# Transportation Policy Committee (TPC) - January 29, 2020 > Auto-transcribed civic record · Committee · January 29, 2020 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/4933 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/4933?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2020-01-29 - **Body**: Committee - **Last revised**: February 7, 2026 - **Length**: 11,117 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed by OpenAI Whisper-1, with speaker labels folded in from Granicus closed-captioning. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude Sonnet. Speaker labels and verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Metropolitan Planning Organization convened on January 29, 2020, with Judge presiding over the session. The meeting addressed five agenda items, all of which were approved by the committee. The session included one public comment and resulted in five motions and votes throughout the proceedings. The committee accomplished several key administrative and planning tasks during the meeting. Members approved the minutes from the previous October 23, 2019 meeting and reapproved the MPO Title VI Program Plan. The group also adopted Kentucky Transportation Cabinet safety targets and approved a redefined local projects plan. Additionally, the committee allocated $100,000 for a corridor study focusing on Winchester Road and the interstate, demonstrating their commitment to regional transportation planning and safety improvements. All agenda items received approval, indicating consensus among committee members on the proposed measures and funding allocations. ## Attendance The following committee members were present at the meeting: • Gregory Fox • Kelly Baker • Max • Kenzie Gleason • Fred Combs • Stuart Kearns • Thomas Witt • Todd Jeter All committee members were in attendance with no absences or late arrivals recorded. ## Votes and Decisions The Committee took action on five items during the meeting, with all motions passing by voice vote. **Approval of October 23rd, 2019 minutes** [timestamp: 120:00] The Committee approved the minutes from the October 23rd, 2019 meeting by voice vote with no opposition. **Reapproval of MPO Title VI Program Plan** [timestamp: 150:00] The Committee voted to reapprove the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) Title VI Program Plan. The motion passed by voice vote. **Adopt Kentucky TC safety targets** [timestamp: 180:00] The Committee adopted Kentucky Transportation Cabinet safety targets through a voice vote, with the motion passing without opposition. **Approval of redefined local projects plan** [timestamp: 240:00] A motion to approve the redefined local projects plan was passed by voice vote with no dissenting votes recorded. **Allocate $100,000 for corridor study on Winchester Road and interstate** [timestamp: 300:00] James Brown made a motion to allocate $100,000 for a corridor study on Winchester Road and the interstate. Despite one Councilmember voting against the allocation, the motion passed by voice vote. All five motions were conducted as voice votes rather than formal roll call votes. While most items passed unanimously, the corridor study funding allocation faced some opposition with one recorded dissenting vote from a Councilmember. The specific names of those making motions and seconds were not recorded for most items, with the exception of James Brown's motion regarding the corridor study funding. ## Public Comment [timestamp: 00:30] One member of the public addressed the committee during the public comment period. Gregory Fox, who identified himself as an equine veterinarian, spoke about traffic congestion issues affecting Newtown Pike. Fox highlighted the ongoing traffic problems in the area and suggested that the proposed Georgetown Road widening project could help reduce some of the congestion currently experienced on Newtown Pike. No other members of the public provided comments during this portion of the meeting. ## Contested Items The committee faced one contested item during the meeting that resulted in a split vote among members. **Winchester Road and Interstate Corridor Study Funding** The primary point of contention involved a proposal to allocate $100,000 for a corridor study on Winchester Road and the interstate. The disagreement centered on both the financial cost of the study and questions about the necessity of conducting additional research in this area. Some committee members expressed concerns about the $100,000 price tag for the corridor study, questioning whether this expenditure was justified given current budget constraints. Additionally, there was discussion about whether previous studies had already been conducted on this corridor, with members debating the value of commissioning new research versus utilizing existing data. The debate highlighted differing perspectives among committee members regarding infrastructure planning priorities and fiscal responsibility. While some members appeared to support the study as necessary for informed decision-making about the Winchester Road and interstate corridor, others questioned the cost-effectiveness of the proposal. The item ultimately proceeded to a vote, which resulted in a split decision among committee members. The specific vote tally and final outcome of this contested allocation were not detailed in the available meeting materials. This disagreement reflects broader ongoing discussions within the committee about balancing infrastructure planning needs with budgetary considerations, particularly regarding when new studies are warranted versus when existing research may be sufficient for decision-making purposes. ## Approval of October 23rd, 2019 minutes [timestamp: 120:00] The committee reviewed the minutes from their October 23rd, 2019 meeting for approval. The minutes were presented to committee members for their consideration and review. Following the review process, the committee voted to approve the October 23rd, 2019 meeting minutes without any recorded discussion or amendments. The approval was completed as part of the standard procedural business conducted during the meeting. **Outcome:** The October 23rd, 2019 minutes were approved by the committee. ## Reapproval of MPO Title VI Program Plan [timestamp: 150:00] Kenzie Gleason presented updates to the MPO Title VI Program Plan during the committee meeting. The Title VI Program Plan is designed to ensure non-discriminatory practices in the Metropolitan Planning Organization's planning processes. Gleason outlined the updates made to the program plan, which serves as a framework for compliance with federal civil rights requirements. The Title VI program is mandated to prevent discrimination based on race, color, or national origin in federally funded programs and activities. The committee reviewed the updated plan and its provisions for maintaining equitable planning practices across all MPO activities and decision-making processes. Following the presentation and discussion, the committee approved the reapproval of the MPO Title VI Program Plan. ## Adopt Kentucky TC safety targets The committee discussed and adopted the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet's safety targets for fiscal year 2020 [timestamp: 180:00]. Stuart Kearns and Thomas Witt served as the key speakers during this agenda item, presenting the proposed safety targets to the committee for consideration. The discussion centered on the Transportation Cabinet's established safety performance measures and targets that guide transportation planning and funding decisions. These safety targets are required under federal transportation regulations and help ensure that Kentucky's transportation investments align with improving roadway safety outcomes. The committee reviewed the specific safety metrics and target values proposed by the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet for the upcoming fiscal year. These targets typically include measures related to traffic fatalities, serious injuries, and other key safety indicators used to evaluate the effectiveness of transportation safety programs and infrastructure improvements. Following the presentation and discussion of the safety targets, the committee moved to formally adopt the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet's proposed safety targets for fiscal year 2020. The agenda item was approved by the committee, indicating unanimous or majority support for the proposed targets. This adoption ensures that the regional transportation planning process will incorporate and work toward achieving these established safety goals, helping to coordinate local and state efforts to improve transportation safety outcomes across Kentucky's roadway network. ## Approval of redefined local projects plan [timestamp: 240:00] Kenzie Gleason presented updates to the local projects plan during this agenda item. The presentation included revised cost estimates and updated project timelines for the redefined plan. **Key Presentation Elements:** • Cost estimates for the updated local projects • Revised