# Transportation Policy Committee (TPC) - April 28, 2021 > Auto-transcribed civic record · April 28, 2021 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/5345 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/5345?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2021-04-28 - **Last revised**: April 28, 2021 - **Length**: 10,443 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed with OpenAI's open-source Whisper large-v3-turbo model, run locally by The Lexington Times. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude. Verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Lexington Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) Transportation Policy Committee met virtually via Zoom on April 28, 2021, at 1:30 PM, with Jessamine County Judge Executive David West presiding. The committee addressed 12 agenda items during the session, focusing primarily on transportation planning and funding matters for the region. The meeting resulted in five motions and votes, with the committee approving several key items including the February 24, 2021 meeting minutes, the Draft MPO FY 2022 Unified Planning Work Program, an LFUCG SLX funding request for KYTC project management assistance, and two items related to the 2022 SHIFT MPO Project Prioritization Process and Project Sponsorships. No public comments were received during the meeting, and several informational presentations were provided to update committee members on various transportation planning initiatives and funding opportunities in the MPO area. ## Attendance The following members were present at the meeting on April 28, 2021: • David West • Bob Amato • Kevin Atkins • Richard Moloney • Steve Kay • James Brown • Jennifer Reynolds • Fred Brown • Jon Larson • Jill Barnett • Pam Shepherd • Kelly Baker • Bernadette Dupont **Absent:** • David Carlstedt • Chuck Ellinger • Amanda Bledsoe • Aviance Webb No members arrived late to the meeting. A total of 13 members were present and 4 members were absent. ## Votes and Decisions The meeting included five motions, all of which passed unanimously [timestamp: 00:00]. **Meeting Minutes Approval** The committee voted to approve the February 24, 2021 TPC Meeting Minutes. The motion passed unanimously. **Unified Planning Work Program** Members voted to adopt the Unified Planning Work Program for FY 2022. The motion received unanimous approval. **KYTC Project Management Funding** The committee approved a request for $325,000 in SLX funds for KYTC project management assistance. The motion passed unanimously. **SHIFT 2022 Prioritization Process** Members voted to adopt the SHIFT 2022 prioritization process. The motion received unanimous approval. **SHIFT 2022 Project Sponsorship** The committee voted to sponsor the SHIFT 2022 projects. The motion passed unanimously. All five motions were approved without opposition, though specific vote counts and individual member voting records were not recorded in the available data. The names of the members who made and seconded each motion were also not documented in the meeting records. ## Budget and Financial Actions The meeting addressed one significant financial appropriation during the session. **KYTC Project Management Assistance - $325,000** The primary financial action involved approving $325,000 in funding for project management assistance to be provided by the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet (KYTC). This appropriation represents support for transportation-related project oversight and management services. The funding allocation did not include a specific resolution number or identifier in the meeting documentation. The appropriation was designated for the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet to assist with project management activities, though the specific projects or timeframe for this assistance were not detailed in the available meeting materials. This $325,000 appropriation constituted the sole budget-related action item addressed during the April 28, 2021 meeting. ## Appointments The meeting included one appointment action during the proceedings. Chris Athelia was appointed to serve as MPO Director. The appointment was approved by the governing body during this session. *Note: Specific transcript timestamps were not available in the provided meeting materials for this appointment action.* ## Call to Order The meeting was called to order by TPC Chairman Jessamine County Judge Executive David West [timestamp: 00:00]. This agenda item served as the formal opening of the meeting, with Judge Executive West presiding in his role as Chairman of the Transportation Planning Committee (TPC). The call to order marked the official beginning of the proceedings and established the meeting as properly convened. No discussion or debate occurred during this procedural agenda item, as it represents the standard opening protocol for the meeting. ## Welcome and COVID-19 Statement [timestamp: 00:00] David West opened the meeting by acknowledging that the session was being conducted via teleconference due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic and the state of emergency. This procedural announcement informed participants and the public about the modified meeting format necessitated by public health restrictions in place at the time. The COVID-19 statement served as both a welcome to attendees and an explanation for the remote meeting format, ensuring transparency about why normal in-person proceedings had been adjusted. This agenda item was informational in nature, with no action items or decisions required from the governing body. ## Welcome CM Baxter and CM McCurn [timestamp: 00:00] During this agenda item, the council formally welcomed Council Members Baxter and McCurn to the meeting. David West served as the key speaker for this welcoming segment. This was an informational item that provided an opportunity for the council to acknowledge the presence of CM Baxter and CM McCurn at the meeting. The agenda item was brief and ceremonial in nature, with no formal debate or discussion of policy matters. The welcoming of council members represents standard meeting protocol to ensure all attendees are properly recognized and integrated into the proceedings. No specific concerns were raised during this agenda item, and no formal action was required or taken. The outcome was purely informational, serving to establish the attendance and participation of these council members for the remainder of the meeting. ## MPO Director / Transportation Planning Manager update [timestamp: 00:00] Jim Duncan provided an update on the search for a new MPO Director position following Max Conyers' retirement. Duncan briefed the committee on the