David, maybe Albert. The most expensive thing on my list is resurfacing with base repair. That's $2.48. Somewhere I heard that there was special funds for base repair. Is that true? or if I do, say, Kramer Avenue with base repaired, am I going to pay full freight 248, or are you guys going to take a cut of that? We do have a separate line item for base failures. Okay, so you guys will contribute to part of what I asked for? If I say I do ask for Kramer. Could you give me a percentage on that? A percent? I'm sorry. How much of the cost would you guys bear? The base failure in budget is $250,000, so we're going to have to look at what your project will be and try to allocate, but the $250,000 is across all 12 districts. $250,000 for base return. It's the first time we've budgeted. We wanted to start doing that because we're recognizing that there are more and more base failures occurring throughout the city, so it was a start to put it into the budget. Okay. Thank you. And that's all, Chair. Thank you. Council Member Mazzotti. Thank you, Chair. David, this has been an exercise in complete frustration for me today. We've spent $375,000 on consultant. To me, it looks like there was no collaboration between the administration and in consultant. We didn't even know what the numbers were. We're in mid-September. We haven't paved anything yet. Our lists aren't complete, and I'm not sure what to do next. So I need to know what's the game plan. I think it's him giving you the cost-benefit analysis tomorrow and you making your decisions in collaboration with us based on that. We still need to have an allocation plan for the $10 million divided across the 12 council districts. Otherwise, we won't know what your individual council budget is. And I get that, but this cost-benefit plan that we're supposed to have, that we probably should have had today because I guess that was one of the reasons why we had this meeting, was so we could move forward because it's time-sensitive. When are we going to get that tomorrow? I'm sorry, I couldn't hear that. When are we going to get this next call? He said he would get that to you tomorrow. We need to have that. I mean, this is so time-sensitive. I don't know if you heard that, but he said before lunch tomorrow. Okay. As I said, this has been pretty frustrating. And if we can get that done, that certainly would help us move along forward and take advantage of the timing. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, ma'am. Council Member Scutchfield. Thank you, Chair, and thank you for recognizing me again. I'm not on this committee, but obviously paving interest to everybody. I will say, somebody mentioned earlier that the numbers changed. Mine did, too. Basically, everything was 80 or below on the first, I think, spreadsheet I got, and then it went up. Mine went, some went to 96 maybe. So I don't know if it was, so if we could. He's going to be checking that tonight too. And any changes he will let you know by noon tomorrow also on that. Okay. And this is, for me, Council Member Brown had said he likes to do the contiguous street. And I will tell you in the last two years when I've been working on streets, I have done that. and it's been a cost saving where you all have come back to me after the streets I've done have been completed and said you have this much money left over. Obviously, you said that at one point we started doing it in sections. We gave the prices for from this street to this street. I just, I think it's, I'd like to see us move back towards that. I hate having to pick between – it would make more sense to have an entire street on the same type of cycle. I know for me, I've started to do that myself, but I know that there's a cost saving in it that's not in it on our sheet of paper that we have right now because it's determined that little block by little block. is it possible to get us more of a complete idea of the cost of an entire street? We can certainly look at that. I don't know how quickly we'd be able to get that to you, but we certainly can look at that. I think, as Albert was saying, historically, because we weren't putting tens of millions of dollars into doing road repairs, we had to look at it by segments instead of entire roads. But I understand what you're saying about doing the entire roads, and we certainly will try to get that information to you. And I appreciate it, and I know that's something that's not necessarily easy to pull up and get the information. I will say to my other council members, I did find a major savings. I liked having somebody come back to me in the spring and say, you have this much money still left because I saved money by doing entire stretches of road. So thank you, and thank you for the work. All right, council members, we've got about 20 minutes before our work session starts, and there are several signed up to speak. But I would like to get to all those questions. I want to ask you if you ask questions, make them brief, get your answer and move on. Because at the end of this, we need to make a policy decision about the allocation per district. We need to have a discussion and make a vote, at least an understanding so that they can move forward. I just want to make sure we have time to do that among the policy discussion that's been the outcome of this presentation today. Could I make a suggestion, Chair? Please. Yes. Our work session, usually a lot of motor has got a whole lot in it today, but this is too important to let it drag crash today. Fine. I would be making a suggestion that we reconvene this committee for our work session for at least another hour. That would be a suggestion. Yeah, yeah, yeah. All right. Have a nice day. It is a great suggestion. So does anybody disagree with that suggestion? All right, then we've got 20 minutes for questions, and we will reconvene at the end of the work session. Is that it? Please make a motion. We've got a motion. Say again. We're going to recess and come back. That's fine. We'll stick with that. Council Member Henson. Thank you, Chair. I guess, Albert, I want some clarification. You know, I know this has been a long, grown-out process, but bottom line is I want to get some streets in my district paved. Now, there was money left from last year that was transferred over to Manowar. Is that correct? That is certainly