Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. All right, I believe we've assembled, or still in the process of getting everybody on point. I have an extra packet here. Yes, ma'am. Oh, you want these? Do you have these? Are you good? All right. Welcome everyone. This is our October 20th Environmental Quality and Public Works Committee meeting. the summary is shorter than our actual last meeting and I would take a motion or else comments about the minutes at this time okay do the minutes meet everyone's move to move to approval councilmember Evans thank you and a second from council members tenant thank you all those in favor? Aye. Opposed like sign? I assume there was no discussion. Thank you. Okay, we have reached the appointed time where we have to make decisions about the snow and ice control plan. Kind of rolled off of our agenda because of its length last time. And this update, which starts on page six, I believe reflects the direction that the council gave to the administration and staff, but they're here to make commentary and then we can follow up and hopefully make a decision. Commissioner, will you begin? Thank you. Thank you, sir. Okay. Okay. So at our last meeting in August, you asked us to look at service levels and weather events and try to come up with something that described what level of service you would get based on the kind of weather event that occurred. Yes, sir. We also will come back to the capacity enhancement after that discussion, And then Susan Pluger will come up and talk some more about sidewalk clearance and then go from there. Streets and Roads with Albert Miller got together and came up with three levels of service based on weather events. It's important for the committee to keep in mind that the service level depends on the snow event having ended and not having any severe weather, cold weather kinds of events going on at the same time. So level one was a trace to four inches, which is sort of a typical snow event that we would have historically in Lexington. Albert has calculated that he can go through rank one through four streets within a 24-hour period of time, giving this level of snow event. At a level 2 event with 5 to 8 inches, it will take longer because of the amount of snow, because sometimes you have to plow twice on a street to clear the street when you get more snow. And because the weather event would typically stay longer with that level of snow, we would add additional streets to the coverage. So we would get into the connector-collector streets in terms of that. Now, under any of the scenarios that we're talking about, once we finish the ranked streets and what we're saying additional we will do, he will continue, assuming that there is snow on the ground, to go into the unranked streets and to do the cul-de-sacs. But we're talking about what we absolutely will be prioritized during these level of events. The point of the plan. The point of the plan. Yes, sir. Thank you. At level three, eight inches and above, this will trigger the events that we had twice this last winter event. And that means that we will immediately contact private contractors like we did last time and bring them on board and take the all-hands approach on plus as much help as we can accumulate to be able to assist us to get through all of the streets. And again, once we finish the ranked streets first, then assuming that the snow is still on the ground, we will then get into the unranked streets and into the cul-de-sacs. But this is how we've looked at your request to be able to talk about different levels of service based on weather events. And at the end, if you have questions, Albert can come up and give you some more details in terms of that. You also had discussions at the August 17th meeting about additional capacity enhancements, and you asked us for several plans. This was the one that you asked us most about, and if Council wishes to enhance our current snow removal capacity beyond the current levels that we have, This would be one suggestion that we would suggest council consider, and that would be hiring a private contractor to support all levels of service. So they would be hired for any snow event. They would be contractually obligated to come out. We would have them dedicated to four major thoroughfares because it is easier to train someone who is unfamiliar with the Lexington streets with these four major thoroughfares, Man of War, Polo Club Boulevard, Citation, and the Coldstream Station area. This would, per our calculations, free up five LFC LeFug trucks, snowplow trucks, running in two shifts as we do in 12-hour shifts over the 24-hour period of time. we've calculated that that would allow us to service an additional 300 lane miles in that 24-hour period of time. The cost estimates that we showed to you before were based on estimates from the state contract that does this similarly. We have gone ahead because of the time delay we had in this and put out an RFP for this possibility so that we would be able to come to you and give you better figures on the exact cost for that. We're not obligated on this. If the council chooses not to do this, this is no obligation to the government because we can't enter into contracts without your authority. But the cost of mobilization based on the RFP responses we had is within the $400,000 range for 22 mobilizations, which is what we had last winter, about $403,000 to do that. for 11 mobilizations, which is sort of a historical kind of average, the figure is 288,000 would be the refined number on that based on RFP responses. The key to this, while it would allow us to service more streets quicker and guarantee a snow removal when it's needed, The challenge is that we have to enter into a long-term contract, and it would be a four-year contract that we issued out there, and it requires us to make a yearly payment for them to fit up their trucks. It's called a fit-up and a training cost. That cost would be an annual cost, and it's $172,000. That's not on top of the $403,000 that I mentioned to you or the $288,000, but it is a guaranteed cost that we would have every year regardless of how many snow mobilizations we had. So if we had no snow, which hasn't happened in a long time but is potentially possible, we would be obligated to make that $172,000 payment each year for those four years. And that's the challenge of doing it under this kind of way. Understood. Thank you. I'm prepared to have Susan come up and talk about the sidewalk proposal and then take questions at the end unless you all want to take questions at this point. I think we're going to move on. Plow forward, as it were. thank you welcome thank you thank you sir thank you ma'am for our sidewalk clearance again this relates to all the sidewalks that the city would be responsible for maintaining related to snow removal we're looking still proposing a three-year period for full implementation of this plan and it says right there 67 miles of sidewalk identified for clearance we've actually bumped that up to 71 right now and I provided all of you a map and I think in your office today a full-size map that shows more detail and I have that map we've added it to your packet as well thank you but the areas that we're talking about are places where there is a sidewalk along the roadway where the city owns the abutting property. Or the state, it's a state right-of-way, it's a vacant lot of the state. The state has told us they do not do sidewalk clearance on vacant parcels that are state right-of-way, so that would fall then to us to do that clearance. Areas such as culvert crossings, railroad crossings, where you have a sidewalk going across. Also, we have medians that have sidewalks going through the medians, so we've been locating those areas. We have a couple of areas where there's been a corridors commission project where we have taken over all of the vegetation and mowing maintenance of an area. Basically, we're doing the work in that area. There aren't very many of those. But where we've done our plantings, for example, we would include those in for sidewalk clearance. And then there's just some other areas that really there is no entity responsible, kind of like those culvert no-man land areas. So we've worked to identify those because we already mow those areas anyway. So that's how we came up with our mileage and our maps. Then the divisions that would be involved with this process are facilities, parks and recreation, and environmental services. This is, you've seen this slide before. It's basically the same slide with just a few minor tweaks. We've changed the mileage. We've updated that for our additions that we've done. And I'll just remind you that our rank one areas are our facilities that we own. What we call our urban core, which we've just broadened out that area. It's not downtown. It extends beyond that, where we think there's going to be a lot of pedestrian traffic. The state corridors, the viaducts that we've talked about. And then service open parks. And I've provided to you all a list that came from Parks and Recreation about their service open and service closed parks. They have a list of all of those combined, and it depends upon what they're doing at the facility. So if the public and staff need access to a facility during a snow event, after a snow event, for example, school, they have some school programs, for example, Kenwick Community Center, that would be a rank one. And then they have what's called service-closed parks. If we go down to the rank two, service-closed parks are areas where only staff has access. and so that's how those are broken out now on the list that I provided you they're not broken out and that's because they've told me they do change they shift some of them are going to be the same every time but a lot of them change so I can provide more detail to you on that from parks if you'd like it but I did provide at least the list that they cover those two so for rank two as I said the service closed parks and then we're looking at the thoroughfares and the connectors such as man-of-war citation etc and then rank three are the other areas that were responsible for in lower density residential areas and I would note that we've talked about trails before in here and trails are kind of a subset of rank three maybe they're considered 3b they're not technically sidewalks they can be a high pedestrian area parks is working on a plan for those but they are not shown on your map and they are not included in miles so this is the the map that you all have received and we're always open we've already taken some some information from several of you to make this map better and we're always willing to do that this is a dynamic map we're about i would say we're about 95 96 there but we always know when we get out there to do the work we're always going to find some little areas that we we need to update our map, just like with mowing. So it fits well with that type of paradigm. So our plan for implementation is for fiscal year 16, what we're proposing is to perform full clearance on the rank one areas within 24 hours of snow end. And then to perform partial clearance of rank two within 48 hours and partial clearance of rank three within 96 hours. So what we're looking at is a four days. So for that first year, we're not implementing. We're looking over three years with a plan to get to in four days of snow end, all the sidewalks would be cleared. So in this first year, we're doing full on rank one and partial on two and three. So in order to meet this, we would need $76,000 of additional equipment, which is our walk-behind. That's the labor-intensive type of work for the walk-behind equipment. And then $28,000 to upgrade an existing machine that we have that's called a Ventrac, where we can then drive the longer corridors that we consider rank two. And I make the note down at the bottom that when you only have one piece of equipment and you have no redundancy, I can guarantee you we're going to have some type of equipment failure. And when we do, that shuts us down on rank two until we can get it resolved. So I just wanted to throw that out to you all. Then for year two, their proposal would be to go ahead and get the two additional ventracks, which would allow us full operation on rank two areas. So we would have one and two completed within 48 hours of snow end, and have additional overtime in there of $19,000 for this year as well as the previous year. And I base that upon the number of staff, I assume four hours per staff per mobilization. And I'm looking at the same types of mobilizations that streets and roads uses. When streets and roads mobilizes, then we would propose to mobilize. And then for the third year, all we would need is additional overtime because we would be working faster. So we want to get that done quicker. So that comes out to a total over the three years of 176,000 in equipment and 76,000 in overtime. And once we get through the first year, I'll have better numbers for you on the overtime. Of course, it depends on how many mobilizations we have, but I'll still have better numbers. But that's what we have at this time. It's perfectly