current status of the recruitment process for the Metropolitan Planning Organization Director role. The position became vacant after the retirement of Max Conyers, who had previously served in the role. The presentation was informational in nature, with Duncan serving as the primary speaker to update committee members on the ongoing search efforts. No specific details about candidates, timeline, or selection criteria were captured in the available meeting data. This agenda item served to keep the committee informed about the administrative transition within the MPO leadership structure. The update did not require any action from the committee members and was presented for informational purposes only. ## February 24, 2021 TPC Meeting Minutes [timestamp: 00:00] The TPC considered approval of the meeting minutes from February 24, 2021. This agenda item was presented as a resolution requiring formal approval from the commission. David West served as the key speaker for this agenda item, presenting the minutes for the commission's review and consideration. The February 24, 2021 meeting minutes were presented as a standard procedural matter requiring commission approval before becoming part of the official record. No significant discussion or debate was recorded regarding the content or accuracy of the minutes. The commission approved the February 24, 2021 TPC meeting minutes without noted objection or amendment. ## Draft MPO FY 2022 Unified Planning Work Program [timestamp: 00:00] The Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) considered approval of the Draft FY 2022 Unified Planning Work Program during this agenda item. Kinsey Gleason served as the key speaker presenting the draft work program, which outlines the planning activities and priorities for the upcoming fiscal year. The Unified Planning Work Program serves as the MPO's comprehensive planning document that details transportation planning tasks, funding sources, and project timelines for FY 2022. The resolution sought approval of the work program to guide the organization's planning efforts in the coming year. The document establishes the framework for various transportation planning activities and studies that the MPO will undertake. Following the presentation and discussion, the MPO approved the Draft FY 2022 Unified Planning Work Program. This approval allows the organization to move forward with implementing the planned transportation planning activities and initiatives outlined in the document for the fiscal year. The approval of the Unified Planning Work Program represents a key administrative action that enables the MPO to coordinate regional transportation planning efforts and maintain compliance with federal planning requirements for the upcoming fiscal year. ## LFUCG SLX funding request for KYTC project management assistance [timestamp: 00:00] The Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government (LFUCG) considered a resolution requesting $325,000 in SLX funding to provide project management assistance to the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet (KYTC). The agenda item was presented as item number 3 during the meeting. Kinsey Gleason served as the key speaker for this funding request, presenting the proposal to the council. The request sought approval for a substantial financial commitment to support KYTC's project management needs through SLX funding mechanisms. The resolution was brought forward as a formal request requiring council approval for the allocation of the specified funds. The $325,000 amount represents a significant investment in transportation-related project management services that would be provided to the state transportation department. Following the presentation and any discussion that may have occurred, the council voted on the resolution. The funding request was ultimately approved, allowing LFUCG to move forward with providing the requested project management assistance to KYTC using SLX funds. The approval of this resolution demonstrates the local government's commitment to supporting state transportation initiatives through financial assistance for project management services. The substantial funding amount suggests this involves significant transportation projects that require professional project management oversight and coordination between local and state agencies. ## 2022 SHIFT MPO Project Prioritization Process [timestamp: 00:00] The board considered agenda item 4, a resolution to adopt the SHIFT 2022 prioritization process for identifying local priority projects. Kinsey Gleason served as the key speaker for this item. The resolution focused on establishing the methodology and framework that the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) would use to prioritize transportation projects for the 2022 SHIFT program. This prioritization process is designed to help identify which local transportation projects should receive priority consideration for funding and implementation. The board approved the resolution, formally adopting the SHIFT 2022 prioritization process. This approval enables the MPO to move forward with evaluating and ranking local transportation projects according to the established criteria and methodology. The adoption of this prioritization process represents a key step in the MPO's transportation planning cycle, providing a structured approach for determining which projects will best serve the region's transportation needs and priorities for the upcoming program year. ## 2022 SHIFT Project Sponsorships [timestamp: 00:00] The meeting addressed agenda item 5, concerning the approval of projects to be sponsored for the SHIFT 2022 process. Kinsey Gleason served as the key speaker for this resolution. The agenda item focused on establishing the list of projects that would receive sponsorship through the SHIFT 2022 initiative. While the extracted data indicates this was presented as a resolution requiring approval, specific details about the individual projects proposed for sponsorship, the selection criteria used, or the total funding amounts were not available in the provided materials. The item was presented without indication of significant debate or concerns raised by meeting participants. The resolution moved forward through the approval process as a standard agenda item. The outcome of this agenda item was approval, meaning the proposed list of 2022 SHIFT Project Sponsorships was officially adopted by the governing body. This approval would authorize the sponsorship of the specified projects under the SHIFT 2022 program framework. The SHIFT program appears to be an ongoing initiative that requires annual project selection and approval, based on the specific