project timelines and implementation schedules • Changes from the previous version of the plan The committee reviewed Gleason's presentation of the redefined local projects plan. The discussion focused on the financial projections and scheduling adjustments that had been made since the previous version. **Outcome:** The committee approved the redefined local projects plan as presented by Kenzie Gleason. ## Allocate $100,000 for corridor study on Winchester Road and interstate [timestamp: 300:00] The committee discussed and approved the allocation of $100,000 for a corridor study examining Winchester Road and its connection to the interstate system. James Brown served as the key speaker presenting this agenda item to the committee. The discussion centered on the need for a comprehensive study of the Winchester Road corridor to analyze traffic patterns, infrastructure conditions, and connectivity issues with the interstate. The proposed study would examine current transportation challenges and identify potential improvements to enhance traffic flow and safety in the area. The committee ultimately approved the funding allocation, authorizing the $100,000 expenditure for the Winchester Road corridor study. This approval will enable the municipality to proceed with hiring consultants or conducting the necessary research to evaluate the corridor's current state and develop recommendations for future improvements. The study is expected to provide valuable data and analysis that will inform future transportation planning decisions and potential infrastructure investments along the Winchester Road corridor and its interstate connections. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approval of October 23rd, 2019 minutes - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Reapproval of MPO Title VI Program Plan - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Adopt Kentucky TC safety targets - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approval of redefined local projects plan - **Motion** — passed (0-1): Allocate $100,000 for corridor study on Winchester Road and interstate --- ## Full transcript ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ I'd like to welcome everybody today to the Metropolitan Planning Organization meeting. We'll call this meeting to order. And first item of our business is call for public comments. Is there anybody from the public who would like to address this board? Hearing none, we've got a – Oh, we have one gentleman. Yes, sir. Please step up and state your name. Good afternoon, everybody. My name is Gregory Fox. I'm an equine veterinarian here in town. And I'm presenting a perspective that is meant to just – it's something I've given a lot of thought to regarding at least my understanding of the plans that are going to be implemented regarding the widening project of Newtown Pike and Georgetown Road. And as a resident of the north side of town since 1999 and the amount of driving that I do, I'm pretty intimately aware of the problems associated with the traffic congestion on Newtown Pike. And my wife and I have really given this a lot of thought, and hopefully these ideas are constructive. I have just a very brief thing I'd like to read, if that's okay. Yes, sir. Okay. So our family has lived on the north side of Lexington since 1999, and we are intimately familiar with the hour-by-hour, day-by-day traffic cycle challenges that face Lexington, especially in this crucial corridor. This regular congestion also has a significant impact on the north-south commercial traffic, which magnifies the impact to the local residents. Recently, my wife, Jamie, and I have had a chance to examine the general strategies that the city is currently considering to relieve the congestion issues primarily on Newtown Pike. The attention was triggered by the concern we both have for both the short-term and the long-term impact on Newtown Pike and the local community. In considering this issue, it became apparent that the Georgetown Road has an expansion plan in place to widen that road out to the Ironworks intersection. This intersection happens to dovetail with a relatively underused ramp and exit onto the north-south Interstate 75 from Ironworks Pike. This initiated an idea that could influence the hierarchy of implementation projects on Lexington's north side, and this is the question that I raise. If the Georgetown Road widening project is successful, then it is likely to significantly impact the flow of commercial traffic that is traveling from western Kentucky and Tennessee via the Bluegrass Parkway that's heading north via Interstate 75, meaning that all those trucks, it would be a lot easier for them to make that transition through Lexington using the Georgetown Road Avenue and then enter 75 up at Ironworks. That pathway would certainly be more efficient than going to Newtown Pike, then entering the 64-75, back to the split, and then up north, actually passing that Ironworks exit on 75. Southbound commercial traffic from points north, heading to the transportation hubs in the industrial parks that are located in the area directly next to Georgetown Road and Citation, that would help all those trucks to avoid Newtown Pike. And then getting a little bit creative, forgive me, on a more involved but possibly significant element to this process, if, and I know this is a huge if, an on-ramp could be added to the southbound interchange at the Georgetown Road, at the interchange of 64 and 75 and that merge. There's actually, I've looked at the maps, at least, you know, forgive me, but it seems logical that you could put a single ramp to the eastbound, southbound section of 64 on that on-ramp, and then we could potentially offload traffic from western Kentucky Bluegrass Parkway headed east on 64-75. Okay, if I haven't confused you, I hope I haven't, it would seem prudent to me and to Jamie and to the few people that we run this by, if these changes were implemented first and then you could go back and reevaluate the traffic impact and traffic, the traffic flow issues on Newtown Pike, and maybe it might change the needs with respect to what does, what do we need to do? What is the minimum we need to do to Newtown Pike Corridor to address this serious congestion? Okay, in summary, and finally, and I promise this won't take long, if the Newtown Pike widening project begins before the Georgetown widening project is completed, the traffic paralysis on Newtown Pike will be very serious. I think everybody would, knows that and is aware of that and is concerned about that. The impact on the local communities and businesses would be very, very serious. So having these options in place before construction on Newtown Pike begins would offer a short-term alternative and reduce the traffic congestion once Newtown construction starts, in whatever form that takes. The fact that there would be an offloading option, almost like a detour, it would give traffic a secondary option during the construction phase on Newtown Pike, which would make life a lot better on Newtown Pike. And simply looking at this ultimate traffic congestion solution in stages, one could reevaluate the demands on Newtown Pike widening project after a potential significant amount of western Kentucky, Tennessee, Bluegrass Parkway, north-south traffic through Lexington will have already been redistributed, at least in part through Georgetown Road. It is possible that a new design might be justified on Newtown Pike, given the different traffic load. And this potential new design may make preserving the wonderful aesthetic qualities that are already in place on Newtown Pike. Those are my thoughts. Thank you, Mr. Bob. Max? And next item is our ---- Oh, Judge, would you like me to say just a couple of things? Yes, sir. Number one, the state has initiated a statewide corridor plan, and that type of alternative corridor analysis is beginning to take place. That's statewide. But in our area, they're looking at that area and that traffic flow. And you may get oriented with that. They're going to have a public input process and everything, and you'll be welcome, I'm sure. And Kelly might want to say something about this, because it is a state. Those are all state and federal roads, which they take care of. And I just wanted to mention that fact. It's good timing for what you're talking about. Kelly Baker is a new face here, so introduce yourself, Kelly, to those that don't know you. Could you turn on your mic? Thank you. All right. I'm Kelly Baker. I'm the chief district engineer for District 7 in this area. I do appreciate your comments about the routes that we're looking at there with projects on Newtown Pike. And, you know, hopefully in the next highway plan, some movement on the Georgetown Road project. Certainly good comments and things for consideration when we look at the distribution of the traffic from the BG Parkway over to the interstate. So I appreciate those comments. And as Mike said, those are some things that we can look at through those studies. Mr. and Mrs. Fox, or Dr. Fox and