timed. Congratulations. Thank you. All right, council members. Oh, Fred Brown. Thank you, Chair. I'm trying to go back to what our discussion was a little bit when we talked about the snow plan before. Yes, sir. I thought we were going to separate the snow plan for the roads out with the sidewalks. This seems like we're working it together. And there's two major issues that I see. One is the streets and one is the sidewalks, unless I'm missing it. And I don't know how we want to go forward on this, but I would like to have the discussion on the roads first. And let's discuss what we're doing on the road plan and then go to the sidewalks if that would be permissible. I think we can handle it that way. I think page 10 kind of summarizes what our quote-unquote decision points are. And we can take them in one, two, three order. I just for purposes of conversation I would just say to you that the third one the sidewalk one is something that we absolutely don't do and haven't done and we've been presented with a good plan for that number two has to do with do we want to use outside people or not and number one has to do with the plan we've had them draw that kind of reacts to the snow based on the amount of snow and we need to do one I would like to do three Number two, we need to work on. But do you want to start with the first one? Was that it? I just want to talk about the snow plan for the streets. Then go ahead. And I've got some questions. Please. We had talked about ranking the streets. And, Commissioner, I think maybe you can answer this. We have in our snow plan that we had previous, which is still in existence, I guess, We had rankings one through four, and those streets, and every council member in their district had those streets that were ranked. And I, for one, and maybe others asked the question of moving some of those around within the district. Where do we stand on that because this is not in any of the presentations? That's correct because the follow-up was from the August discussion. We were told what you additionally wanted. And that analysis is being done by Albert right now. We should have that finished sometime in the next week or so, and we will have individual conversations with council members about that. Okay. And the plan was, all along, based on those conversations and you all's input, we would incorporate that into the final snow plan that would normally be coming forth next month if that's the chairman's desire to put that on the agenda. Okay, that answers that question. There was some discussion, and I know I raised it, about you've got four rankings about actually having the fifth or sixth ranking with streets mentioned in those rankings. But in this particular report, you're saying anything above four is just a catch-all. Well, yes. Well, we need to look at where we are after we've done this analysis that Albert is still working on, on upgrading the rankings and see whether five and six are, in fact, still needed. And that needs to continue until we've gotten to that point. Okay. I like the idea of the – Chair, you mentioned level one, level two, and level three. Was that on page three, was that what we were talking about addressing? I believe so. Let me turn back and make sure. I mean, this is the idea that based on the accumulation becomes what our mobilization effort is. And I think that's some of the feedback that we gave you all, and I like that. That looks like it would be a workable idea there. Going back to page 10, oh, it's page 5 or 10, whichever one you're looking at. It's got the cost estimates there. $423,365 a year. You might pull that up for 22 mobilizations versus $304,000 for 11 mobilizations. That's kind of a no-brainer to some extent. That's a good cost-effective amount and get twice the results. That's entirely within your bailiwick. And in that $423,000, is $172,000 part of that? Yes. So guaranteed $172,000. So $423,000 would be the max for 22 mobilizations. It's not the max. It's what was the number last year. Okay. If we have a worse winter, then each time we mobilize, it's about $10,000. All right. Each time we mobilize. Back to that for history. How many mobilizations did we have this past winter? Twenty-two. So, twenty-two was kind of a max number then. It's going to be hard-pressed to get any more reported history for us. Yeah. For our history, 50-year history. I'm not going to promise that's the max. Okay. For our 50-year history, then, that's okay. That's all the questions I have. I do want to, Chair, I would like to address the sidewalk as a separate issue. So, did you make a motion about something? No. Dang it? I'm just saying. And I, yes, I'll make the motion that we consider sidewalks. Let's talk about the streets first, and let's get to sidewalks second. All right. So moved. Now, wait a minute. You gave me a guide plan, not a motion. Oh, to accept the plan. Yes, I move that we accept the plan. That is the one through four rankings? Very good. We have a second on that? No, no, not the rankings. Just the levels there that he's talking about. Service levels. The service level is on page, is this, am I right on page three? Not the ranking. We're still going to discuss with each council member some of the rankings. That's upcoming, yeah. So you're making a motion on page three, am I correct? Is there a second? We have a motion and no second? Second. We have a second now for purposes of discussion. All right. So this is a motion to potentially adopt these levels that are outlined on page three. for acres do you want to speak to that or do you want to wait and come back all right anybody on this on this motion specifically yes sir council member just clarify you said that you want to do the road before the sidewalk because that would understand i'd like to have a discussion that way well i'm two definitions but don't you have a different crew doing the sidewalks isn't there a different crew going to be doing the sidewalk It's not streets and roads. It's going to be environmental services who will be doing the sidewalks. To me, I don't want to delay. Hold these people up to wait until the street to pay clean, if they can go on and do some sidewalks before. I mean, I want them both at the same time. I misunderstood the question. Yeah. You didn't say that. Oh, okay. Others on the motion? Councilman Bledsoe. Thank you, sir. I'm not on the committee, but I just wanted to clarify what you just said. So level two, this five to eight inches for additional streets, is that your intent to capture rank five streets? And then level three would be six. So we would get to the unranked streets under any of these levels, assuming that we have finished the rank ones through four. And we're saying that at level one, for trace to four inches, we can do that within a 24-hour period of time. These other ones, we're not as comfortable giving you an hourly, you know, can we do it within a day. What we're just saying is because we recognize when you have more snow, it causes more problems in other areas of the city, that we need to have attention to those, and we're promising that at that level we will give that attention. Very typically in the trace to four inches, within 24 hours after we finish plowing, it's turned to water because of the temperature has gone up, and it doesn't even have to get above freezing. As long as you have the sun come out on the black pavement, that helps an awful lot in terms of the snow removal. So what we're saying is this is how we will continue to – We promise we will dedicate ourselves to doing these based on these levels of snow events, that we will continue until we're done, basically, is what it amounts to. So the motion would just be to accept these levels, and then we'll have a conversation later on the streets that we submitted to you. Absolutely. I think that needs to be on a one-to-one kind of basis so that we can look at your map and everybody understands where we're at. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, ma'am. Others on the motion? Seeing none, all those in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, like sign. Motion carries. Thank you. Council Member Akers. Thank you, Chair. Thank you for recognizing me. I had a question, David, about the corridors that you identified to contract out to private contractors. Page four, I think, of the slide. Yes. So how were those determined? Those were determined as we were trying to figure out how a permanent private contractor could assist us best. From our experience last fall, having the private contractors go into residential areas that they were unfamiliar with, we had some issues with making sure that they were doing what they were supposed to be doing and understood the terrain. we picked out areas in which we thought it was easiest and I'm not trying to say snow removal was easy but I'm just saying these are broad boulevards that are easier to plow than residential areas and that's exactly why we did it and we knew that if we had those four major thoroughfares done by somebody else, it would free up the five additional trucks to be able to us do more capacity into the residential areas is basically how we did that. Okay. As far as Coldstream, I think you mean like Coldstream Research Park. Is that what you mean? Yes, ma'am. Okay, because Coldstream Station is a neighborhood, so I just want to, I don't want anybody watching to think that their neighborhood is. No, it's the Coldstream Farm area. Yes. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, ma'am. Council Member Gibbs. Thank you, Chair. Yes, sir. I just want to thank Susan Bluger for the work on the sidewalk plan. As a serious pedestrian, this is something that's long overdue, and I think it's going to be a huge improvement for Lexington, so thank you. That's all, Chair. Would you like to make a motion? I'll make a motion to accept the plan. The sidewalk plan, yes. Sidewalk plan, yes. We have a motion. Looking for a second. Second. We have a second here. We're in discussion about the sidewalk plan that's been proposed. It's in the packet. First on discussion for that is Fred Brown. I assume that we were done with the road snow plan? No, we're just moving on. We can go back and do that. Okay. He spoke to it. Moving on. This sidewalk snow removal, proposed level of services, did you take into consideration the amount of snow accumulation when you were looking at this? I don't see any place here where you've got inches as we are doing on the pavement. I know basically if streets and roads mobilizes then we can mobilize for example if it's going to be an ice event we can do a pre-treatment we can do a post-treatment so those types of treatments will vary the type of equipment we might need to use might vary or at least the level we won't have to use a plow we might use a brush so it really goes more to what we do than the fact that we are doing. So what direction are you getting? Are the commissioner going to give you the direction to get out there and start the process, or who's running the show on that particular area? So Director Miller does the mobilization alert to all of us, and she would be mobilized at the same time that he mobilizes the LFC UCG team. I've got a question for Albert then. And, Albert, in conjunction with this snow removal on the sidewalks, is this in any way impede snow removal on the roads? Because you know, as I think everybody knows, when we do a lot of plowing, the sidewalks get covered completely. So has that been addressed as to working between the sidewalks and the streets? Yeah, it's going to be a timing issue. and we have discussed it and hopefully we won't have another 18-inch snow, but if we do, it will have to be in conjunction with our plowing and we'll have to address that when we get to it. But that's a good point, especially on Manowar Boulevard where you don't have but about two foot of grassy area and the sidewalk. But we've been discussing that, yes. Well, we're also dealing not only with sidewalks, we're dealing with driveways that get... That's a different story in itself. Well, the sidewalk is on the driveway, so if you're cleaning the driveway, what are you doing on the apron? Normally, the city, the sidewalks that we're talking about... Are not residential? No, I don't think so. Okay. There are probably some, but the ones that I think Susan's talking about, and she can talk to it, is most of our streets, Manowar, Citation, Alumni Drive, there really aren't sidewalk driveway-type entrances. So in your plan, Susan, this proposed level of services, it encompasses the particular streets that would be involved, be a listing of those streets? Yes, we can give you a complete listing of every one of our segments. We kind of look at them. But I'd like for it to kind of go in line or as our council districts, just like the streets are going to, like the ranking of the streets. If we could have some type of ranking with the sidewalks per council district, I think it would be helpful for us as council members to reply back to any concerned businesses or citizens. Okay. We will provide that. The other thing, Chair, is we've got a motion on the floor. Just one other thing. I'm reluctant to vote for this