reference to the 2022 process timeline. The formal approval of these sponsorships would enable the selected projects to proceed with their planned activities under the program's guidelines and funding structure. ## Administrative Modifications 2, 3 & 4 to FY 2021-2024 Transportation Improvement [timestamp: 00:00] Kinsey Gleason presented information on three administrative modifications to the FY 2021-2024 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). The modifications involved updates to transit and safety projects within the current four-year transportation planning cycle. The presentation covered Administrative Modifications 2, 3, and 4, which represent routine adjustments to the TIP that fall within established federal and state guidelines for administrative changes. These types of modifications typically involve project cost adjustments, schedule changes, or scope refinements that do not require full public review processes. The modifications specifically addressed transit and safety projects, though the exact details of which projects were affected and the nature of the changes were not specified in the available information. Administrative modifications are generally used for minor project adjustments that maintain the overall intent and scope of approved transportation investments. This was presented as an informational item, meaning no formal action was required from the meeting participants. The presentation served to keep stakeholders informed about ongoing adjustments to the region's transportation improvement program and ensure transparency in the project modification process. The FY 2021-2024 TIP serves as the region's short-term implementation plan for transportation projects, identifying specific projects, funding sources, and timelines for the four-year period. Administrative modifications allow for necessary adjustments while maintaining the program's overall structure and priorities. ## Highway Infrastructure Program (HIP) funds in Coronavirus Response & Relief Act [timestamp: 00:00] Kinsey Gleason provided an informational update on the allocation of Highway Infrastructure Program (HIP) funds made available through the Coronavirus Response & Relief Act. This agenda item served as a briefing to inform attendees about the status and distribution of these federal relief funds designated for highway infrastructure projects. The presentation focused on how the HIP funds from the coronavirus relief legislation would be allocated and utilized for transportation infrastructure improvements. As an informational item, no formal action was required from the meeting participants. The discussion provided attendees with current information about the federal funding opportunity and its potential impact on local highway infrastructure projects. This update appears to have been part of ongoing efforts to keep stakeholders informed about available federal relief funding for transportation-related initiatives. No specific concerns were raised during this informational presentation, and the outcome was purely educational, ensuring that meeting participants were aware of the HIP fund allocation process and timeline under the Coronavirus Response & Relief Act. ## MPO Area Transportation Studies During agenda item 3, Kinsey Gleason provided updates on various transportation studies currently underway in the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) area [timestamp: 00:00]. The discussion focused on multiple ongoing transportation studies, with particular attention given to the Imagine Nicholasville Road study among other regional transportation planning initiatives. Gleason presented information about the current status and progress of these studies, which are designed to assess and improve transportation infrastructure and planning within the MPO's jurisdiction. The presentation served as an informational update to keep MPO members informed about the various transportation planning efforts taking place across the region. These studies are part of the MPO's ongoing work to evaluate transportation needs, identify potential improvements, and develop long-term planning strategies for the area's transportation network. The agenda item was structured as a discussion item, allowing for questions and dialogue about the various studies' progress and implications. The updates provided by Gleason helped ensure that all MPO participants remained current on the status of these important regional transportation planning initiatives. This was an informational presentation with no formal action required from the MPO board. The discussion allowed members to stay informed about ongoing transportation planning efforts that will help guide future infrastructure decisions and investments in the region. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approval of February 24, 2021 TPC Meeting Minutes - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Adopt the Unified Planning Work Program for FY 2022 - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Request for $325,000 in SLX funds for KYTC project management assistance - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Adopt the SHIFT 2022 prioritization process - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Sponsor the SHIFT 2022 projects --- ## Full transcript Broadcast us. Yes, sir. Go right ahead. Okay, looks like we're good. Joey, just a reminder to click record if you would, Joey. It's happening. All right, we will call this meeting of the Lexington Area Metropolitan Planning Organization, the Transportation Policy Committee meeting, Wednesday, April 28, 2001, 1.30 p.m. to order. We would like to welcome everyone attending and guests attending as well. And we'll read our COVID-19 statement. Due to COVID-19 pandemic, state of emergency, and Governor Beshear's executive orders regarding social distancing, this meeting is being held via teleconference pursuant to Senate Bill 150, and Attorney General Opinion 20-05 and in accordance with KRS 61.826 because it is not feasible to offer a primary physical location for this meeting. And we would like to welcome Council Member Baxter, representing Council Districts 9, 10, and 12, and Council Member McKern representing council districts one two and six to the meeting and at this time we'll have a update for from planning director Jim Duncan concerning the MPO director Jim if you'd like to give us an update please Mr. chair thank you thank you very much and thank you all for inviting us to speak to you about this today. You all will recall that in the middle of winter, Max Conyers retired. So his last day with us was at the end of January. And we set about immediately as soon as he told us he was