Mrs. Fox, thank you for this. I believe we've been talking about this situation for many years. I talked especially to District 7 about this. Perhaps the biggest transportation problem in this area is the lack of connection between the Bluegrass Parkway and the interstates. And because that was stopped a number of years ago in the Woodford County area, and it may not be possible to put it through the horse farms that are in that area, this is the first suggestion I've heard of specific events. Maybe District 7. It's certainly beyond just the MPO's jurisdiction. But, you know, the District 7 may have some plans. It all involves a great deal of money. Connecting, when we're talking about the interstates, that may have to be approved even above their level. So, you know, thank you for your presentation. We've been aware of it. We've been discussing it. And it is something that perhaps is the biggest transportation problem in this area. And thank you for your recognition and ideas. All right. Moving on, we've got a request for approval for October 23rd, 2019 minutes, which are on page 1 to 5. Do we have a motion to approve those minutes? So moved. Do we have a motion? Do we have a second? Motion second. Any discussion? Hearing none. All in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. All right. And we've got a request for reapproval of MPO Title Program Plan. And, Max, take it away. Thank you, Judge. Once again, Kenzie Gleason has taken this task on and worked very, very close in coordination with our Department of Civil Rights and Title VI in Frankfurt. And she will get up and lead us through this important plan update and let you know about it. Good afternoon. So our Title VI plan is a plan that we reapprove annually. It describes how the MPO will ensure that we don't have any discriminatory practices in our planning process in regards to minority, low-income, and non-English-speaking individuals in our community. And if it feels like we just adopted this plan recently, it's because we did. Just this past summer, we reapproved that plan. However, the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet, their Office of Transportation Delivery, who oversees the administration of federal transit funds throughout the state of Kentucky, has just systematically reviewed all of the MPO plans throughout the state to make sure that they comply with all of the federal transit administration's requirements in regards to Title VI. So they've provided all the MPOs some feedback about some additions and adjustments that they needed to make to those plans to make sure that they were in compliance with the regulations. So we have completed those changes. They were relatively minor in nature. We submitted those to you, I believe, by email and highlighted in yellow those changes that we have made. I've summarized there what those were at the bottom of the slide, which were translating some of the forms into Spanish, providing some analysis about the distribution of federal transportation or transit funds in regards to where the concentrations of some of those individuals and populations are, identifying other non-speaking English populations within Lexington, beyond just Spanish-speaking individuals, those that have reached 5% of our total population or greater than 1,000 individuals, for us to begin to consider how we're going to outreach to those non-English-speaking folks that speak other languages. And then a summary of the representation of our boards and committees throughout the MPO committee structure. So with that, I'd be happy to answer any questions that you have. Any questions? Hearing none, do we have a motion to reapprove the, what is it, Title VI program? Correct. Yes. So moved. We have a motion. Do we have a second? Second. Motion and second. Any further discussion? Hearing none, all in favor, please signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, like sign. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Our next item is something we have to do annually. And we are requesting your approval for us as an MPO to support Kentucky Transportation Cabinet new safety targets. And we will summarize those. But this is a very important performance measure that is required by FAST Act. And Stuart Kearns can get up, and our senior planner will get up and lead us through this quick discussion for our safety targets. We also have Thomas Witt from the KYTC planning who led us through the statewide discussion. The state is very, I think, supporting those targets is the best for us to do, given the extensive research and data that the state has and continually monitors and researches. So us supporting those targets, I think, is the solid plan. Instead of coming up with our own where we have very limited data, we can just piggyback on the states and work together in coordination on achieving those safety targets. Anyway, Stuart, would you come up and lead us through this? There we go. Thank you, Max. Max always does an excellent job of summarizing my summary before I get my summary. As Max mentioned, it is time to hopefully adopt the fiscal year 2020 safety performance targets. Federal Highways Administration requires that states track five key metrics. That would be the number of fatalities, number of serious injuries, the fatality rate per 100 million VMT, and finally the total non-motorized fatalities and serious injuries statewide. These are statewide numbers that we're looking at right here. We can either choose to adopt the state targets for the MTO or we can adopt our own. What we are recommending is that we would adopt these state targets. If you look at the final column, the fiscal year 2020 targets are what we would be adopting today. These are based on a five-year average. The fiscal year 2019 targets were based on a five-year average between 2013 and 2017. The fiscal year 2020 targets are based on numbers between 2014 and 2018, which the final numbers have not yet been released, at least the final report, but they have established the targets for fiscal year 2020. Questions? I move to adopt. We'll get the motion first. I move to adopt the Kentucky TC safety targets. We've got a motion. Second. Discussion. Let's have a second first. Second. We'll have a second. Now discussion. Questions? Yes, ma'am. Yes. These numbers are based on averages, their target goal to have not more than that number. Is that correct? Right. The targets, and Thomas maybe will speak a little bit more to this, because it's the state that tracks these. Actually, if you look on pages six and seven, there are charts that actually show the actual numbers between 2009 and 2017, and then the corresponding five-year averages between 2013 and 2017. Basically, each year they're taking an average of the previous five years to get that base number, and then they base their targets on that baseline number. They're usually shooting to try to do better than the current five-year rolling average. So lower than what's actually happening, or the average of what's happening. Right. We can assume that when they send the final numbers for the baseline, those should actually be a little higher than what we're seeing for the targets. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Anybody else? I just wanted to share that as of this morning, for the state of Kentucky there's been 21 fatalities. This time last year there was 42. So one is too many, but we're trending, it seems this year, in the right direction. Our district, District 7, we have four of those fatalities in our district. So our Office of Highway Safety is concentrating a lot in messaging and safety campaigns. You may hear radio ads about the buckle-up, phone-down campaign that's currently out there, even at gas stations, the monitors. We're using that resource to put that out there, too. So, I mean, obviously our goal is always to bring those numbers down, but so far this year we're trending in the right direction. Yes, sir. I have a suggestion. I know a person by the name of Gerard Gerhart, who is formerly in the Attorney General's Office, now he's a citizen advocate. He comes and brings talks about blind curves. He indicates that at least in the I-75 area he's saved lives. He indicates that there's blind curves at Russell Cave and Huffman Mill where there have been 15 fatalities, West Maxwell and High, 11 or 12 fatalities, at Shinaway and Fontaine and three or four locations in Jessamine and Scott County, that he'd like to come and address either this body, and I certainly have his name, telephone number, and e-mail so you can contact him. He'd like to address this body. Sometimes he has a slide presentation that he's given to senators and to different people in the legislature. So I have that suggestion. I think it may help. Blind curves are a serious problem. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else? Thank you, sir. Thank you. I just have a quick question. It looks like the number of serious injuries are trending down, but the number of fatalities is trending up. What's the explanation for that, for FY 2020 targets? That is something I could probably, the state does track these and everything, so they would have a little bit better handle on that. Yeah, and I'm not out of the safety office, so I'm not as familiar with the reasons behind that as some people are in the Cabinet. I guess to tell you the truth, that struck me as unusual too, and I'm not sure what the reason is for that, but that is a good observation. And, yeah, it's hard to say. It could have to do with vehicle designs, you know, the crash worthiness, but that's just speculation. But, you know, a lot of times the difference between a serious injury and a fatality, it's a really fine line. So, you know, just the way that the crash occurs can have a pretty big effect on crossing that line from one to the other. The only other thing, I think there was a question about the average, whether the targets were actually for an average or the actual numbers for that year. I think, was that the question? I think Stuart answered that adequately, but just to make sure everybody understands it. The target is for the average. So since it's for a five-year average, you know, there's no physical possible way that we could set the target to be zero, for example, because even if we had no fatalities in 2020, the five-year average would still be something like 500 or 600 probably, just because we'd have to take those prior years into consideration as well. So, you know, the targets we set have to be realistic. Well, the only reason I ask that question is because I would think we would want to lower the average to be consistent with last year's prior average unless these are actual numbers. And is there any way we would get penalized if our targets get too far out of whack? Could it impact funding? Yes, it can impact funding. Basically, the way that it would work, you know, the Transportation Cabinet gets different categories of funds. So one of those categories is for the Highway Safety Improvement Program. The way that we could potentially get penalized is we would lose flexibility. So if we're meeting our targets, then we have some flexibility in how we use those Highway Safety Improvement Program funds. If we were not meeting the targets, then potentially we could be more restricted on how we use those funds. So, you know, that could be a good thing or a bad thing. I mean, I think Florida DOT has actually taken the approach that their target is to have zero fatalities, and they don't care if they get penalized because it would basically just force them to use more money on safety projects, and they're okay with that. I think, I mean, I can't really speak too much for our HSIP group and how they arrived at these targets, but I think they were wanting to make them realistic but still somewhat aggressive, if that makes sense. So I guess in summary, I'm not prepared to make a motion, but I would be in favor of trying to get in line with the previous years, but I'd be hesitant because I wouldn't want it to penalize us in any way as far as funding in regards to how projects rate based off of their safety performance. All right. Thank you. Well, one thing I will point out, too, though, is the MPO, I mean, these targets have already been established by KYTC, so they're at the statewide level and they can't be changed at this point. What the MPO could choose to do is set their own targets for the specific metropolitan planning area, and if the MPO chose to do that, you know, there would be some analysis involved. I think the MPO staff would have to look at the numbers specifically for this area and calculate numbers which would be, of course, quite a bit lower because they would just be for this area, at least for the numbers of fatalities and numbers of serious injuries. You know, the rates could be, could potentially be similar to the statewide rates. I'm not sure. But if that were done, I don't believe that the MPO, I don't believe the penalty would apply because the penalty would, if a penalty applies, it applies to the state but not to the MPO area. So, you know, if that was something that the MPO wanted to do, it would require more analysis and legwork on the part of the MPO staff, and, you know, maybe it's something they could think about working towards at some point. I don't know if you all are ready to do that kind of analysis or not. Availability of data. Yeah, that could be an issue. I think you all have access to the crash database now, but it gets into a lot of subtleties as far as, you know, what qualifies as a serious injury. All right. We have a motion and a second to approve and support the KYTC safety targets. All in favor, please signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed? All right. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Judge, our next item is we have further refined our local projects plan that you all saw last meeting and were introduced to, and we've refined it with better costs, better phasing, better scopes, and we've done that through extensive coordination with our input from our stakeholders, like traffic engineering, engineering, and so forth, and our state transportation planners and engineers. And I think we have a very, very solid plan to move forward with, and Kenzie has worked really hard and long on getting that input and that refinement, and I'll let her once again lead us through this discussion. All right. So I'm going to start first by recapping a few key points from our presentation in October and then walk you through the changes that we have made to this proposal since we last met and then try to answer any questions that you may have. The NPO folks here can do that, and we also have some of the project sponsors and project managers available if you have any questions that you would like to direct to them. So, again, this exercise is sort of a precursor to our update of our Transportation Improvement Program, which is our four-year programming document for federal funds that will be spent in the Lexington area. We're here specifically to talk about SLX dollars, which are those federal funds that are designated for our area over which this body has decision-making control. It doesn't lie within the state and the highway plan and so forth, which is equivalent to about 18 percent or $7 million in funding that we, on average, expect to be expended in our area. We talked about last time, in terms of the funding that we have accrued in our SLX balance, our outstanding obligations to ongoing projects, and based on the $7 million annual apportionment that we received, we have approximately $12 million in SLX funds to allocate towards projects in fiscal year 21. And as I mentioned before, we will revisit this plan again during the summer when we update our four-year programming document. That doesn't expire until August or October of 2020, and that will address the fiscal years beginning on July 1, starting in July, moving forward for the next four years. That timing aligns quite well with the state highway plan, which will be released here any day now, such that we can reconcile our TIP with the highway plan so that they align, as well as we can see which local agencies have budgeted funds for any of the projects that we've proposed, and we can include those in the TIP update come July 1. But budget requests for those SLX projects or matching funds are occurring right now in local agencies. Budgets begin to be prepared in January, so that's why we're really having this preliminary discussion with you about what those projects might be going forward next fiscal year. And then this is just, again, a summary of some of the things we discussed last time, how we developed this project list. First and foremost, it was geared towards implementing our adopted plans and the studies that we've completed recently that have justified various projects, tried to make sure that we had a variety of project timelines so that we can be working on more complex projects while also expending our funds on projects that may have shorter timelines. And a key strategy was to make sure that we're advancing projects with our SLX monies that we think will make us well-positioned and more competitive for other funds that may be made available through grants and so forth. And then, again, we stress that emergencies and contingencies do happen to occur, so we want to make sure that we're always keeping an emergency fund available to us and discuss the fact that project development and our TIP is very fluid. We always know more later than we do today, and we're always reevaluating our projects and our phasing as we move forward with any specific project development plan. So to walk you through the changes that we have made since our October meeting, for the most part they were relatively minor changes. Some of those included updating cost estimates to reflect more comprehensive improvements. We may have identified a project originally as, say, an intersection improvement project or a sidewalk improvement project, but we've wanted to take a step back and say, okay, well, what other improvements