my understanding. And will the districts get that money back? Yes. We are verifying with finance the financial accounting streams to allow that to occur. Our calculation was that there was about $381,000 of funds that were not able to be expended last year that did go into this other project and that we are going to backfill. That will be separate and apart from the $10 million that you all are working on your allocation today on. And those will be decided upon by road miles? You had already, I'm sorry, the $381,000? No, you already had designated streets that you wanted to have done, and they couldn't be done because there were other utility work being done on them. That's why we transferred it to Man of War, because that work could be done. We're now going to backfill that money separate and apart from the $10 million, and we will correspond with you and tell you the streets that weren't able to be done and the value of that money. That's in the pipeline. I just need to have the accounting stream verified on that. Very good. Okay. Okay, I need to know for next year, will we get a new rating, or how will that work going forward? Is that in our discussion? That's a policy decision that the council will have to be forthcoming. That's included in the policy? It would be up to us to renew the contract. Okay. Thank you. Yes, ma'am. Council Member Lamb. Thank you, Chair, and thank you for recognizing me. I know I'm not on the committee, but I guess I'm just curious more to the point of how are we going to divvy up the $10 million and seeing how that I have $5.9 million of the poorest, you know, and just poor, poor, poorest-conditioned streets. So I know you said we were going to talk about that, but I wanted to go on and start talking about it. Up until, or most recently, there was a time where the council just divvied it up 12 ways, all right? And that went out the window along the way because some districts didn't have as many needs as others. Then more recently, we have worked off of a list, as it were, based on things that were scored below 65, and then the number came back and was kind of divided up by the 12 districts according to some sort of need, if you will. So the total number of dollars was kind of got pegged by if you had more streets with more paving needs, you got more dollars. All right. I think that there's a discussion afoot among some council members now to to go back to one 12th each, which might not be the best allocation of overall resources based on the need. I think there's a potential conversation to go on on the number of road miles that you have, which, you know, now you're looking at the number of road miles versus the number of road problems. And I think, once again, that might not be the best application for the opportunity. if it were left totally to me i would probably use a a system similar what we've been using and we have the best data right now to work with that in terms of we have x amount of dollars and we have huge amount of problem but we can fix what we can fix per district based on what those needs are if we decide from a policy standpoint we want to cut the districts up in that fashion so those are kind of some of your alternatives, I think it's up to us to decide what we want to do. Thank you, Chairman Farmer, for that information. I guess the other thing is, is if we're going to go by this information of not just taking care of the poorest conditions, streets, then we need to have more information in order for us to make decisions as far as what he was talking about going through and paving streets based on this other method here. Well, okay, now you're getting into some of the nuance of opportunity here. I think that what you're faced with right now is old school new math. I think we have the ability to go out and to begin to pave, starting probably on Tuesday if they have a meeting on Monday. I think that we have been presented with some policy things that we can take action on in the springtime or after the fall paving season because, now let me relive this for all of you all, after the Chevy Chase redo, they paved in Chevy Chase like on the 12th day of December last year, and people almost lynched me because this was high time. So we can pave up until the middle of December provided everything works okay. It may be that we want to take up and pave as much as we can under the old system, but make way for the new system and the new policies and the new styles in the coming year. Because I know already we were working on some of this high friction stuff for the 90 degree turn on Henrique Boulevard. But it's too late in the season to put that down now and make it cure and be usable. So while there's still something we want to do, we physically can't do it until the springtime. So it may be that we want to make decisions based on what we can go ahead and get done and then come back and see what we will do or want to do after the fact. Is that good? Okay. So now my last question is, it was my understanding that we have a very short period of time to make these decisions for this to start going into place because the next council meeting is when, unless we have a special meeting before that to put whatever in place that we need to. So can you speak on the time frame? I mean, you're saying we could start Tuesday. I think. Tell me what's going to take from the administration in order for us to start. I mean, you've got to have answers from us. They've got to have lists from us. Right. Tender a list and stand back and watch them go. That's kind of where I am. Sir. We just need the direction from you all. I don't think it needs to be a resolution or an ordinance. I think it needs to be a motion from you all. List and rocket. Okay. Was that good? I think so, yeah. So, I mean, if we can determine, technically, if we can determine what the amount of money we're going to split up, how we're going to do that, then technically, by the time we come back after work session, if everybody has their information in front of them, we should be able to make some. Well, then let's ask staff that. Given the $10 million. I'm sorry. I didn't hear. That's all right. I haven't said it yet. I'm just, I'm premising. During the time that we're going to recess and go into work session, would you step into the secret booth and use our current system, the