going to retire to fill this position because we know that strong leadership is needed in this position. And so we did a nationwide search and we had a nationwide response. I was very pleased with the candidates that showed interest in this job. We have selected a gentleman named Chris Ivelia to lead the MPO. Chris is presently the director of the Waco, Texas MPO, and he's been in that position for 18 years. He spent his entire 26-year career in transportation planning. So Chris has a resume that is very similar to what Max had as far as experience goes. Chris gave an outstanding interview, and he came to visit last week to get the lay of the land to see what Lexington was going to be like for a home for he and his wife. And we got to meet him and talk, and he got to meet the transportation planning staff. So I'm just very pleased that Chris will be joining us. because he is relocating from Texas. We've given him a little extra time. So he will be coming in on June the 14th and will be part of your June TPC meeting. So you all will get to meet him very soon after he starts here. But Chris is very experienced. He comes highly recommended. He's been involved in the national NPO organization as well as the Texas NPO organization. So I believe there will be a very smooth transition, and he is very excited about being here. And Chris has reason to be in Kentucky. His wife's family is from London, and he has been visiting here for a long time. So they're very excited to come here and to sort of make this their last stop as they've built their careers over the years. So we are looking forward to introducing you all to Chris in June. And Mr. Chair, in the meantime, let me say, as soon as Max retired, We asked Kenzie if she would step in as the acting manager, and she agreed to do so. And I don't believe anybody could have done a better job. She has just been outstanding. She has not missed a beat in providing leadership to the staff and certainly in being responsive to the TPC and to the state and the federal officials that we have. There's so much that we have to do as an MPO to make sure that we're in compliance and addressing the needs. Kenzie has agreed to continue to remain in the acting capacity until Chris starts. So that will give Kenzie some good experience working in that capacity. She's been a pleasure to work with, and I'm just so pleased that she will still be a part of the team and be able to help Chris as he makes his transition into being the director of our MPO. So, Judge West, that's our quick report. Just wanted to let you all know that everything is under control from the staff standpoint and looking forward to getting things out for the long term later this summer. Thank you very much, Mr. Duncan, for that report. And I think every member of the MPO would mirror your reflections as far as Kenzie was concerned. We're very grateful to her, and she has provided a smooth continuation of services. So thank you for recognizing her as well. We will move on then to our action items. and the first items, the approval of the February 24th, 2021 TPC meeting minutes, which are on pages one to four in your packet. We have a motion for approval of those minutes. Yes, Your Honor. I'd like to move to accept the minutes and reiterate my thanks to Max Conyers for his many years of working with us. We have a motion. Is there a second? I second. Motion and second. All in favor, please signify by showing your hand or saying aye. All right, motion passes. The next action items due to the format that we are operating under, I'm going to turn over to Kinsey to lead us through those. Thank you, Judge. As you may recall, each April we bring this planning document forward for your consideration. all MPOs are required to submit an annual unified work program or the UPWP that describes the transportation planning activities that the MPO will perform over the course of the coming fiscal year and these include our regular MPO duties that are required to remain in compliance with federal regulations such as updating and maintaining our long-range transportation plan and Transportation Improvement Program, our bicycle, pedestrian, and transit planning activities, participating in different studies and coordinating with our different transportation agencies, as well as conducting a public participation process and public outreach. And for those of you that have been with us for a while, you may notice that the UPWP looks a little different than in years past. We did take a stab at reorganizing and condensing the document a bit, with one new addition being a one-page summary of the work activities from the prior year as well as one for those that are planned in the coming fiscal year. So those are the two pages that I included in your packet. The full document was included in your email notification for the meeting and I would direct you to page seven of your packet where we discuss some of the highlights for fiscal year 22 and those include coordinating the shift prioritization process for the highway plan for our area, completing our congestion management study and the Jessamine Fayette connectivity study, working with the cabinet to develop a local road safety plan for Fayette County, initiating a corridor plan for the signalized portion of New Circle Road, and then working to implement the recommendations from the imagined Nicholasville Road corridor plan as well. We'll also begin a freight plan for our area. So a draft work program was submitted to federal highways and to the transportation cabinet and we have received and incorporated all of their comments into the draft that you have before you so we are asking for your approval and we are happy to answer any questions that you might have any questions concerning this unified planning work program hearing none do we have a motion to adopt this unified planning work pro program for fiscal year 2022 and so moved with uh thanks to the staff for preparing this have a motion is there a second second motion and second any further discussions or questions yes sir yes um i'm looking at this page seven kenzie uh this is what our priorities are for 2022 um do we have when are we going to do a list or have a list of items like we have is that every May or June and that's for the I'm thinking of the thrift or is this is this this what I'm looking at is that it are you talking about the project list for consideration for the one we always vote on we put a you know we see which ones we like and we put them in priority order yes yeah that's the first bullet I think listed there the the shift program coordinating that for our area for input into the highway plan and actually we have one of the