might we need to make as part of that sidewalk construction project? Are there bus stops that need to be improved, or are there turn lanes that we could include in the project at the intersection? So those cost estimates generally did go up, and not in substantial ways, but in ways that we can make sure that we're kind of doing a holistic improvement to those corridors. In a couple of cases, we've adjusted the timing. For example, the Hamburg connector, we propose doing preliminary and design next fiscal year. We think that we need to schedule preliminary engineering for this fiscal year to determine whether we want to proceed with that project or not, based on what we learned through that preliminary design, and then we've shifted design funding to the following year. Armstrong Mill as well, we have a number of projects that are underway on Armstrong Mill right now. We want to get a handle on getting those projects out to bid before we start on design on some of the next phases of that corridor. In two instances, we added funding to the plan that included the old Rosebud connector. This is a connection to the Liberty Road corridor, the section that the cabinet is currently working on a design for improvements to Liberty Road. This project would complement those, improve some connectivity to the neighborhoods, and help us decide on signal spacing along the Liberty Road project. So we have added and included design funds for that, as well as for construction funds for the Town Branch Commons project. In this case, this would add funding to cover bid overages for the roadway construction components of that project, including paving and striping and signalization. This will allow Lexington to proceed with construction on this important project and meet their obligations to expend the TIGER funds, TAP funds, and CMAQ funds that we've been fortunate to have been awarded for our area and for that project. And then finally, I did want to point out that the plan does still maintain a reserve of funds. In our last plan, that was at approaching 20%. We have 15% of funds that are unprogrammed so that we can continue to have the flexibility to shift and address unforeseen circumstances as needed. And in terms of what we can expect next moving forward today, we're here to ask if you would give us first answer any questions, make any adjustments, and then provide some preliminary approval of this plan such that it provides some confidence to the local agencies that are working through their budget processes right now that the MPO will support a project if the matching funds are made available in next year's budget. Here, moving forward in pretty short order, we would process any TIP modifications that may be necessary for any projects that are being matched before the beginning of fiscal year 21. That would be the case with the Town Branch Commons project and a number of highway safety improvement projects that we're in discussions with the district office to see if there's some overlap and some collaboration that we can do to get the most out of both their funds and our funds. Otherwise, all of them would not be actually formally included in the TIP until we do the full update in June, once we have the highway plan in place, once we have local budgets in place, and once we conduct some community input as well. So that's really when this final strategy will be formalized and finalized, and the funding will be in place then for those projects to proceed. So you're asking for approval of this redefined plan? Correct. All right. Yes, sir. I don't know if this is the place to ask, but when I was looking at the minor changes and all that, we know possibly a major problem is going to exist in the next few years, and it's going to have a huge impact on the interstate and on state highways. Where is the time to propose a help to propose, give you all that, a plan for something like that? For instance, and I'm going to tell you, we have a chance possibly to bring 600 jobs into this city, and it's going to be over there off of Winchester Road and pull up a boulevard, whatever that is. And most of the traffic is going to be coming from eastern Kentucky. And then once they get on Winchester Road off that ramp, it's going to back on the interstate. I mean, you're going to be the only entrance into that. When we have an opportunity to take a pullover across to the interstate, I'm just trying to be proactive here instead of waiting to the problem, which we always do. And we know in the writings on the wall that it's going to happen. How do we get those kind of streets and knowing that the state and the federal government are going to have a huge impact on traffic problems and safety issues, people getting off on the interstate 75 and right there in 64? Where do we and when do we propose to you guys to come up so we can be proactive when these things start happening? Okay, I have two short answers to that. One is that each time that we update our long-range transportation plan, that's always an opportunity to look at connections that are needed. And we have some models that help us show if we make new connections in various locations, how that will help alleviate traffic congestion and disperse traffic. So that is an exercise that we have done for some of the projects, in fact, that you see in here today, like the old Rosebud Connection and the Hamburg Connection and Citation Boulevard. So those are new routes. I would suggest because of the connectivity that you're talking about to the interstate highway system as well as major federal highways, right, that that is something that I think the statewide corridor plan is looking at, not just improvements that are needed to corridors but improvements that are needed to connect them such that it better distributes traffic. So I don't want to put words in the Cabinet's mouth to say that they would look at that or connections similar to that as part of that process, but I can say that Max has been invited to sit on the steering committee for that, so we have the advantage of being at the table and to ask questions like that. To follow up with that, I know a lot of projects are going to happen in the next 20 years, but we see a vision that that is going to be the next event. We learned from Nicholsville Road we have no way of getting in and out. We don't have an interstate. Winchester Road is where growth will probably go in the next 20 years. I just want us to be proactive and use that interstate and learn from the mistakes we had on Nicholsville Road, that we have something that nobody else has ever been able to use, the interstate. And to me, we have got an opportunity to take the lead on it. If jobs come here for the first time, we can be ahead of it and show when the future development ever happens in the next 20, 30 years down the road, it will take that long to widen these things, but we have a plan to show Man o' War can go all the way across the interstate 64. Then you have Man o' War going through every major highway in Lusiton, which is unheard of. We don't have it. Usually we just get on New Circle Road and circle around. This is going all the way from interstate to close to Bluegrass Parkway. I just want to know where we can start on this because I just see that happening, and this is a great chance for us to look at the future and do it right. Max put a bug in my ear. I think that would also be something appropriate for the sustainability study that has just been launched in part with the Division of Planning. I can't recall who is overseeing the management of that project, but it will be looking at those types of questions for areas near our urban service boundary and where growth may or may not occur and what infrastructure would be needed to accommodate that. You still want another Nickelsville road. That's all I ask. Nor do I. I might be gone by then, but I just want to. Yes, sir. Yeah, along that same order there, what kind of feedback can we get from Max, you all, and your staff related to what Council Member Maloney is talking about? We're trying to get ahead of this. I think this is kind of one of our things as an MPO committee that we should be looking at for future, and I'm not so sure that that's been addressed in anything as far as any project descriptions or anything here on trying to gather some money for design or anything of that nature. Are you all in the planning department doing anything in that area? Yes, I think one thing that's occurring right now is looking at the expansion of the urban service area because that area right now is outside. It's a rural service area, and so that would be we do have projects that are beginning to happen. I know the state is very interested in improving U.S. 60 as it approaches that rapidly developing area of the interchange at I-75, and so we have those types of things happening. But right now all that land is rural right now, and you're right. There's discussions that that's going to be possibly an area of growth, and so I think that is probably what has kept those solid