particular sidewalk snow removal plan because it's a newbie as far as we're concerned. We've never had this before. We have had the road snow plans for years, and we've been able to digest some of that. I don't know that I can vote on this because I'd like to have more information, and so I just wanted to put that out as, you know, where I'm coming from. It's not that I'm opposed to it, but I think we need to tweak this a little bit more and keep it in committee. Understood, sir. Whatever. Thank you very much. Council Member Lamb. Thank you for recognizing me, Chair. Ms. Plueger, on the rankings of this sidewalk snow removal, did you all take into consideration parks that are located close to other schools and take any consideration about the sidewalks that were budding parks that were in close proximity to any kind of public school or schools? Well, it wasn't schools as much as it was bus stops. If they have one that's close to a bus stop, that's in the rank two, where they would just extend it down to the bus stop. But the thought is that the schools are responsible for their perimeter sidewalks. So as we do our sidewalks and everyone else does their sidewalks, there would be connectivity. So it was not based upon schools as much as what you see there. Okay. All right. Was there any consideration? I know that some sidewalks, there are ADA ramps, and there are some that don't have. Was there any consideration to the location of the ADA ramps? No. What we'll need to do, though, is overlay those as we're doing it because we don't want to damage those, particularly with the plowing. A brush is not a problem, but we realize that that's an issue. We don't want to pull the teeth out of the ramps. So I just, I know that we were, we received several emails during this past year's snow that, where that the people could not travel from block to block because of no ADA access. So people in wheelchairs, you know, that cannot move about. So I just hope that we can maybe put some consideration into that as well, because, I mean, we do need to think about that. I can think of, like, St. Joe, where all the new intersection has been done, all those cross sidewalks that go through there and the ramps that go up. We need to be looking at those areas. So we'll take a look at that. All right, thank you. I'm sure we'll be adding segments as we go. Oh, this is huge. I applaud you for this, because, I mean, I think this is very necessary, and again it's I believe showing the rest of the citizens that we are taking the serious as it relates to our sidewalks so thank you thank you chair. Thank you ma'am Council Member Stenet would you take the chair for a moment while I make comments please thank you sir thank you I want to speak in favor of the motion if you look at the way it's couched it kicks in in years fiscal year 2017 to 2018 which lets us ramp up as it were. It also makes a commitment to the citizenry that we've never made before on behalf of pedestrians. And that's more and more the multimodal types of movement that people enjoy. But I think over all these years, people say, isn't there a law on the books? Don't you have to move your snow? And there is a law on the books. And you're supposed to move your snow. But we really haven't enforced that because we haven't moved our own snow first. It's kind of hard to ticket somebody else when you're not doing it for yourself first. So it's a policy thing for me. It's also a growth and evolution of Lexington thing all at the same time. We have to make a commitment as a council and as a community that we're going to take care of these ingress and egresses in ways people that go to and from work that we may not encounter on a daily basis. But they walk to work every day, whether it's snow, rain, sleet, whatever. So to me, this is a really great next step for us. It's gradiated in. It gives us time to kind of evaluate as we move forward, but gives us a grub stake in the game that if we really want to get serious about having people move snow off their sidewalks, we have moved ours first, and we're going to make sure they follow us in that act. So I want to ask for your all's support for that. Thank you very much. Thank you, sir. I appreciate you letting me do that. Now, next up, Council Member Maloney. I'd like to echo Council Member Farmer's statement. The concern I have is when we start enforcing this, for instance, for Sales Road, as close as it is the sidewalk to that road, you're going to have trucks that's coming up and down, and they're going to pile that sidewalk up. And as you all know, that that is, other than University of Kentucky, that's the number one route for electric. And you've got problems. You've got people in wheelchairs that are going down Vassels Road, cars going 45 miles and on and that. How the two questions come out is how, A, we enforce when we're already the main reason why the sidewalks are going higher than what the, when the snow comes up, it goes a lot higher than what the property owners can do because it's mainly our fault. I mean, maybe we may have about three inches of snow, and then it turns out we're going to have 20 inches of snow to clean off on those sidewalks. That's my first question. So as to the enforcement issue that you're talking about, if my memory is correct, I believe that that issue has been put into Public Safety Committee, and I think it's supposed to be discussed in the next Public Safety. I can't hear you. I believe that that issue has been put into Public Safety Committee for further discussion, the whole idea of enforcement of sidewalk snow removal. Okay, and my second concern about is the salt eats the sidewalks up. And the reason why we did not do a lot of enforcement on Vassels Road for sidewalk improvement is a lot of it is because the city is causing the sidewalks to be tore up after the salt gets on them. Now, I mean, I'm for this motion because it is something that needs to be done. But when we pass something like this, Vassels Road may be unique. I don't know if any other district, you may have some on Winchester Road. I think you may have some sidewalks pretty close to that, like Vassels Road. But I think Vassels Road is probably the most unique closest sidewalk to the road than anywhere I've ever seen. And for a speed limit, as bad as it is. I just want everybody to know, just because we do this, we do need to enforce it. I think it's great that we're going the right direction. But the city needs to take responsibilities. If we are damaging these sidewalks and if we are causing this snow removal to be more complicated than what the snow really was, if it's two or three inches, then we've doubled or tripled that. And you've got a lot of people on Pussells Road or streets like that. So I hope that we have a plan so when we pass this that we go back to the drawing board and continue to hit these, because this is going to be some problems out there. So I'm asking that you're not only looking for sales vote, but I assume other council members are going to have districts in theirs that have the same problem. But I know for sales vote is the perfect example of why we've got to be prepared and be cautious of what we do. Just a couple things I'd add related to that. With us getting into the business of sidewalk snow removal, I think we are going to begin experiencing some of the difficulties that the citizens experience. So we're going to be able to hopefully address that much better by having this experience, by actually doing it. We are aware the concrete and the salt is an issue, and we're looking at some environmentally friendly pretreatments that don't affect concrete as much. So we're looking into that as well. What can we put down that isn't going to damage the concrete? That's something that we're looking at. And again, that will speak to how we can help the citizens do what they're required to do as well. Thank you, sir. Thank you, ma'am. Yes, Commissioner. Mr. Chairman, as you all are discussing this, I think it's important to mention all the scenarios that we are brought forth to you today that deal with the monetary amounts are not budgeted. And so the additional funding that Ms. Pflueger asked for would have to be something that the council would address in the fund balance discussion coming forward, just as if you decide to go ahead and have us contract some additional capacity, although that's up to you. and there's, of course, always the option just to do what we've done in the past and not necessarily move to additional capacity in this coming year. That also would have to be involved in the fund balance discussion coming forth at the end of this month. You're talking about the $76,86, the $95,000. That's on page 13. All right. Very good, sir. Thank you. Council Member Stennett. Thank you, Chair. I think, Commissioner, that's exactly what I was going to ask. I appreciate our discussion on both snow plan and adding capacity on the sidewalk side, but I think we're missing one valuable point. How are we going to pay for this? $420-something thousand on the snow plan side, where are we going to get that money? So you're asking us to find it in fund balance? That's the only location that we have those kind of funds would be in fund balance. You're exactly right. Well, it's not the only location. Well, that's what the administration is asking us to look at. Because, I mean, we can cut other places. We can move from other pots. I mean, there's a lot of places we can find this money if it is our priority. Certainly. So you haven't identified anything but fund balance? That's all we have identified at this point, yes. Okay. Same way for the sidewalks? Yes, sir. And what was the total on both together? Well, 95 and 403. So half a million. Okay. And, Chair, I think that's the biggest problem. Even if we pass this motion, it's meaningless without the money. Well, it's meaningless without the snow. Well, we hope so. We hope so. And I appreciate your quick... Make that motion. That we don't do anything until it snows. No snow. Yeah. I think, if I may, we're going to come back, I hope, after this discussion to talk about money for the roads. If we adopt this motion, it would require us to come up with $95,000 for this year, and then more in 17, and a little bit more in 18. So it's just how we want to rank in order, and that's just how the votes will work out when we take the vote here. Well, the even larger point is, as you alluded to, 17 and 18, once we commit to this, we're going to start budgeting this going forward, so that we're going to increase our budget going forward forever. Because once we establish a level of service, we all know how difficult it is to retreat from that level. So this is setting a precedent going forward. It's not just a fund balance discussion. It's an extra budget and going forward. So just so we're aware, we've got to do some heavy lifting, and we've got to cut some other projects that people want to see funded in fund balance if we're going to make this our priority this year. You're absolutely correct, sir. Thank you very, very much. Vice Mayor Kay. Thank you, Chair. I thank Council Member Sennett for pointing out that this has fiscal implications and that we don't want to be in the position of voting for something and then going, no, we can't fund it. So I think what a yes vote here indicates is support for the funding level, finding the money, whether in the fund balance or elsewhere this year, and on an ongoing basis expecting that these increased funds will be included in the mayor's budget. The other point I'd like to make is, as someone who grew up in a climate where shoveling snow was not an unusual event. I grew up in Massachusetts, and it was also not unusual for plows to come along, and after I had shoveled out our family driveway, to have to go back out and now shovel out what the plow had pushed in. That's the nature of the business. So we're just learning that here. I expect that we will continue to learn the lessons about a lot of snow because I think we're going to keep getting it. And one of the points that maybe needs to be made is that enforcement, especially of the sidewalk issue, all well and good, but it will not be enforcement that gets people to clear their sidewalks. So I think we need to be thinking about public relations, education, a push to let people know that they're expected to do that and that there is a regulation on the books that they can be cited. But I don't think it's reasonable to expect that most of the people who fail to shovel their sidewalks are going to get cited and then are going to go out and shovel them. So we want to encourage it. I don't object to having the law on the books, but I think we just need to be realistic about what's going to happen. We're in a learning experience here, and the curve is a little steep. We really got dumped on last winter, but it could certainly keep happening. So I appreciate the effort that's been made to bring this forward. I hope the council will support the increased funding. We certainly need to be clearing our own sidewalks and encouraging everybody else to clear theirs. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, sir. Council Member Evans. Thank you, Chair. I think I probably have the same concerns or had notes similar to what Council Member Stenet was referring to. So I guess I just want to be clear about the sidewalks since that's the issue that we're talking about. it would be an additional $95,000 for this winter. That's what we're talking about. Okay. And thoughts, ideas about even if it wasn't done this year, would that be something that you all would be proposing in next year's budget to implement that? Well, the proposal has three different years where the budget would change. Right. So, yes, in the first year it's $95,000, and then next year it's an additional $100,000 of equipment on top of that, plus the $19,000 additional overtime. Will you be adding additional overtime? I might not be understanding your question correctly. Well, yeah, I guess I understand the $95,000, but if I understand it correctly, the total for the next until 2018, it's $176,000 in new equipment and approximately $76,000 in overtime. Correct. Okay, so are you going to attempt to incorporate that into following years, even if for some reason this plan didn't pass this year? Is that something that you all are looking to incorporate in years to come because it is an issue, or is it just if we don't vote on it? I think it's at Council's direction, whether we will pursue it or not. because right now we do very little. We have some involvement with the viaducts, and facilities does some sidewalks, and parks does some sidewalks. But most of this plan is related to things that we currently do not do. Okay. So with that in mind, and I don't know if you're going to answer this, what is the need, I guess, from your perception? And I don't know, is it something that, as you all have done this, simply based on what we were barking about, or is this something that's been on the radar? And the things that you need to do, how high is this on the priority list, I guess? And I don't know if that's a fair question or not, but I'm just curious. I think it came from citizens' concerns, particularly in the large snow of last year. We have people walking in the streets all over, and so from council members, from the administration, from citizens, all saying this could be an issue. I'm sorry. I understand. It's probably not a fair question. I'm sorry. I think she answered it very well. And let me just speak, if I can, from the administration's point of view here. When we looked at the plan that David had talking about the roads and then the snow removal on the sidewalk, in our, we are doing after, of course, you all will go through the fund balance, but some of the suggestions, we will make some suggestions for you to consider after you've done yours. And one of them was the suggestion that we do do the sidewalks. And the reason we looked at that is because the sidewalks have been sort of a different issue. I think you talked about that, Council Member Farmer. We would propose that out of fund balance, we would do that $75,000 worth of equipment. We can't do that over time because that's a recurring cost out of fund balance, but we would cover that somewhere else through our personnel role. We did not, and you know, this is like making your health insurance selection. We did not make that choice to do the other part on the roads because we had such a huge, unusual snow last time. And so, you know, I hate to say that because, you know, you roll that dice, and if it's real bad, those people will be calling me and saying, And I remember that time that woman stood up and said, let's don't do that. But we included this on the sidewalks and did not consider the other. Of course, that's the council's choice, and we will do whatever the council's will is there to answer that policy question. Thank you. Thank you, ma'am. Of this group, Council Member Hensley has not spoken. Council Member Hensley? I would just make a comment that in the 12th district we don't have many sidewalks. And so I'd vote my conscience that, you know, I wouldn't support this based on some of the comments I've heard for the ongoing budget increases that we're going to get into. So that's the only comment I have. None of Manowar Boulevard is in the 12th district? All right. Council Member Lamb. Thank you, Chair. I just have a quick question about the 19,000 additional overtime estimate. What is that based on, Ms. Pluger? It's based upon, I'll give you this exact calculation. It's 22 mobilizations, 12 people, 4 hours per mobilization, and then the unit rate per hour. That's what that was based on. And that's great. I just wanted to know if that was a high estimate. I think it would be maximum. them? Yeah, I think it would be too. I hope we don't get 22 mobilizations. Oh, I hope not too. Yeah, thank you. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, ma'am. Councilmember Gibbs. Thank you, Chair. I'd like to urge my colleagues to please vote for this proposal. I'm one of those people who you see walking down the middle of Main Street because they have no place else to go. Pedestrian needs have been largely ignored in this city for a long, long time, and I think it's time for us to catch up, and I'd like you to remember that pedestrians pay taxes too. Thank you. Thank you, sir. And Councilmember Yes, just to speak to the motion here. I can't support it because of numerous reasons and some discussion, but I think the policy, and I agree with what we need to do or what we want to do. I think when we're looking at page 12 there, we've got the rank 1, rank 2, rank 3 that we're trying to do all at one time. It would be more palatable probably if we did rank one for the first year and then kind of moved into the sidewalk policy in the future. And I just, you know, because of budgetary concerns and because this is a new thing that we want to do, I just want to make sure I like the policy. I think it's overdue, but I think we need to kind of slow down on this particular side of it. I don't have any problem on the pavement side. We've got enough past experience and enough statistics in our snow removal for the streets that we can go ahead, which we have passed. But this particular item here, I think we need to slow down a little bit. So I hate to vote no against this particular motion, but I'm going to have to based on some of the comments I've heard and some of the information that's been given. Thank you. Thank you, sir. We'll need a voting board for this if you put it up. Are there other comments? Anyone? All right. Then let's use our opportunity here. Okay. We are. I believe the motion is going to pass. All right. Well done. Thank you all very much. Now, if you want to come back to it, the last part of the so-called decision points on page 15 had to do with the authorization of the RFP to pursue capability enhancement, which I may ask a first question. So there's got to be some budget, first off, for snow removal, period. Actually, the only budgeted funds that we have for snow removal is for the salt in the budget and overtime, and it's general overtime. It's not specific to snow removal. It's just all overtime in water quality and streets and roads. All right, then let me ask you a further question then. We've given you kind of the, we've approved the plan, so to speak. So the service level increase, which we will incorporate into the plan coming forth next month. If we chose as a council not to pursue the RFP for the outside help, that would just affect what your ability is to perform when the snow came. Enhanced capacity. That's all that it would do. That's very good. Thank you. Council Member James Brown. Thank you, Chair. That was my same question is that did you have trouble or a problem, or was it an issue getting contractors to go out and do the additional work this past winter? I mean, was that a challenge, or is that something that? It was a challenge because it's the first time we've done it in recent history, and there's also the issue that the state has contractors. So some of the same people that we would be contacting to try to come and help us with snow removal are under contract with the state, and until they got released from the state, they were unavailable to come to us. By the time we had decided that we needed the help, which wasn't hard after 18 inches of snow, it was about three days before they actually got mobilized and were out in the city streets. Now, we think in the future we can cut that down to probably two days, But the plan that we brought before you on the enhancement was that they would be there all the time. Anytime we mobilized, they would be there. But, no, we will contract people under the service level when we get to the eight inches and above, and that will be an automatic kind of decision coming out of the administration going forward when we get that kind of level of snow, based on your all's decision today. And you might have already answered this question, but any time you contact the contractors and have them mobilize, is there a base fee just to get them started in addition to the, I think, the $10,000 per? I'm going to have to defer to Albert on that because this last winter was a unique situation. Are you speaking of last winter? Yes, sir. No, there is. We just contact them. We already have a unit price out there for these contractors, not just for snow removal, but for other things through the year we might need them for. Now, I have to say that the contractors that we're talking about from last year did not have salt spreaders involved. They were basically motorized type, either a bucket or a grater that could just push it off the side. what we're discussing, talking about now, getting contractors in, as the commissioner has said, it's they will be dedicated to our services. And if we mobilize, they will mobilize. We don't have to wait. There's a clause in a contract that says you shall, whatever that time frame is, and it's usually a pretty tight time frame. So there is a difference between the contractors we used last year as opposed to what we're proposing this year. But we still have contractors that are on that same unit price contract, which would be for graders, front-end loaders, skid steers, and that type stuff, similar to what we did last year. Okay. Now, I hope I didn't confuse you. No, I think I'm understanding. And the dollar figures that is in this packet where you mobilized 22 times last year was the $400,000 number. But going forward, we would pay the $172,000 just to have them ready and $10,000 each time to mobilize. That is correct. Okay. All right. That answered my question. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Council Member Maloney. Thank you. I've got some similar questions on this budget. How much money do you have in budget for this year for salt removal? Albert says $600,000, but we have a full salt barn, and we have a pad that is completely filled. We have, is it 5,000? About 45. About 4,500 tons right now on premises. So you have $600,000 budgeted in case you have to use the salt barn full now, right? Yes, sir. So you have $600,000. Yes, sir. Now, with us passing this, how did we pay for the mobilization last year? Did we use that fund that came out of where they come out of to pay for that? We gave a budget amendment to council for consideration, which they passed, moving dollars where we had saved money at that point in time. I don't remember exactly. Melissa can answer. But things like fuel or utilities where we were running a favorable variance, we moved the dollars from there at the time of the event. And let's go back, Bill, now that you're up here. We are trying to push for these two additional dollars here, one for 423 and then whatever for the sidewalks. which is $200,000 and something, then we're going to have to get that money from someplace else. And that's something that you're going to have to work with and your folks are going to have to come back if it's council votes on this probably month, first and second reading in the next couple weeks. Or would you all use the surplus that we have that may be coming up here sometime in November? We do not have variances that I would move at this time only three months into the year, so we would ask council to consider using fund balance for a half a million dollar additional spend. Okay. Well, and then next year when we put this budget, so right now we have no money for the following year to come out, so we're going to have to use some kind of source of funds. For next year, when we put this budget together, you all will have to put these kind of things in there and take a cut somewhere else, or hopefully that the economy keeps going good the way it is, that it won't have an impact on taking any other program. I bet that's just what we're looking at with passing this thing. Don't be nervous. If it's a four-year contract, then once you vote, then we are committed to budgeting for that four-year contract. All right. That's what I need to know. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Council Member Hensley. Thank you, Chair. One question that you may have alluded to was the changes in contractors from this year to the last year. And you said something about the contractors being primarily obligated to the state first. In the new contractors, do you have a mix of contractors who aren't obligated to the state first? Is it kind of lessons learned? They would be obligated contractually to us first. They would have to respond to us when we call for immobilization. All of them? Well, it's just one contractor who are responding to the RFP, yes. Okay, thank you. Thank you, sir. Vice Mayor Kay. Thank you, Chair. Just to hopefully kind of clarify where we're at, I believe we've already taken a vote on authorizing the funds. What we're now looking at is are we going to authorize the RFP so that they can find the appropriate contractors. Is that correct, Commissioner? My interpretation of the action you've had is you have approved the service level that we have put forth on page three that we would incorporate into the snow plan to bring back for you next committee meeting that you have not, if I understand what you've done, agreed to any service enhancement that has any funding other than perhaps the sidewalk issue. but I'm unclear on that. But we've had conversation about how we don't budget for snow, and if we're going to, we need to figure out what that number is. Okay, so at this point, I guess I'm not clear what action we need to take, if any, at this point. The decision point is to authorize an RFP. I presume that would imply that we... So for clarification purpose, because of the month's delay in having this conversation, we went ahead and issued the RFP. We've gotten responses for it. We have not entered into the RFP because we don't have your authority to do it, and we have no funds to commit to a contract. But we have the ability to do that should you say that that's what you want us to do and that you have a funding mechanism for us to be able to do that. We don't currently have that. And the timeline, when would you need to let these contractors know that we are committed to them and want their services? Certainly you have the time for the fund balance discussion and see all of the issues that are going to be coming before you in the fund balance before that. So sometime in early November, we would need to commit ourselves to that. So you've got some time to make up that decision in your fund balance discussion. Okay. I guess what I'm looking for is a drop-dead date. So if we don't contract with them by— I'll have to ask purchasing on that because purchasing did the RFP, and I'll have to ask them when it went. But we still have some time to address that. Okay. But it's fair to assume that we can't go deep into, let's say, November or early December because other people will be interested in their services as well. And if we don't— I'm told 15th of November. That's the time period in which we need to know. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Councilmember Evans. Thank you, Chair. I'm sorry, I'm a little confused at this point because what I think we might need to be doing is not talking necessarily about this winter, but next winter. Okay, I see Albert looking. I think maybe, I don't know, maybe if I'm on track. Because we are talking about funding snow removal, and that's something that it hasn't been in. We didn't put it in this year's budget. So we really are talking about two years out at this point with this plan. Is that accurate? Based on our recommendations, it would be this winter. But that's if we say, okay, use fund balance money. I'm talking about actually putting it in Streets and Roads budget, which I think are two different things. Yes, you are correct. If you're not looking at fund balance to do it this winter, it would have to be part of the budgetary discussion in the spring. So, and I guess, Chair, maybe that's a distinction and maybe that's what Vice Mayor Kay was trying to get at. I think we are having two different conversations, and I don't know how to separate those out because we do have an immediate issue now. It's October. So what do we do for this winter? but what are we going to decide to do for the next winter? Because that's the money that we're really talking about and not having to use fund balance anymore because this is kind of that knee-jerk, well, we've got money and let's use it. But if we're really talking about setting policy and setting a plan in motion, we need to talk two years out now. At least that's my perception of it. Understood. I believe we're on the right track. You're good? Yeah, so I don't know what motion. We need to have a motion for what we want to do this year, and then maybe adopt this plan for, what, the fiscal year 2017. Give the administration direction to make it part of their budget for FY17. I would make that motion that this plan be accepted for 2017's motion, if I could make that motion. The floor is open and you have made a motion. We would be looking for a second and then discussion. We have a motion and a second. We're in discussion of a motion to ask the administration to include these recommendations for this funding level and this level of service for FY17, which would be not this coming winter, but it would include it in the next regular budget for the next perhaps unregular winter. We're in discussion. So do you want to, Vice President, do you want to go? Yeah, I'll say. I think it's related to what I wanted to say anyway. So it seems to me what, in fact, the administration has come forward asking for is funding for this coming year as well as on an ongoing basis. So it's both things. But secondly, I would say that what we're asked to approve now is a plan. And we can either have a plan or not have a plan. But we're going to plow anyway. If it snows, we're going to clear the streets. So we either will have a plan to do that that's a little forward thinking, or we will do what we did last year, which is when the snow fell, scrambled around, did the best we can. I think it was a great job. I mean, I think the city, well, I'm biased, but I think we did a really good job. But it would be easier and better if we had a plan and we had contractors waiting this year and available so that we could do it more efficiently and effectively. So I think it's both. I think it's funding for this year and it's consideration for the coming years. Thank you. Very good, sir. Thank you. Council Member Fred Brown. Thank you, Chair. Commissioner, I'm a little confused at this point because what you're asking for in this particular plan that we adopted, except we haven't supplied the money yet, is that we're going to have some contractual arrangements for the up to $423,000 a year. Now, let me ask you this. Let's go back to last year. We budgeted for the snow plan. And we've also budgeted for fiscal year 16 X number of dollars to remove snow. We have only budgeted money for salt and brine and things of that kind of nature in the actual budget. And Bill can verify this. And we also budget overtime. But it's not snow removal overtime. It's general overtime. Now, we base the amount of overtime on what we have in a 12-month period of time for overtime. Yeah, that was my – I think you've straightened me out on that because I thought we had a certain number of dollars in there just for snow removal, period. So we've never had the luxury to even do that, which we should have done in the past. So what did it cost us this past winter in relationship to that $423,000 that we want to do or were proposing? What did it cost us in lieu of that $423,000? You know what I'm talking about? I'm not sure that we've made that calculation. If we had, I'd have to go back and look at some figures that we did in preparation for this. I do know that when the additional money that we generated for the two big snow events was like $350,000, something of that kind of nature. Yeah. Okay. You're not sure about the number, but it was substantial. Absolutely. Did we take that out of fund balance, or was that a budget amendment? Budget amendment? Okay. So, you know, when you're talking about this $423,000 coming up, just remember in the past we've used dollars in that same capacity on a need basis. So all we're doing now is just doing a little bit more of an insurance policy. And keep in mind the $423,000, only $172,000 is fixed. That's right. Anything over $100,000? That's our insurance policy, the $172,000. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Have the RFPs borne out the $172,000? Figure is that where you pulled it from? Yes, sir. Okay. Thank you. Council member Gibbs Thank you chair. I'm just not very clear on the motion So if your motion passed would that mean we would do nothing this coming year except what we did last year? Like which is a very excellent job by the seat of our pants The RFP would not go out and so on because I think I'm opposed to your motion councilmember Evans I think I would like to see something happen this year We have a three-year plan which we could implement this year, but thank you for you to elaborate Thank you, please. I believe hers is a systemic answer, and we're looking for something in the meantime for this coming winter. Because the gravamen of her motion is that we're asking the administration to include dollars for this in succeeding budgets, but we're not doing anything for this budget year, for this winter, under the guise of the motion as it's been made. Okay, my assumption was the administration was committed to the next two years of it. Is that not a good assumption? Well, I think this would ensure that we have directed them to be involved and to propose a FY17 budget that would specifically include a line item for snow removal, which has not been in the budget at this time. So I think we're kind of probably all on a similar glide path here that in the future we want to make sure this is taken care of. However, in the specificity of the motion, it declines the opportunity to identify funds immediately, which I think is where we still have a potential hold in our conversation, because if we don't take some sort of action primarily today to let contracted outside folks know, by the time we meet again, that window will either have closed or altered, because we'll be into, you know, basically November 20th when they're saying that the guys to the RFP run out about November 15th is what I would understand. Okay. Yes, sir. Then, Councilor, do you want to go ahead? Go ahead. Yes, it was your motion. I was going to respond to Councilmember Gibbs. Yes, my intention was, yes, to just set this in place for the future. We still have an issue for this winter. and we need to figure out how to do that but i guess my intention of making this motion is to stop what i think is going on right now and always going to fund balance because we might not always have that fund balance or having to use budget amendments but to actually put it in the budget for coming for oncoming years yes we still have an issue this winter so we still need to figure that out but my motion was to at least set it in motion for future years to come very good thank you ma'am are you good sir and then Vice Mayor Kay well thank you and I want to come back in but it seems to me that this what the chair just said is exactly right what this motion does is it provides some direction to the administration for the succeeding budget year. It does not preclude any action that we might take for this fiscal year. And I'd like to, when we're done with this vote, I'd like to make a motion on that. Very good, sir. Thank you. Council Member Hensley. I'd like to call the question. Well done. We have a motion to call the question. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed, like sign, the question has been called. All right. If you throw us up a board there, this is to adopt the snow plan as presented and ask the administration to budget for it in 2017. That motion passes. All right. The floor is available. Further discussion or motion? Vice Mayor. Thank you, Chair. So I'd like to make a motion that we approve the request to move forward with the funding of that RFP that would allow us to contract for snow removal in fiscal year 16. Second. We have a motion and a second. We're in discussion. Anyone? Council Member Brown. Fred Brown, excuse me. Thank you, Chair. I don't know if we need an amendment on that, but RFP, do we need to put a dollar amount on that not to exceed? Well, you mentioned that in 72,000, so I'm not going to look around the cost. Well, if we're just funding the RFP, it had a specific amount. So if you just did it for the 172,000, then all they would do is be able to come up with the fit-up. It wouldn't pay for any of the mobilization fees going forward. We've given you two mobilization numbers, 11, which is the statistical number that occurred, and that's 288,000 for that. And then for 22, it's 403,000, roughly. A little more than that, actually. So that number, is it page 5? Chair, I just asked a question. Do we need to include numbers? I don't know that we do. But the RFP's got to be specific on what they're asking for, and I didn't know if we needed to pass some additional language there as all. Well, we can do what we want to. If we're going to hire outside folks, we need the 172 and change number, and then we can fly by the seat of our pants if we so desire. However, if you're looking at this and going to use the cost estimate on page 10 or page 5 of the actual presentation, you probably would need to fund it to the tune of $305,000 because that would cover your $172,000 plus your usual 11 mobilizations. Or do nothing, you know. Sir. Well said. I was going to suggest that the council consider funding the 11, which is the average number of mobilizations, rather than 22, which is a 10-year high. Now, whether that's 304 or 288, I think I can get clarification from the commissioner. It would be for the 11 mobilizations, including the fit-up and training, $288,034. that's the sweet number that is for 11 mobilizations that's the total amount and the 172 yes sir what was it 288 288 34 all right vice mayor would you like to amend your motion at all I will amend my motion to include that number and the seconder does too all right if you could add that to the motion now we're in discussion about that amendment I see no discussion on the amendment so all those in favor I was like sign well done all right now the motion has amended to include a specific number is their discussion there seeing none all those in favor opposed like sign motion carries well done thank you all very much all right then moving on councilmember stinett you want to give us a little sidewalk plan introduction and then we can take this issue up please sir I'll add some commentary at the end I'll let the administration make their presentation very good sir thank you then Commissioner Paulson are you on deck on this please more sidewalks to plow yeah since we just talked about plowing sidewalks, let's talk about building some. So, Councilmember Stinnett, I believe is the one who asked for this presentation, and we'll try to get through it quickly so we can get to questions and get to work session. This was the parameters of the presentation. What we're calling current sidewalk deficiencies, which is where do we not have sidewalks, a prioritization of how we go about determining where to do the installation of sidewalks, and also a discussion of a process for sidewalk requests. So in terms of sidewalk deficiencies, it's not just a simple cut and dry. What we have currently, and we'll talk about this as we go through this, two general types of sidewalk issues, major corridors and arterials as well as local streets. On our major arterials, 38% of them do not currently have sidewalks, and 11% of our collector roads do not have sidewalks. When we get back to talking about what do we mean by putting in sidewalks, again, not all sidewalks are the same. We have road construction, basically major road construction that would include curb and gutter, and then we have some that are just sidewalk-only projects. In order to better explain that, we have some examples of those. So one that I know Councilmember Brown, we have talked about this quite a bit, a major corridor such as Armstrong, this would be a large capital project and is actually currently in the MPO in terms of funding. It still weighs out, but it is a major curb and gutter as well as sidewalks project. Also along a major corridor, but requiring much less construction, is one on Winchester Road. This is literally about a block from Industry Road to, no other way to describe it, tire discounters. It's a small project. It is just a gap in the sidewalk right now. The sidewalk exists on either side of that section. There would be a little bit of stormwater work needed, but for the most part, this is a small project. again along a major corridor. A third example is one that is more of a local road, and this is one north Forbes between Leona Drive and Larch Lane, and here we do have curb and gutter already in place, and there will be some minor grading needed, but again, this is more about putting a sidewalk in, not so much a major construction project. So this is to give an idea that not all sidewalk projects when we talk about this are very simple. You kind of got to categorize them from the type of road that they serve as well as the type of project that they would be. This is a map. I'm hoping that it showed up in color in your handouts, but if not, I can also send this to you electronically. And this gives an understanding of where our current sidewalks are missing. This is all roads. So this is all from either missing on one side or missing on both sides. The green are the local streets, the blue are the collectors, and the red are our major arterials. And you can see that it's pretty considerable in terms of the amount of deficiencies in terms of sidewalks that currently exist in Lexington. Right now, it's about 32 segments. We can break that into street miles if needed, and we actually have that broken down in a handout we can get to you. For major corridors and arterials, in terms of local streets, it is much more significant. We have currently 180 miles of streets that have no sidewalks and another 38 miles that have sidewalks on only one side of the road. So kind of moving from how much of a problem we have to how do we prioritize that, we've got two systems in terms of prioritization. And, again, this focuses on the type of road. We've got our major corridors, which is, again, our arterials and our collector roads, and then we've got our local roads. We currently have a scoring system in place, has been in place for several years, that deals with our major corridors and our arterials and, again, our collector roads. that was developed for the MPO. That is currently work that is done by our bike, and it was done for our bike and pedestrian master plan, and the scoring is currently conducted by our bike pedestrian planner along with our BPAC, or our Bike Pedestrian Advisory Committee. We would be suggesting to do yet another scoring system that would be for local roads, and to kind of split the funding into two major categories. One would be for, again, those major corridors, those collectors and arterials. That is where we would be seeking kind of the major funding. This is where MPO already comes in, where we currently seek funding for large sidewalk projects along major corridors and arterials. In addition to CMAQ funding, we would think we might be able to receive other types of federal or state funding that are out there for sidewalk projects. Again, largely along our major arterials and our major corridors. And that's generally the types of funding that are for those. Again, the goal there in those types of funding is to connect major population areas. And so there's a little bit different in terms of our prioritization and in terms of the scoring. For our local roads, we would be proposing to fund it locally. We might be able to receive some grants from the state, possibly from the federal, but for the most part we think those funds are generally limited to the larger projects mentioned in the major corridors. At this point, we will be proposing a $500,000 initial allocation. This will be for next budget year. So this is not something that's necessary right now to be talking about in terms of financial impact. This is something that will go along in the budgeting process this spring. Obviously, we're not going to be constructing sidewalks anytime soon that are not already in the budget. In terms of that prioritization, this is one of the two prioritization schemes. This is for our major corridors. This is what is currently used by the MPO. and what was currently developed for our bike and pedestrian master plan. Again, there are five major areas. I will not go through and read all these bullets, but there are five general areas, access and planned projects, safety and need, again, dealing with traffic volumes, connectivity, destinations on route, and destinations in area. Again, these categorizations or these prioritization areas were developed largely to go along with the CMAQ funding and other types of funding at the state and federal level because these are the things that matter at the state and federal level in terms of funding. Again, destinations on the route, destinations in the area, safety considerations. They are different but similar for our local cat organization. And this was something that we have just created based on, again, the MPO process that we've got, but altering it slightly to focus more on the local needs here. So, again, five areas, access and plan projects, support and need, of which we think is an important one, one that we haven't heard a lot about, but as we have been putting together this presentation, It is the support and need by the locals, by the local neighborhoods. I have had, in creating this, I've had some people say, we don't have sidewalks in my neighborhood, and we don't want them, possibly because of the discussion you just had previously. And then there is safety, connectivity, and destinations in the area. Again, there are, again, a lot of local schools in which sidewalks may not quite be there. They would be important in terms of doing that. Again, we would propose having two categorization scheme, local roads or local sidewalks, and then again, sidewalks along the major corridors and arterials. In terms of processing requests, what we are proposing is to create an online form, largely because of these three things, ease of use. We feel that for the most part, the population is pretty much geared towards these kinds of things. It would make it easy for them to submit. It would be that single point of entry. So if calls came into council members' districts, council aides or council members could go to the same database, input the request. And what we would do is, again, as it says here, these requests would be reviewed and scored by the bike pedestrian planner and then the BPAC as well. And then that information would be put back onto a website so that it would be very, last part, transparent. And, again, we would have two priority lists. One would be the major corridors, again, those collectors and arterials, and the other would be the local roads. This is a mock-up. This does not currently exist, but it could quickly, of a sidewalk project request form. So this would, again, the street we're talking about, the from and to, are there currently sidewalks on one side, both sides, where are you missing? And then just some basic information to assist in making those scorings. Again, we would go out after receiving this request. Google Earth is a wonderful thing, so is a drive-by in terms of completing that scoring. Again, the goal here is to make it a simple process for the public to request or for council members to request, and then to make that information transparent, put it back out there so people can see what the scoring is and where it ranks in terms of prioritization. That was a quick overview for you. I appreciate that. It's generated several requests for conversation. First is council member's tenant. Thank you, Chair. I put this into committee because our approach in the past has been whenever a council member wanted a sidewalk, we just funded through the budget process. And obviously we could still do that and go down that path, but I think a better method, and I guess I was looking for a priority list today, which I guess it doesn't exist because I didn't see it in the presentation. We have it and we don't. So what we've got, again, going back to the two different prioritizations, one for major corridors, we have one for that. For the 208 or 218 miles of local roads, we do not have that now, but what we are working on is getting that before the budget process would start in the spring. Okay, so based on what you said in your presentation, who is going to make the call on where it enters the priority list? Well, again, so after you do all your secret scoring or whatever the matrix is going to be. It wouldn't be secret. This is the whole point of having it like this so that it's transparent. And I will send you the scoring sheet with the scores. But this is, again, an overview of what the scoring will look like. Yeah, I didn't see it in there. That's why I say secret because it's not in the presentation. It is in a handout, and the handout will be sent to you while I'm here at the podium. I can send this out to everybody right now. And so who's going to make the final judgment call on where it goes on the priority list and what level? Well, and again, this is the purpose of having the scoring sheet. It makes it very systematic based along these that email should have just sent to you all. There are four things in that packet. There is a map containing that, again, in color. There's also a scoring sheet for the local roads. There is a scoring sheet for the major corridors. And then there is the current rank for those major corridors. So you can see what that scoring looks like and what the prioritization is currently for. Again, those are the funds for the major roads that go along with the MPO funding. The goal of this is to make it systematic, to make it numerical, so that you can see what the prioritization would be based on, you know, needs. And when it comes to local roads, I think you're going to have these things will help in terms of determining what the scores will be. There will be a