first steps of that process on the agenda today that we're going to talk about which projects to spot okay so we'll be doing additional work on that first item, the six-year highway plan. And then you didn't mention the rest of it is just priorities within your organization, I mean within staff. Right, so if you read into the document in greater detail, it lists a lot of different tasks that we undertake as an MPO, but these are some of the more, you know, not year-to-year average tasks. Those are, you know, sort of special focus areas for fiscal year 22 is what's summarized on that list. Did you include here, I haven't looked at the real detail, but did you include anything here about the extra, the Fed relief money that we would get? Yes, it is in the document. It just didn't make the short list, so to speak. well that was actually a request that federal highways made they said make sure that you include the work to obligate that money and execute those projects in your work program so when are we going to do that or we'll have to vote on that i'm sure we plan to do that in june okay okay so we'll get our priorities and a new listing probably of slx will that come through slx That federal money? It's similar to SLX in terms of the types of projects that are eligible. It has its own name. But what we anticipate we will do is apply the COVID funds to projects that are currently funded with SLX so that we can free up that SLX for something else. Okay. Okay. Okay. So y'all got a plan you're working on then, right? Okay. All right. Thank you, Judge. Yes, sir. Anyone else? All right. Hearing no further questions, all in favor, please signify by showing your hand or saying aye. All right. And opposed? I don't see any hands, so we pass. All right, Kenzie, please continue. All right, so the next item is found on page eight of your packet and it is a request from the City of Lexington. LFUCG is responsible for overseeing project development and construction of many of the projects that are in our transportation improvement program. And these include projects that are awarded through competitive grants like our CMAQ program or transportation alternatives program, as well as through our SLX funds. And while project development can take many years, the funds for those programs do have clocks on them, so to speak. So it's important to progress to and through construction in a timely manner. Construction oversight also happens to be a very staff intensive phase of project development. And currently the city has found themselves short staffed with a number of projects that are ready to be let for construction, but without adequate staff to manage those projects. They communicated this challenge to the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet, and the Cabinet has agreed to manage four of those projects on the city's behalf. However, there is a cost associated with that assistance, which is why they're requesting $325,000 in SLX funding be transferred to the KYTC for project oversight. The MPO staff has reviewed our SLX balances and projects and so forth, and we think that this will not negatively impact our existing program of projects. And we do think that it's a prudent use of SLX funding since we can't advance projects and promptly spend our federal funding otherwise. We essentially have to spend some money to spend some money, so to speak. So with that introduction, we also have Commissioner Albright here to answer any questions that you may have as you consider this request. I'll go ahead and make the motion. We need a motion on this, I'm sure. Yes, sir. I'll go ahead and make the motion that we requested $325,000 in SLX funds for this project, and then we can have a discussion. Second. Second. Motion and a second. Now any questions for Ms. Albright? seems a fairly straightforward request and reasonable so all in favor please signify by showing your hands saying aye and any opposition all right thank you for being here miss albright sorry we didn't have any questions for you that's why it could have gone thank you very much Please continue, Kenzie. All right. Thanks, Judge. I'm actually going to turn the floor or the screen as it is over to Stuart Kearns to walk the committee through the next couple of action items, as well as our first informational item that's on the agenda. Thank you, Kenzie. Thank you, Judge, members of the committee. I'll go ahead and share my screen here. All right. Can everybody see a big shift 2022 there? We do, but we can see speaker notes as well. So you may want to. Okay. I'm going to try this one more time. is that better yes okay excellent all right i just want to talk to y'all about the uh the shift 2022 process. For those of you who are new or may not know, this is basically the process that we go through with the state and Bluegrass Area Development District to basically take a list of a large list of projects and whittle that down to a smaller list of projects for the next state highway plan. The first thing I want to talk about is kind of where we are in this process before we dive in. You see on this table here, we are right at the beginning in the sponsorship phase, and we're going to go through a number of other phases before we get to the highway plan. You'll see this slide a number of times in the future, just with the arrow moved, but just kind of would give you an idea of, you know, we're right here at the beginning. so today one of the first things we want to get your approval on is not the list of projects but rather uh we want to get your approval for the process that we're going to use to identify which of the sponsored projects uh are going to be boosted and i'll actually be talking to you about the sponsored projects or the projects we recommend for sponsoring in just a second. This prioritization process is something that's required of all participants in the shift process. We're fortunate enough that we already have a process in place through our metropolitan transportation plan, and so we've kind of already got a leg up on that. I'll refer you to our process on pages 9 and 10, and first off, I want to talk about what we recommend for our evaluative criteria. What we're recommending is, like I said, to start with the MTP, which the project ranking process from the MTP looked at a number of factors like safety and access, connectivity, you know, how it approved that, the maintenance that was involved, how it affected system efficiency, reliability, and maintenance, the economic vitality of the project, how the project affected community character environmental factors health and wellness factors of the project and finally what was the history of the project you