current allocation system that we've used the last couple of years in terms of how much each district council member would get and bring us back that information after we have convened? We'll certainly try to do that. Well, just give us, I mean, a HIP number will work because based on what we have used for allocation the last couple of years. The under 65 figure by district. Well, I think that's a fine rating. That was what you had used last year as my memory. But what I'm talking about is the allocation per district based on the needs per district. And that was based on the percentage of under 65 in that district. So now, can you do something? We will certainly work on that. Okay. So that will give us something to look at once we have reconvened after we've recessed for work session. How's that? It sounds good. I just think we need to get moving on it, and I appreciate all the input. And I've appreciated the presentation today, too. Thank you. Thank you. Yes, ma'am. Thank you very much. Council Member Hensley. I'll be quick. Thank you. Please, sir. You're fine. So while I've never paved a road, my dad's paved a road, my grandpa's paved a road, and we wrote the software that the Asphalt Institute uses to manage their laboratory system. So I know a little bit of asphalt. The question I've got is the system that the consultants have provided, can we get a read-only copy of that software for our legislative aides to have access to so that we can do some data mining on our own? I think that would expedite some of our questions to you and take some workload off. I'll certainly explore that. I would need to talk to our consultant and also our chief information officer about the policy to do that. But I'll look into that for you. Okay, and then the other thing, the presentation he gave was the cost based on local cost of asphalt or national averages. It sounds like national averages. No, it was local. The figures he gave you, there's only one slide, which was the one that gave the 70-year, 50- and 70-year out, which was national figures. Okay. All the rest of the data is local. Okay, I just want to clarify that. And then the subjectivity on the benefit cost analysis, it seems like everything else is technical science or scan the roads and it's rote science. But when you get into this benefit cost analysis, it sounds like there's some subjectivity into what the benefit return is and who's putting that in there. Any explanation on that, how that's determined? Sorry, I released him to go do what the chairman asked me to do. I apologize for that. We can revisit that after work session. I'm sorry. No, that's fine. Take that. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember. Councilmember Stennett. Thank you, Chair. Commissioner, so do we get a computer software along with this so we can manage the paving? We do, yes. And who will manage that for us? It will be managed out of our IT section here. Okay, so any time we can look up a given row, get the rating. Any time you want to. We can update it yearly. Keep up. Anytime you all want to make a run on that, you'll be able to give the variables, and we'll run it. Is that hours going forward? It is. We have to pay annual maintenance? We're purchasing that. Okay. Very good. Chair, I guess to move us forward, I'm going to go ahead and make a motion in terms of the allocation, that we allocate the $10 million according to the 65 and below, based on the need of each district with the number of roads 65 or below, and have that motion, whether it passes or not, read out at work session today. Right. So we can get some action. So we have a motion and a second. We're in discussion of a funding mechanism for expending the $10 million in paving funds across the 12 districts that uses 65 or under based on the need per district. Yes. All right. Is there a second? We have a motion and a second. We're in discussion. Is there any discussion? All right. I didn't hear. Give more explanation about the style of this, if you would, please. In the past, we've taken in the number of roads you have in your district that are 65 and below, and that's a certain percentage of the $10 million. So you'll get awarded, if it's 10%, you get 10% of the $10 million or $1 million, for instance. So it's based on need versus just divvying up equally. Because some of you have more need than others based on the ratings. Councilmember Lamb. Okay. But now also, from what Mr. Miller was talking about, we have this $250,000 for base failure dollars, which there's going to be some of my streets that are going to be affected by that. So is that taken into consideration when you all are giving us this list of the 65 and lower? It may not be, or you may need to wait to do those in the spring season once we've perfected more money as well as more policy, potentially. That would be my first thought. How do you calculate that? I agree. This is the first year we've ever separated out base failures because in the past we couldn't do them. And it was frustrating for council members not to be able to do the road correctly, and we just put an inch and a half and moved on. Well, three years later, it's tore up again. So this is our first attempt, and I think that $250 needs to grow probably to a lot bigger number, and you're going to find that out on your list. Yes. Okay. All right. Thank you. Others on the motion then? Yes. Yes, ma'am. Thank you. So my question is, since the scores have changed from the first list we received to the second list with the cost, which list are we going to use to determine the score? So Bill is looking at that. We're wondering whether the first list had just the PCI and the RII, excuse me, IRI, thank you on it, and the second list had the overall OCI, and the OCI is the figure that we should be going from. That's the overall pavement management condition. The first list I have has IRI, PCI, and OCI. It does have a list. And the second list has a lot more stuff, plus costs. He's going to have to look at that and see which. I have one road that went from 18 to 30, and I'm guessing it's going to be different on what is recommended on how we fix it. Do we mill and pave it, or do we just resurface it? Do we, I mean, that's. Mill and paving will be part of the resurfacing that you'll be doing. Okay, but, I mean, but if it changes up from poor to good