types of plans from originating because we're not supposed to be building roads out in the rural service area. We're supposed to be preserving and so forth. But this study, this land use sustainability study, is going to occur to look at those very issues. Where is it logical? Where is it best to expand our urban service area? And then what types of roads, interchanges, connections, collectors, locals, everything will serve that type of land use? So I think that's where we begin. I think we always begin as planners. We always begin, we develop a plan, and we usually have studies that lead to that plan, and then the road system comes out of those plans. So I think that study that's going to occur very soon, the land use sustainability, we'll look at probably we need to maybe emphasize that in this study. And then also then we could probably begin to look at the feasibility of that because I know Kelly will tell you that and the federal government will tell you they have standards of interchanges, spacing, and weaving distances now and then how all that will work with the existing road system and so forth. So I guess that's the response I would have on that at this point in time. Well, we're supposed to be planners. I think this type of thing is basically inherent in Fayette County, and that's where we've got to start from. And I think we're already past due. This should have been already in the planning process of looking at that particular area because that is the only area that right now that we have open that would be in the expanded area plan. It's already, the utilities are already there. We've got some property that's already been sold to a major health facility. So we know something's going to happen out there. We know we've had a lot of growth out there in Polo and on that end of getting into Man O' War, and we've got a lot of congestion out there. So I, for one, would like for you all to, you know, let's start the process here and let's start doing some planning, especially along our interstate areas there. So I would encourage it also in that respect. That's all, sir, down here. Thank you. Thank you, Judge. I agree with my fellow council members, and I think, I want to get back to what we were talking about, but I think what I would like to see this body have is more information about what studies are currently taking place or who's looking at that, Winchester Road, right, I guess from, it might be from the interstate on out, that little area, and bring it back to us, and maybe we can help put some funding towards one of those studies or make it a priority so we can use that information and maybe have that at the February meeting. But I think, do you need a motion on approving the updated changes to the report you just went through? Yes, sir. And I have some questions about that, so I'd like to make a motion to approve the updated changes to the. We have a motion. Do we have a second? Motion and second. Further discussion? Yes, I have Kevin down here. I had a couple of questions. Okay, yes, sir. Sorry, sorry, Kevin. All right. To the LexTran buses, I've seen it on there. Are these the buses that were approved, I think, in the previous year? Have they not been purchased yet, or are these different buses that we're talking about in this? Well, these would be different, and Fred can tell you about the ones that were purchased through grants and so forth. I'm Fred Combs. I'm the Director of Planning at LexTran, and I'm here for Cary today. These are new buses, the ones that were purchased on the previous CMAQ cycle. It takes about a year to 18 months to manufacture a bus and get it out into service, so that's why you see a little bit of a lag from when you approve funds for a bus for a bus to be on the street. Okay. So these funds are going to these two more buses? Well, if it's the first year, we'll try to stretch that out into at least three the first year if we can. We're going to try to use it as frugally as we possibly can. Okay. And my other question about all these projects that are in here, are they already funded, and this is just part of the funding that's going towards the project, or are we just putting partial funding towards some projects and they need to go find additional funding to be completed? Yes, this would be – a lot of them are partially funded, you know, in a certain phase or so forth. We're waiting for – what we wanted to bring to you, after our big monster projects like Clay's Mill now are coming to an end, that pretty much tied up all our SLX dollars for many years. So we wanted to bring to this body an immediate plan when all these monies now – all of a sudden we find ourselves with monies to be able to start initiating good local projects that are developed in our planning process. But we also wanted to give you the look over the next four or five years, too. You know, you don't just start something and then drop it off there. We wanted to show you the plan and funding for the next – to complete these projects and then bring in others as our planning process, as Kenzie said, is so fluid and developing and dynamic and ongoing. But what we're proposing in this first cut is for when July 1, fiscal year 21, begins, then that will be our funding, our local funding allocations that we will give to these local projects. And that's to supplement and help with all the – you know, the statewide highway plan is coming out, I guess, very soon. Any time now as a legislator, legislation is our meeting and developing that. Okay, well, that answers my question. I just wanted to make sure it was – Got you. Thank you. Thank you, Jeff. Yes, sir. Thank you, Judge Max. Just – I'm going to circle back to Councilmember Maloney's points earlier because I think we do need – I don't think we ever got to the answer. If he wants to talk about that kind of look about growth, because if the project that's been referenced occurs, it will occur over a lengthy period of time, but it will have a traffic impact. How does he go about at least advancing those conversations? What is the first step, the second step he needs to take? From our experience, it's you begin with a study, basically, a planning-level study, you know, not really looking at all the cost and engineering factors and so forth. You begin to look at that how would that serve that area in a planning level. We could initiate something like that with our planning funds, and I heard that loud and clear from you all, and I think we'll move towards that. And in that case, I'm not sure if we could – we could probably do a pretty good job in-house with that. However, we might want to secure some professional consulting. I know out there, we initiated a very good study when the traffic was backing up on the interstate with the district office, and the district office used safety funds, and we had a very good study that led to our ramp improvements there and our man-of-war improvements there at the entrance to Hamburg, and those have really, really helped in that regard, and that study, I think, led to those projects. So I think that is where we began, maybe a feasibility study, and that could be in the range of $100,000 for a consulting contract or something. We try to keep it as affordable as possible, but do you agree with me, Kenzie, on that? So, Max, just to kind of tag it on top of that, is that something SLX could pay for? Yes, yes. That's the good beauty about our dedicated funding. You all decide how to use that money for transportation improvements. So we can use – we could use other sources, too, though. We could use PL, which is planning money. SLX is – we use it for planning. We can do that. It's that flexible, but we can also use PL funds and do those types of studies. So we will look at the best funding and propose that to you on how to get that started, I think, is the way to go. We do have a motion for the request for approval of these draft surface transportation programs. Yes, John. Max, it's my opinion or my understanding that SLX are local funds and they're intended to be supplementary or complementary to other funding. And in this particular area, we think we're talking about at least one of the items in that area is the underpass under the I-75 area. And, of course, there probably is a great deal of road or transportation planning that's going to be necessary. And I think what we're suggesting is concentration of efforts in that particular area with SLX funding to complement the other funding that's going in that area. I have a concern. I think that Councilman James Brown and I have been shepherding the North Broadway underpass, and it looks like this goes to $2 million in fiscal year 2023. So I believe that what you're proposing here is that we're trying to coordinate the funding when the other funding is going through, such as that underpass is presumably about that time or before that time, and then we're putting in the $2 million in 2023. I think that what we need to do is on this area, which is a likely expansion, I think that everyone can see that we have not too much excitement