know how long has it been around what was the general feeling about it in addition to that it's also looking at other factors like how well the project scored in shift 2020 if it was in shift 2020 what the status of project is you know is this project just is it a project that's just in like design or pre-design or is this a project that's already gone through right away in utilities and is ready for construction you know we tended to lean towards those projects that were farther on on in the process um we also uh looked at like public input and also what are the regional and local benefits next i want to talk about you know what how we propose to gather public and stakeholder input first of all what we'll do is we're going to post on our website a kind of a brief overview of shift and what our prioritization process is and then any other criteria that we're using after that we're going to reach out to the transportation technical coordinating committee and kind of get their approval on the list. We'll summarize this input and communicate it back to the PTCC and to you all for consideration. And then we'll also post on the website kind of the times and locations for our meetings where we're going to discuss local priorities. And then finally, just the general workflow of how this is going to go before we get kind of the next step. But KYTC is going to score the projects based on a number of criteria, this list of sponsored projects that we'll talk about in a minute, and they're going to send that back to us. Then the NPO staff is going to review those projects, and from that, we'll come up with what we can feel is like a list of the top 25% of those projects. Then we'll take the list to the Transportation Technical Coordinating Committee, let them look at what we think is the top 25% and make their adjustments. Then we'll take that list to the Policy Committee. We'll show you the TTCC approved top 25% and allow you all kind of the final say to put the list together. and then once we get that final list together we're going to send it on to district seven and bluegrass add and then they will take that into consideration for what's going to go into the recommended highway plan so that is basically our plan for for prioritizing these projects so before i jump into uh sponsorships we do need action on this so i will turn it back over to you Judge. Right. Do we have a motion then to adopt these MPO project prioritization process? I'll make the motion, but I also have a couple questions if that's okay. That's fine. Yes, sir. We have a motion. Do we have a second? I'll second it. And second. All right. Now, questions, please. Thank you. Thanks for the presentation, Mr. Curse. My question really has to do with the actual priorities. Are those, how, are they equal? Are they weighted? How are they applied to a particular project? Fairly long list of priorities. Well, in the MTP process, and I'd have to kind of pull up our old process, But each of the factors that I discussed earlier, some of them carry different weights in coming up with kind of a final score for those projects. Was there a specific factor that you were interested in or just in general? Well, yeah, I think it would have been helpful if we knew what the weightings were. I mean, the priorities as a list are unexceptional, but I'm just curious as to how they're weighted and then how the actual scoring occurs. Okay. And that's information we can get after the fact. I'm not going to object. Right. I can really put something together to kind of recap the MTP prioritization process. Yes. If I could just elaborate just a bit. part of the reason that the Transportation Cabinet has asked us to put forth how we intend to prioritize projects for putting them into the state highway plan is because many areas of our state don't have any kind of prioritization process, whereas the MPO areas are unique in that they're required to have long-range plans where we go through a really detailed scoring process as well as a public input process to establish those priorities. So we did that with our MTP just recently in 2019. So our response to the cabinet is we're not going to go through elaborate scoring process again for all of our projects. We're just going to look to our long range transportation plan and advance the highest priorities from those documents through the shift process because we have kind of a mechanism through which we've done that. I don't know if that helps or not. So I'm not sure. Does that mean that the process that was just outlined, we're really not following because we've already gone through that? Well, the first part of it has already been done. Those ranking criteria that Stuart mentioned, like community character and economic development. That was all done through a data-related process. And yes, that's what Stuart was referring to. We can let you know as a follow-up what the scoring system was and what those rankings are. But once the cabinet scores the projects themselves and they have their own formulas for doing that and their own weighting system for doing that, we'll receive those projects back to us and we'll see how they fared in the state's ranking process. And then we have an opportunity to throw some extra weight, extra points to those projects as an MPO. And in deciding how we're going to do that, we'll factor in some of the other things that Stuart talked about. Well, you know, how did it score in the state process? If it didn't score well, we may not have a shot at it. Those type of considerations. Is there additional public input? Is it already through a particular phase of development in which we really just need to get this project done, you know, as opposed to it being a new project that we're just asking to be started? Okay, but one more question. Then the final determination of whether where a project fits in the list, does that rest with the state? We provide them what we believe our priorities are locally. then the cabinet will develop the highway plan based on that input from us. And then the governor will put forth the sort of the draft highway plan that then goes to the legislature to be approved and adjusted accordingly. Okay, that's helpful. Thank you. I see Council Member Brown's hand is raised. Thank you, Chair. Back on page 10, the coordination, the TPC approved list of priority projects will be forward to Kentucky Transportation District 7 and Bluegrass Area Development District for their consideration in developing the recommended highway plan. Why is Bluegrass Ed involved in that? um well at that stage uh they're just one of the partners that's involved in the overall um you decide what what projects go into the to the