or poor to fair, that changes the costs. Yes. Right? Yes. So, I mean, I think until we figure out why these numbers have drastically changed, then this data is all worthless, in my opinion. And he will be looking at that for you. Council Member Maloney. Or, no, I'm sorry, anyone else on the motion? Council Member Scutchfield. Are we using the first list or the second list we got? We're going to use the third list that we get that Council Member Sadi asked for that has the benefits and that Council Member Evans asked for. So we're going to get another list tomorrow, and that will be the list to use. That was a pretty good answer. Others on the motion? Anyone? Yes, ma'am. No? Yes? Yes? Would there be any benefit to consider using 60 instead of 65? I'm just throwing it out there. That's probably a good point. Instead of using anything under 65, use anything under 60? I don't know. I'm afraid that might spread the mayonnaise too thin. I don't know. I mean, if you go to a lower number, you're going to have higher need, you know. We will need to know that because they're doing the calculations based on under 65 of what you asked us to do. Paper or plastic? I mean, we've got so many decisions. Chair, that was his breakdown, though, wasn't it? what's his a 60 that's what i thought this is 65 65 last year 60 today right now the motion is 65. motion was 65 all right all right anyone else on the motion yes ma'am yeah i just i had a question because i thought what had been discussed was using just the entire fair category so that would be 60 it would be starting at 60 and 60 and below instead of 65. do you want to make a motion to amend then well but i well i still have concerns that we don't have a correct list so i'm i'm not i'm not comfortable with the motion i feel like this is being rushed and we we don't the bus may leave on you i don't know well all the more reason to have different discussion but again i if someone wants to make that amendment that's fine but that would be my my point to that motion is why not stay in the category that the commissioner holmes said that's what we're supposed to be looking at anyway based on the question that i asked him but i don't feel comfortable with voting on anything right now. All right. Anyone else on the motion then? 65 goes into the Good Rates Street and 60 stops at the fair, just for clarification purposes. Fair streets stop at 60, 65 goes into the Good Rates, FYI. So I make a motion to amend Council Member Stenet's motion to change it to 60. Second. A motion to second to Change the original motion to drop the rating to 60%. Questions on the amendment then? Yes, sir? David Holmes, the commissioner. I suspect this would probably be easier for the consultant and yourself to change that from 65 to 60 because you've got that data based on 60. I think with the pavement management system, he can make whatever calculations you want, Except we do need to have that clarified because they were working on 65, and now I need to tell them to work on 60 if that's what the council wants. Thank you. Others on the amendment? Others on the amendment? Yes, sir. Kick in. I don't have data in front of me. I don't know what it means to my district. I think I'm more comfortable just sticking to what they've done in the past. Very good. i'd rather i prefer not to make a change if it worked okay in the past i prefer to stick with that unless i had the time to really analyze the data all right is is our voting system working at this time ladies i screwed up sorry she can't make the motion all right so she can't but you can make the motion i would move to amend council member senate's motion that we the The grading would drop from 65 to 60 based upon what the consultant provided us today. And then we have a second by Council Member Evans. Or no? Or is there a second? Who was the seconder? You were the seconder. So if there's no second, we have a second from Council Member Brown. Thank you, sir. Anything else on the motion to amend? All right. Do we have a voting screen? All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Opposed, like, sign. I got three or four eyes and nothing beyond that. Okay, so we're going to go with amendment passes. Wow, that's beautiful. All right, there you go. This is the amendment. And please do it. I can enter your phones. We're having some issues. I apologize. Anybody else? No, no for council member Fred Brown. Any other no's? All right. The motion to amend passes. Now we're back onto the main. Well, everyone else would be green other than the two who voted no and you. Because the system's not working is the problem. All right. Now, we have passed the amendment. Now we're back on the main motion. This would give direction today during the work session, hopefully. So are there questions or comments about the amended motion? Council Member Brown? or who know we're all those in favor opposed motion passes okay then I would ask for a motion to go into recess at this time until we have concluded work session so move second all those in favor I was like sign we're in recess Thank you. Take five minutes, and we'll come back for the work session. We're worried about this, and this is why, is that we're dropping a big piece of infrastructure right in the middle of our trail. If the private sector was doing that, we'd expect them to do a lot. So why wouldn't we do the same thing? To me, it is the responsible thing to do, because I don't want to be part of a detrimental effect on what is our recreational experience. That being said, my own personality introduces into this, and so I'm a bit of a minimalist. So I tried to recommend what I thought were the essential features, and they are restroom with water fountain, a rest area that has benches, bike rack, landscaping, and a bypass trail around the tank, an opportunity for someone to go into the rest area and not get run over by other people who have just followed, I think, the advice of the committee from last time. We may want to tweak it some, but I think there's interest in kind of the gauged response and doing something about sidewalks. I think we can come to terms on that very quickly during our next meeting. So then we are, so our meeting is now adjourned. Thank you. Without a motion. Move adjournment. What are we running for when there's nowhere we can run to anymore?