lot that will probably be tied, and I think it's just a matter of prioritization of funding will be, you know, I think there will have to be some calls made, but I think when it comes down to it, even though you've got similar scores, there will probably be feasibility scores that will come into play in terms of you may have, from a prioritization, it may be ranked very high in terms of safety in terms of destinations, but when it comes down to one may be easier in terms of the grading, in terms of the cost, that might be what pushes one sidewalk in front of another. So, again, who's going to score the sheets then, the requests for sidewalk? So, scores right there, bike and pedestrian coordinator, along with the BPAC, which is a current advisory committee for the MPO in terms of bike and pedestrian. So to be initially scored by the bike and pedestrian coordinator would then go through that committee process, the BPAC committee process. And, again, trying to follow along very similar to what's done for the major corridors and arterials with the MPO process, but for the local roads. Okay. And that list would be out there for everyone to see. It would be a very transparent list. It would be online so that people could see what the scores are and what that prioritization list is. And then how often are you going to update the list? Is this going to be fluid throughout the whole year or once a year? As people come through and submit, as they submit, it is our plan to start. Again, I think with 218 miles, we're going to have a lot of work ahead of us before the budget season gets here. After that, we would think it would be a quicker process, easier process if we were doing it consistently. Again, with the goal of having it ready for the budget process every spring. Here's my concern. We have a priority list. We go into budget season. Council Member Scotchville's sidewalk is number one, which it should be. She's asked a lot of times, so it's about time for hers to be done. So it's number one. You say it's fluid. Someone comes in in May and says, I don't need mine ranked, and it jumps ahead of hers. Is that what you're saying can happen? I mean, I've had experience with stormwater projects. We have a priority list. And we didn't update it like that because that can happen from time to time. I think what we'd have to see is unless there's a sidewalk that pumps it that we don't know about in those 218 miles, I'm not sure what's going to come in after we do this list or what's going to change that prioritization ranking. Because as of right now, what we've got on this map is what we think are all of the roads that currently do not have sidewalks, which is, again, 180 miles that have no sidewalks, local roads, and another 38 that have sidewalks on one side. So unless there's something we're missing, it could be one or two that we're missing right now, But we think with that 218 miles of roads that we can hopefully get that prioritized before. And, again, that's the plan, to get it prioritized before the budget season. I don't see a lot coming up in the future. Everything that goes forward in terms of new development is having sidewalks put on unless there is some sort of variance that we don't generally approve. So why do you need the request sheet if you already have them all identified? Well, I think one of the things, and, again, I'll come back to a key thing right here in terms of local, is this neighborhood support. I think what we will find is not all neighborhoods really want sidewalks, and this may give us a chance to put some of those requests or to get some more information in terms of who really wants that. I think when we are going to see that we're going to have some that are scored very similar, but you're going to have some neighborhoods that do not want the sidewalks and others that really want those sidewalks, that may push them up higher on that prioritization list. Okay, very good. And my time's up. I'll end by this question and comment. the developers as they buy a piece of land that's on one of your 218 miles are they still going to have the the onus to put that sidewalk in for their section or this in some cases go ahead and put the sidewalk in before the land's developed i think that's a that'll be one of those great situations in terms of how quickly the project would go but if you're putting in a new development project right now in an area that doesn't have does not have sidewalks you are to put in sidewalks but if we get to it before they do and again i think that's one of those They could start with a development plan, but they may not break ground anytime soon. That would be taken into account probably in terms of our rankings. If we know there's development that is coming up, it may push you down. It may push you to the top. I think that's something we'd need to consider on a case-by-case basis right now. We haven't considered it right here yet. Thank you. It's a good start. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Did you anticipate any action on this today or just a report? Just a report so far. All right. Very good. But, Council members, we need to conclude this conversation by about a quarter till so we can get in our next item of business, which is something that we need to do at the core level of what the committee is about. And then we'll roll the speed limit to the very first thing at our November meeting. So if you all could just keep your comments as brief for the necessity involved for time. Council Member Fred Brown. Thank you, Chair. I'll be brief. Thank you. This looks good. This is something that I've been looking for. And the only thing is, as I don't see any information there, I would like to have district streets. For me, I don't care what you do for the other district. If they want it, fine. But I'd like to have some district participation. Therefore, we could get into maybe the proposal on some information. Now, go to slide Armstrong Mill Road because I think it's a perfect example. I mean, this is hundreds of years old, or at least 50 or 60. But we, right now in the Transportation Policy Committee, this road for guttering, curbs and guttering and sidewalks is a $22 million project that's on the list for 2020, which is too far out as far as I'm concerned. Then we went to, we've got an Armstrong Mill Road small area plan that encompasses this particular road and what we can do. Now, the question is, do we have to have curbs and guttering in order to have sidewalks? You know, do those have to go hand in hand? I think what you're seeing, and again, I'll say this is probably the best way I can. Generally, we would like to have the curbs and gutters to go with it. In terms of this, this is envisioned more as a major road project than as a sidewalk project because curbs and gutters are important for this road. So we would like to see them in this project. I think you're going to find there's definitely locations where you do not have them. But as of now, when we put in sidewalks, we put in curbs and gutters. Okay. And, again, I think that helps a great deal with our stormwater. And do you have to have sidewalks on both sides of the street? I mean, that's just an additional cost that, you know, I never did feel like that was necessary in all cases. Is that? You know, and again, this is where I think we'll get into some of those situations where we have neighborhoods that don't want sidewalks on both sides. They have it on one. But I think when it comes to other things in terms of ADA compliance, which we heard a little bit about in the previous presentation, I think it is, again, in many cases it's wise to put it in. In some, you will find certain situations where maybe it is cost prohibitive. Again, as we go through that prioritization, we will try to identify those areas where we're. I'll not take any more time up. I'll get on one-on-one on you when we get a little bit of progress on this because I want to talk about this particular road. Thank you. In terms of district enumeration, we will put that on the database. Thank you. Let me just remind you all we're on a tight time turn here. Be direct and move on. Council Member Bledsoe. Thank you, Chair. So the number of people won't affect the rating unless there's a tie on the statistical analysis. I think we're going to have a lot that are probably scored very similarly. I don't have that. I don't want to look into a crystal ball and say we do, but I think it will help. I don't see how it can't help in terms of having a neighborhood that is really strongly in favor of getting one, whereas one, you don't have as much support. Now, again, some of that could be due to the fact we don't have a lot of response from certain neighborhoods, but they won. Okay, and on the state roads, like from Harrisburg Road, we've talked about that quite a bit, and I'm assuming we'd have to have state help or at least permission to do so. Correct. And then second, are you considering multi-use paths that are asphalt instead of sidewalks, which might make it more multi-use? I think we'd be open to that in terms of how it would best function. I know that right now we're talking about we've got a project on Southland Drive, and I think while we're talking about it in terms of a sidewalk, it could morph into a multimodal path. I think where we can do those sorts of things, it would be good. I think you can't do them everywhere, though. No. I think it would be in certain locations it would work better than others. So I think as we go through with our bike and pedestrian master plan, which we hope to be able to update, we can identify those locations to make the larger trail system as well. Okay. Thank you, Chair. Thank you very, very much. Council Member Lamb. Thank you, Chair. As in some of these other projects that we have, like infrastructure changes to the neighborhood, there's certain levels of neighborhood support that we require before we can move forward. Is there anything of that nature for this? I know it says neighborhood support, but how do the neighbors express their support? Do you have anything specific? We are going to try to do something a little more formal than this. Again, one of the things I think while we will get, this is a way to process requests. This is for everyone. In terms of getting more of a validation, I think it becomes a little bit more of a planning process that we want to make sure that this is something that we don't spring it upon a neighborhood, that they're getting a sidewalk, but that we do get a good level of support from them. So we will be making it a more formal process as we get closer to whether or not we are developing or designing those sidewalks. There will be a lot more communication with the council district, obviously, and trying to work with council members in terms of determining the level of support for sidewalks. And the neighborhood associations as well? Exactly. Well, we will probably spearhead things through the council members in terms of working with those neighborhood associations. So our first point of contact would be to be council members in terms of determining that. So working with you guys in the neighborhood associations. Okay. And then one real quick, the bike and pedestrian master plan, is that available on? It is online on the, I believe it's on both the MPO website, but also on our planning website. All right. Thanks. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, ma'am. Council Member Maloney. Thank you. I appreciate what you're doing here. The thing that concerns me, if you have sidewalks that are not up to ADA and are not handicapped accessible, will they get higher priority than some of these sidewalks that have not been built? It would be a different thing, but we are actually going through that process right now and trying to identify those locations that are not ADA compliant in terms of handicap access, in terms of the ramps at the streets. So we are going through and doing that right now. And we have some funds, I believe, that we were talking about putting in for our MAP funds for putting some of that in. But that is something we are working on right now. And we hope to do a more thorough analysis of all those sidewalks that do not have that. Those would be different in that it would not be the same level of construction necessary if what we're talking about is the existing sidewalk that is not ADA compliant. It would not be the same as the examples that I showed you here. And I know Council Member Henson is not here, Peggy. For sales road is what we're talking about. As you know how bad that road is, everything's slate city, and you've got people in wheelchairs that kind of keep forcing themselves up on the sidewalk to keep from going into the road. I just want to be sure that we fix our problems that exist now before we start building new sidewalks, which I think we do need new sidewalks, I agree, but fix the problems that are in problem now before we start putting them aside and still keep building new sidewalks and never catch up with these other sidewalks. And again, a key thing I want to remember is that this prioritization plan is just to inform the budgetary process. So I think what you're discussing right now is something that is kind of a tandem process, one, in terms of identifying ADA compliant, two, in terms of identifying those places where we do already have current existing issues. And I hope we wouldn't be competing for similar funds, but I think you are correct. our goal is to make sure that what we've got is at the very least ADA compliant and then also making sure that we've got those sidewalks that are problematic right now. Thank you. Thank you, sir. We'll keep this item in committee for direct follow-up. I appreciate the presentation today very much. Thank you, sir. All right, next item on our agenda is the municipal separate storm sewer system, MS4. This is kind of what I would call a required update. Welcome. Thank you. Please introduce yourself to us. Okay. I'm Jennifer Carey. I'm the MS4 Water Quality Section Manager in the Division of Water Quality. And this presentation will be a little different than probably most of the ones you hear because this is required by our MS4 permit to speak to you all annually about the MS4 program and the Stormwater Quality Program. We did receive a new permit from the Division of Water in the spring of this year. and the permit gives us a little more latitude as to what we can cover during this annual training. So some of you that have been around for a while have heard the same thing for the past five years, but we get to change it up a little bit. So I thought this first year we would focus on where we've been over the past five years and the changes and how we've really ramped up the stormwater quality management program in complying with our MS4 permit. And then toward the end of my presentation, will take a look at some of the challenges facing us during this next permit term. In our annual report that we have to submit to the Division of Water each year, we have to tabulate our expenditures by program element, and this slide kind of gives you an overview of how those expenditures have changed since fiscal year 2008. Early on, we were reporting on a fiscal year, but around calendar year 2010, we switched to a calendar year reporting system. So that's why there's a big gap in those first two bars on the chart. Over time, different program elements needed different emphasis or different amounts of staff time. The best example of that is toward the bottom of each bar. It's the legal section in orange. At the beginning, under the consent decree and when our MS4 permit, our prior term MS4 permit, became effective, the state and EPA and Department of Justice really required us to strengthen our ordinances related to the stormwater program and give us some more control authority and basically help us have a backbone to enforce our program. So in those first few years, we spent a lot of time drafting ordinances and getting those passed. And then as the years have progressed in calendar years 12, 13, and 14, there was not as much emphasis in that particular program. So things have certainly changed during the course of that permit term. and then taking a look at just our most recent recently completed calendar year just you can kind of see a comparison of how different program elements what percentage they are of the total our largest program is the post-construction program at 30 32 percent of our expenditures this is a large program it involves a lot of inspection it involves reviewing development plans to make sure that they are complying with the stormwater manual. It also involves mapping of our storm sewer system as well as repairs and maintenance that have to go into our MS4 system. The 24% category is the implementation of our water quality management fee. About half of that is related to our incentive grant program. So roughly 12% goes to the grant program each year. And then 16% is our construction site program. That's also known as our erosion and sediment control program, where we're making sure that construction sites aren't contributing sediment to our MS4 and then ultimately to our streams and creeks. So then just to give you an idea of the volume of work that's been completed over the years, The consent decree and our last permit require us to inspect 90% of active construction sites each month. So from January of 2009 to December of 2014, we averaged 422 active construction sites per month. And we hit that target at 99.2% of sites inspected each month. That's a huge amount of work. And then if sites are out of compliance, then we have to engage in additional inspections to follow up on notices of violation and things like that. So those folks are doing a significant amount of work each month. Our permit required us to develop a definition of what we would consider to be targeted active construction sites. That had to be completed by March of 2010. And once we had defined our targeted sites, then we had to start inspecting those twice a month. So it's running about 5% to 10% of our active construction sites are actually targeted active construction sites. Those are our larger development sites and also ones that are where construction is in or along a stream. So if a site's out of compliance, we have to get them into compliance, and one of those tools that we use a lot is notices of violation. Over the 2009 to 2014 time period, we ranged anywhere from just four NOVs issued a month to 113 per month. The average is 37 of those written each month. You can see that there was a substantial increase in NOVs written starting in about August of 2012. There were a couple of factors that went into that. First of all, in August of that year, we combined all of the inspections of new development and redevelopment sites being done by one group within government. So there was more consistency in the enforcement and evaluating what determined compliance. Secondly, we have an annual workshop with the construction and development community, and that was in August of that year. And at that workshop, we conveyed the message. We have been working on compliance with you all for several years now. You should know what we expect. Our ordinances are in force, and we're going to start ramping this up. And so that led to the marked increase in NOVs starting in mid-2012. If we can't get compliance through our NOVs, then we have to escalate enforcement. We send sites or entities to the Division of Environmental Services, and they're able to issue citations. And you can see the past three-year trend. In 2014, there were 39 citations issued, and those were to 29 individual addresses. So some locations were cited more than once during the year. And penalties collected. you can see an upward trend over the past three years with $21,300 collected in 2014. Another one of our programs that we have to implement since we are a medium to a large MS4 is to control pollution from industrial and high-risk commercial facilities. And you can see that we've got to conduct inspections, and our inventory hovers around 70 industrial facilities to about 18 or so high-risk commercial facilities that we are required to inspect at certain frequencies during our permit term. Another program element that all MS4 permittees have to adhere to is elicit discharge detection and elimination. and as a component of this program we conducted visual stream assessments during the last permit term this was a pretty significant undertaking it involved walking basically walking the drainage ways and streams in our urban service area and that totaled 100 almost 146 stream miles that were walked and we were looking for outfalls that any size outfall that was discharging into those drainage ways and into those streams, and we found almost 2,300 of those and mapped those, and then we also had to note if they were flowing during dry weather. So that was a huge effort. Another component of the IDDE program is to do dry weather screening of the major outfalls. These are the 36-inch and larger outfalls. This has to be done once every two years with a minimum of 125 completed a year. You can see the number of major outfalls that we have by watershed. We have a total of 361. So that has to be done in a dry weather period. There has to have been no rain within the prior 72 hours. And when you do go out and complete a screening, you actually have to go to that outfall twice in one day. So that's a large effort. There has to be a four-hour break because you're just verifying whether or not it's a location where there's dry weather flow, and then that could potentially trigger an illicit discharge investigation. This slide gives you an idea of the number of investigations that we conducted each year of the last permit cycle, anywhere from around 200 to just over 350 a year. And once we're able to identify a responsible party, then we can begin compliance and enforcement, and the tools we use in this program start with public education and informal notices, and if we have trouble achieving compliance through those measures, then we can issue NOVs and ultimately lead to citation, which we've had very few of those related to this particular program element. So leaving IDDE and moving to post-construction, like I said earlier, there's a lot of inspections that are involved with the post-construction Pollution Prevention Program. One of those is our critical culvert list, and this is 51 locations that we're concerned can get blocked or clogged during high rain events. We're required to go out once a month and inspect these locations and do any maintenance that we find as a result of those inspections. In addition to the monthly inspection, though, we also have to go out within three working days of any rain event that's greater than one inch in a calendar day. So I just put together a graph of how many additional rounds of inspections that triggered over the years. So, you know, roughly between nine and 23 times, in addition to our monthly inspections, we have to go out and look at these critical culverts. Water quality controls were another component in the last permit cycle, basically it said we need to develop an inventory and map of where they are and then start inspecting them. We didn't really have a good handle on where all we had water quality controls, and these are stormwater control devices. I'm not talking about detention basins and retention ponds at this point, so these are just usually manufactured devices that a developer uses to manage and control water quality. So you can see the privately owned ones are the blue bars, and that inventory has increased steadily over the permit term. And in fact, this year to date, we have added an additional 242. So once those are on our known inventory, then we have to start annually inspecting them and working with property owners to make sure they're maintaining those. Retention ponds and detention basins are another large component of our inspection program. Retention ponds have to be inspected once a month, detention basins twice a year. There's currently 111 ponds on our inventory and over about 1,180 or so detention basins that we have to look at twice a year. So areas of concern as we go forward. There's been a lot of talk about clarifying maintenance responsibilities. I know that's something that this committee is going to be taking a look at. It's of concern to Division of Water Quality. So, you know, any changes that come as a result of looking at that program will certainly impact our staff. And then on the illicit discharge detection and elimination program, The same six folks who look at all the active construction sites also do the illicit discharge investigations. So if we see a substantial uptick in construction, that's going to have bearing on the productivity that we can see in regards to eliminating illicit discharges. So another component of our new permit is implementing total maximum daily loads. and using our illicit discharges and what we're able to eliminate is really going to help us calculate and strengthen our implementation of that program. So there's a lot of interplay there that has me a little concerned. So looking at some of our near-term permit requirements, these are things where we're hoping to get stakeholder involvement. If you all have any interest in having input on any of these or if you have constituents that would like to engage on any of these programs, please let me know. But we do have to revise our stormwater quality management program this year. We have to develop a watershed-focused monitoring program. We have to review and evaluate the stormwater design manual. And then we also have to develop a pilot watershed report card webpage. So those are some of the big items that we're going to be tackling between now and June 1st of 2016. So have you fulfilled your requirement of giving us a complete report at this time? Yes. Folks may have questions. They can meet with you offline about that. We appreciate the colorful nature of your report today. I had pants most of those colors in college. Thank you. A question, Chair. Probably wouldn't hurt. Yes, sir. Go ahead. motion second second any discussion all those in favor opposed like side thank you very much motion to adjourn in a second we are in adjournment thank you Thank you.