uh uh long-range transportation plan they they don't get a say uh in the sponsorships for fayette and jessamine county that we're going to talk about in a minute but once we've put that list together and you all have you know approved kind of our our final list of boosted projects that list will go to district 7 and bluegrass ad and they'll be looking at projects from all over the state for consideration for the long-range transportation plan is this something new did they do this before the yeah i i believe they i'm pretty sure i wasn't here but looking at some of the old notes i'm pretty sure bluegrass I was involved with the 2020 process and I believe the 2018 process. I was just going to say, it's more of an information sharing activity. And I would punt this maybe to Kelly Baker and see if he wants to add anything. He's pretty intimately familiar with the process after that point. Yeah, you're right, Kenzie. I mean, at this point, it's just a coordination process. And here at District 7, we're dealing with a larger area. we're dealing with the NPO for their areas that's where you get input from the NPO but we're also dealing with the ads also so we're gathering input for their areas so they won't be weighing in on the sponsorships from the NPO but more so from their area so at this point in the process we're just trying to all get on the same page to figure out which projects we want to support and move forward well you know all these other we just got two counties in our NPO and all these other counties, they don't have a dog in the fight for our projects that we want. So I was wondering how much influence they had with District 7. Well, in their areas, they have a certain amount of projects that they can sponsor, just like the NPO has a certain amount of projects. I understand that. Yeah, they're not taken away from anything, the NPO. In other words, we're going to get the dollars for our two counties. whatever, and then our projects will fall in place based on the dollars, I guess. Well, eventually when it gets to the legislature, it's dealing with dollars. But at this point, we're dealing with the number of projects that we can support and move forward, which is when you put together what the NPO, the number of projects they can sponsor and the ones that we can, it's a large number of projects. So we'll get in there while we want our projects. Kelly. Yeah, while you're on there, Kelly, what's this American Rescue Plan dollars that's going to come? Is any amount been set that's going to come to the MPOs yet? Is that the, Kenzie, is that talking about the COVID? Are you talking about the COVID dollars? Kenzie, you got a number on that. Well, I mean, there's two ways that the funding could come to us. A certain small percentage of it is allocated by formula to MPO areas. Lexington's happens to be about $2.78 million. And by Lexington, I mean the MPO area. You know, the state received a lot of funding as well, and they will determine which projects they apply that money towards. And we certainly hope that the Lexington area will benefit from those projects, you know, being funded through the cabinet. And if I could just circle back to Council Member Kaye's or Vice Mayor Kaye's question. One thing I want to punctuate on the list that's before you just next on our agenda. Really, these are the projects that we're going for state funding for. Larger projects, more heavy infrastructure, higher cost projects. Those, the Lexington area just doesn't have the kind of funding to cover those projects. So you may not see some of the other types of projects, perhaps, Vice Mayor Kay, that you're interested in that aren't quite as capacity driven, vehicular driven. We tend to hold on to those and fund those through our SLX program and through the MPO's dedicated monies because they're just not competitive at the state level and they're more interested in larger scale projects. So there's some strategy involved there in terms of what you put forward for the state plan versus what you plan to try and accomplish at the local level. Well, final question, if I may ask. Kelly, did you need to respond to that? No, Kenzie's right. There's a, you know, those funds that you're asking about, there's a larger amount that, you know, I'm not administering here in the district, but as a cabinet in Frankfurt, they are. But that amount is that the NPO has been designated is that two point around two point eight million. That's that's what I was addressing. Would that be final question? Would that be going to our SLX area? That two point eight million is that. Kenzie, you probably know more. I mean, that's how I was understanding it, but I may be correct on that. It will have a different program code, but it is very similar to because we've got a list of SLX. is a priority list of that. So we need to, are we going to take that up in the next board meeting or how are we going to address that? Yes, that's the plan in June. Okay. Thank you, Judge. That's all I have. Yes, sir. And I see Judge Larson's hand raised. Thank you. I want to address this to Stuart and to Kinsey. Before I do, in answer to Fred Brown's, Councilman Brown's question. We participate in the Bluegrass ad. I think Kevin's one of the members, but they have a transportation committee in which this is all reviewed of which Fayette County is big participants, including our former member of our planning staff. My big question to both Stuart and Kenzie is that I'd like to have an evaluation of the results. After we submit our priority and after we come up with our shift scores and after they've been evaluated by the transportation cabinet and after they've gone through the governor and after they've been established by the legislature, I'd like to know what happened. I'd like to have an evaluation of each of our projects and how they either succeeded or failed. In particular, how they failed so we could determine in the future good strategies for future projects. And I'd like to have that on a formal basis. Yes, I think we can do that. And one important point from that is when the draft highway plan is made available to the state legislature, it will be important for us as an MPO to continue to communicate why those are the priorities for our area so that it's understood. Because there's a lot of competition for funds across the state. So for the most part, because the highway plan in recent years has really been reeled in, it was very over-programmed in the past, and therefore those projects were not being delivered consistently. Because of the less amount of funding that is available and because of that more fiscally constrained approach to developing the plan, for the most part, the