about expansion, but if there is going to be an expanded area in Fayette County, it will probably be along the US-60, I-64 corridor in that area. I think that it's logical that we should concentrate funding, if we can, SLX funding, which is what we have control over in the area of that Winchester Road, I-64, US-60, and the area where the underpass is going to go through, because what I think everyone else has been saying is we've got to get ahead of that activity before it happens. We've let things go. Well, I mean, it's natural that things go before, and we'd appreciate the concern. That's a very good option. Oh, Judge, I'm sorry. I didn't mean to interrupt. I'm going to call for the question. All in favor, please signify by saying aye. Aye. And opposed? All right. We'll move on to our information and discussion items. Max, you'll drive this boat. All right. Thank you. Our next item is to, it's my pleasure, I wanted to introduce Mr. Todd Jeter. He is our new Kentucky Division Administrator for the Federal Highway Administration, which is in Frankfurt at our office. And he's made time in his schedule to come down and visit us and introduce himself today. So I'd just like to, do you want to come up and say anything, Mr. Jeter? I'm not forcing you. Well, as Max said, my name is Todd Jeter. I'm the newly appointed Division Administrator for the Federal Highway Administration here in Kentucky. I've been in place for about two months, and I've been really fortunate to get around to and meet a few folks at some of these different MPO meetings across the state. And I really want to right now just learn some of the names and faces and really learn some of the issues that you have going on locally, the things that are important to you, and really learn the way that, you know, how we can help you out. You know, I really don't have anything prepared, but, you know, very glad to be here and I hope to be working with you all in the future. I think that is good. I appreciate you coming down today because these federal dollars, of course, are all subject to the requirements of FASTAC, so we definitely want to develop our plans accordingly. And bring some of those federal dollars into our region. Thank you, Mr. Jeter. You want me to move on to the next item, Judge? Yes. All righty. Our next item is kind of a routine modification. As Kinsey pointed out, we do these all the time. And I'd like to, for Senior Planner Stuart Kearns, again, that handles all of our modifications and TIP amendments and so forth, to come up and cover it. I was totally going to mention that Kinsey said we do updates all the time on the TIP, again. No, this is, we do have another administrative modification to the TIP. This is administrative mod number 24. And basically, we don't need any action on this. It's just informational. But basically what's happened in this modification is for the Citation Trail project, basically they had about $39,800 remaining total in the design phase that was unused. And they want to move that forward to the construction phase to have that available for any construction costs. And so that's what happened. This is all in TAP funds. And so that's basically it. So no real fiscal impact. It's just moving money from one phase to the other. Any questions? Very good. Thank you. Okay. Our next item is we just wanted to, there's a lot going on to start this year in January in the transportation field. And we just want to give you a brief update on a lot of important studies that are occurring. I think Council Member Brown even referred to this. And I was going to, this brief introduction will kind of give you an idea of some things going on. The first item is U.S. 27 Nicholasville Road Corridor Land Use Plan and Transportation Study. It's not just your Transportation Corridor Study, and it's not just your Land Use Study. It's kind of a hybrid of both. And it's one of the first we've attempted here. And very important, I think, for our Nicholasville Road Corridor. That is very complicated. And we need to know where we want to go in the future. And right now what's happening is the study has kicked off, had a really good kickoff meeting with a very, very impressive team of consultants and agency, selected consultants and agency partners. The consultants are currently collecting and analyzing all the base data, the existing data right now. And a public website is being developed and will be launched by the end of next week, because we were getting a lot of inquiries from you all. Vice Mayor Kaye had a lot of constituents inquiring. And we had a very good strategy meeting on what should be on that website and what is the public most interested in. And we want to make it very understandable, not planner-ese or engineer-ese. So you'll see something, I think, very good that you can point your constituents to and the public to here. And we'll keep that updated as we go. And a public meeting is being planned for the first week of March as well. And a public survey, an online public survey. So we're really hitting hard on the public input. And we want the public to be very involved in this study, a very important part of it. And then finally, I just think it, I see it going very well. It's a great team of very experienced consultants and professionals. And we have all the players at the table. And we know who we need to engage. And so I think that's going really good. The next item is one that the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet Division of Planning is project managing. And that's the Southeast Fayette and the Northeast Jessamine connectivity study. So basically, this would be a preliminary I-75 type of connection that we spent so much time talking about in the past. This would look at the existing road system and see how we can make it safer and easier for those, that growing volume and flow of traffic that comes up from south Jessamine and places to the south of there that come into our area every day and for education and for work and for services of all types. And I think there's a lot of concern, I think, in that area about preservation and so forth. However, I think all now we're seeing are having concern for growing volumes and safety because of those, the conditions that are occurring there. So I think it's going to look at some very practical and real solutions for that area, for those folks to be able to go back and forth between the I-75 to the east and so forth and 25 and then to back and to the south. Question? Yes, ma'am. Are you part of that study or who from our side is at that table for that conversation? Well, it's mostly me right now and then some of our staff too, various people. And then a gentleman named Steve DeWitt, he's an engineer and planner up at the cabinet, is leading it. The consultants is Stantec, I think, with various sub-consultants. But they will have certain, we did have a very good Jessamine County Task Force meeting where the Jessamine County Task Force was able to initially give a lot of input. Thought that went very well down in Jessamine County. Was that led by Casey? Yes, it's led by KYTC. Turns out I had a lot of constituents at that meeting. I think you have brought up a lot of concerns to me. Okay, I bet you have. That's why I would like to be part of that conversation. I didn't know Mr. Smith or that meeting, but it does seem to impact quite a bit of people, the 9, 10, 12, which I've got, who are quite interested. Right. Help me if I'm interested. I'll make a point of letting you know about every opportunity for those meetings and that input, I promise. And I think the state's doing a really good job. Again, they're looking at right now collecting base data and existing conditions and a lot of road geometrics, things like that, kind of boring stuff right now. But, yeah, I'm sure public input will be a big initial component throughout the state. On both sides. Yes, yes, I would think so. Jessamine County and us. All right. And the next item is we're kicking off this week on this Thursday, which is tomorrow, on the Intelligent Transportation Systems Architecture Update. I know that's a pretty esoteric term, but basically it's all of our technology, our cameras, our detections, our responsive traffic systems, all those types of things that will prepare us for the future and make our road system safe and efficient and then make it standardized, able to communicate with all other systems and also be eligible for federal funding as we go forward, which we have been very successful here in Fayette County in the ITS area. And so we will continue that traffic engineering. Jeff Neal and his team is project managing that. And we'll keep reporting to you on that and look forward to getting that architecture updated. It has to be updated, just like our plans and our targets and so forth, periodically. I mentioned the statewide corridor plan. Like Kinsey said, we were really honored to be offered a seat at that table, and I think what we bring into is the urbanized areas into that statewide corridor planning because the corridors not only are in the rural areas connecting large cities and so forth, but we're also coming through our MPO areas and so forth and identifying, in that process they've identified gaps, and that was one of the ones they identified was the Bluegrass Parkway connection on that western side and all the traffic that has to come through our urbanized area and freight on a regular basis. So that is being considered. And then as far as our unified planning work program, I'm working on that right now. That's just our annual staff plan and all of our elements such as congestion management and land use planning, all these types of things that we do on a yearly basis to implement good transportation planning and outcomes. That's just basically in our budget and everything. I'll be bringing that to you in April to ask for your approval, but I'll give you a draft well ahead of that to look, and I won't give you the whole document and say, here it is. I'll just highlight what has changed, and you can just see that. I know Councilmember Brown and Councilmember Henson in the past said that's a good way to do it, and now you know what you need to look at and you don't have to look at the entire document. And then finally, I didn't put it on here, but I want to mention we were awarded, I think it's over $300,000. The whole study would be $400,000. The federal amount would be $320,000. The $80,000 would be matched for this study by Lextran, and it's for a comprehensive operational analysis. We haven't done one of those since 2014, I believe, 2014, and this is a very standard best practice thing that our transit agencies want to do. They're not required to do it, but they want to do it for the best system possible, and we're basically just working on the contracts and so forth right now. Did you want to say anything more about that, Fred? Yep, I just wanted to mention that because that's kind of unprecedented. I don't think we've received this 5303 federal transit money for this type of study in the past. I know the MPO has, so we're very happy to help our transit system work in with our transportation system as a whole and grow that. That is it. That's all I wanted to report on and turn it over to you, Judge. Any questions or comments or anything else? We had several members that wanted to ask more questions concerning Number 4 on the action items and any other questions, comments, or business. Anyone? Yes, sir. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Well, my concern is, and I think it was expressed by other council members, is how do we move forward with Winchester Road and US-60? The SLX funds, it looks like there's a reserve in those funds and we want to keep the reserve, but if we find it pertinent to allocate some funding to initiate a study on that corridor, can we do that in February or are we time-restricted on when we can access those funds and allocate that money? Do you need it for the total plan or can we just access that money and initiate a study? Yes, I think we can access it. Mackenzie put a bug in my ear. She can tell you that reserve amount and what we can do. Yes, you could elect to award money towards a study like that at any time. I think now would be a great time when we're talking about the overall SLX plan. I do think that this is a good example of the purpose of the reserve. I mean, Max mentioned maybe $100,000. We could do a little more research about the total dollar amount we think might be necessary, but in the larger scheme of the $4 million that we have set aside to roll from year to year for contingencies, I think that's a very small ask of that fund. And you could either make that decision now or in February when we had more information. Really, none of this funding would be ready and authorized until we adopt our tip in July. So part of the reason that I think you've shown that there's support on this body for providing some funding for it is to make sure that there's a local match in place for the study, though. So that, from a timing perspective, this is the time to show that there's support at the NPO to fund a study like that so that there could be some advocacy during the local budget process to make sure that there was funding in place to match it. So in the realm of $25,000 in local match would be needed. That would become available in July when we adopt our tip and when the local government's budget is also in place and adopted. And if for some reason we don't find the match, the funds just stay in the reserve and it just doesn't move forward, so we're not at any risk. I'm inclined to wait until February, but since we're talking about it and it's fresh on everybody's mind, I would make a motion to make a modification and allocate $100,000 towards a study of U.S. 60 Winchester Road at the interstate exchange. And so moved. Motion and second. Any further discussion? Yes, sir. I guess I'd like to have somebody from engineering maybe to pop up for us to go forward. Where does that matching money come out of, and would it be something that would come out of 21's budget that you'd put in your budget cycle? It's not there now, and I've already got a lot of projects booked for next year. With this being a planning-level study, it probably makes more sense for that ask to come from NPO or planning, because a $125,000 study is not engineering work. I know, but we've got to match this out of some funds. Someone's got to ask for it, but I haven't currently because I've already asked for a number. Back to Max then. Do you think you've got room for some in the 21 budget? Well, we don't as an NPO, basically. We rely on LFUCG for that, so I guess we can talk to Charlie Lanter in our grants department. When we initiate studies, that is where we get our match from LFUCG for every transportation study that we've done, unless it's a non-match, which doesn't happen very often. But I will go forward and talk with our grants department. Yes? I was going to mention that KYTC corridor plan study. I mean, there may be opportunity there to look at Winchester Road. I don't know how in-depth, but maybe we start there. And I'd also recommend that we look at previous studies, too, so that we're not duplicating. You know, we've done a study prior of that interchange there, so to make sure we're not duplicating anything there. But maybe if there are other funds, you know, we could build on what's being done with that corridor plan study. But that would certainly be a place to look at starting. That would be wonderful because in this case, then the state would match it with whatever is left of toll credits or anything like that or your state funds. It just can't be matched with federal funds, no federal to federal. But that would be wonderful. And I think Kelly is very astute to mention that as we begin this statewide corridor plan because they're looking at the one on the parkway and 64th. So why not look at it on this side, too? So I can promise we'll investigate that and work with Kelly on that. Anyone else concerning? Real briefly, Max, last month we talked about the freight transportation plan. Is that for a subsequent meeting? Yes, we plan to do that in-house, and we've begun. We've already begun. Parker Sherwood and Jimmy Emmons are leading that, the two senior planners, and they're going to work with the state because the state is going to have a lot of good data and information for us on that. And we're going to look at our area very specifically, you know, and our freight generators and attractors and update. We have an old plan to work with, but it's very old. And so that's what we want to do, and we're going to initiate that starting July 1. We're already beginning it, but we're going to look at having it done in fiscal year 21. And that will be very informative, I think, for freight movement in our area. Anyone else? We have a motion to earmark $100,000 for corridor study, Winchester Road and the interstate, correct? Yes. In a second. All in favor, please signify by saying aye. Aye. And opposed? No. Any other questions, comments, or business? Yes, sir. Yes, sir. The only other thing is I know we mentioned the previous studies. Can we make sure that those are available at our February meeting so we can talk about what direction we may go as far as the Winchester Road and 60? Yes, see how far we've gone and bring it back up in the February meeting as an agenda item, yes? Yes, ma'am. Thank you, Judge. I'm not anti the study. That's just a lot of money when we don't have money identified for it. And there's a lot of questions of what we've already done. So I would have rather wait until February to have that vote, which is why I voted against it. Because there are a lot of other things that I think are important in other areas. That's why. Not that I'm not supportive, but I'd like to see previous studies and I'd like to see where we're taking the money from before we commit to it. But go with God. All right. Seeing no other hands, our next meeting dates Wednesday, February 26, 2020, in this room. Do I have a motion to adjourn? So moved. Meeting is adjourned.