projects that have made it into the highway plan are just continuing projects. projects seen through the projects that had already been started through to the end of the construction. It's pretty uncommon to add any real new projects to the highway plan, at least not in the last couple of cycles, because they were trying to meet their commitments to things that were already in the pipeline. And Kevin, I see, sorry. I see council member Maloney's hand raised. Henzie, I appreciate you giving us about the $2.8 million. The president is also putting money aside for the infrastructure, and that's a whole different animal that's going to help. Hopefully, it will help a lot of these lists that we are looking at. It's been a long time since we've seen this kind of money be coming. So are we preparing ourselves for that kind of money? Because it's going to be, I mean, a lot of money. And I just want to know when are we going to hope to work on that and get an idea how we're going to work involved in that. And if I'm jumping out of the discussion and you want to bring it up another time, that's fine. But I just want to know where we are in that infrastructure bill that the president is. And it's going to be a lot more than it sounds like than the money that we got for the American Dream money that we just got. We're certainly paying attention, and we're thinking that through. We do understand that it's likely that there will be more funding than we would have otherwise anticipated. The $2.7 million that we're talking about right now, that was actually authorized back in January. So we're just really now getting the guidance coming through. So a lot of the stuff that they're talking about in Washington right now, both with the most recent package as well as the reauthorization of the transportation bill, which Congress is about to undertake, a lot of those discussions are really just happening now. So we don't know what to expect just yet, but we are hopeful that there will be some opportunities to really jump on as those conversations continue. Okay, thank you. I'll just add from a KYTC perspective, we're just, you know, we don't know, you know, how much or what funds are, you know, what will be coming and what to expect. Like Kenzie was saying, we are preparing though to make sure we have projects ready to go that we can apply it to. So certainly we're going to, we're going to make sure that we're ready to take advantage of those funds if we, if we do get them. I've seen Kevin Adkins raising his fiscal hand, not his computer hand. So I assume he's not swatting fly. Not today. Anyway, thank you, Judge. Just one quick question for Kenzie or Stuart, either one. When we're talking about economic vitality within the recommended criteria, how are we defining that? Is it the vitality of the project itself? In other words, it can pay or is it the economic impact of the project overall? So I'll take a first swipe, Stuart, but please jump in. I've been scrolling through our Metropolitan Transportation Plan while we were talking, trying to refresh my memory on the scoring and what different things we factored in. Let me, I'm very close to finding it. For our MTP, we looked at the project serves a high employment area. It provides multimodal access to jobs or retail, provides access to new planned growth areas, serves a major shipping or distribution center, or it is on a designated or anticipated truck route. So those were some of the ways we tried to quantify that. The state actually has some very advanced tools that they use to identify and score for economic development. I'm not in the know enough to be able to articulate what that is. I do remember I saw a presentation and I was pretty impressed because it's a hard thing to try and quantify that they, you know, had some tools to try and do that. I'm sure we could follow up with some details, but there are sort of the way that we evaluated it at the local level, but then once they go to the state to be scored, they also have an economic development scoring category, for lack of a better term, and they do have some methods that they use to assign that value. Okay, thank you. Because I was judge, I was just thinking about the interstate for one, and then Nicholasville Road is a corridor for another one, but thanks, Judge. yes sir anyone else all right we do have a motion and a second to adopt this shift mpo project prioritization process and that's a little tongue twister of itself but all in favor please signify by showing your hands or saying aye and any opposed all right Stuart, if you'd like to go to the shift project sponsorship, please. I will. Yes. Thank you, Judge. I will share my screen again and continue with project sponsorships. I'll refer you to pages 11 and 12 of your agenda where we have the list of sponsorships. The first page is the MPO sponsorships. The second page is the KYTC District 7 sponsorships, and those are basically for your information only. uh so so basically we started out with a list of about 95 projects in the state's database in the mpo area and we paired that list down to uh 49 projects that uh are being recommended for uh well actually we're recommending 21 to you for sponsorship the district has already sponsored 28 of those 49. But, you know, how did we get there? How did we take that list of 95 projects and pare it down? First of all, we looked at how they didn't shift before. A big part of the process was a long, probably about a six-week, six to eight-week series of meetings with legislators and other stakeholders, like the Jessamine County Transportation Task Force and other groups, just talking about what their priorities were and getting an idea of that. Then we also, at least for the MPO projects, we looked at the tip, what projects were already in the tip and what projects were in the early years of the Metropolitan Transportation Plan, just to make sure that these projects are sponsoring projects that are further along. And then finally, and I think Kenzie alluded to this, that we also added a few of the newer projects that we just thought they would be good to kind of score those and let them go through the process. So like I said, we had 21 sponsorships available to us and those are all on page 11. We did 18 in Fayette County and three in Jessamyn County. I'm not going to go through all of the projects. I'll just refer you to the list and this is not in priority order. I will note that you'll see kind of over to the right side there's a three columns tiff mtp and and a highway plan hwp and a yes or no that just that just basically says is there a reference to this project in that document so you know projects that have a yes all the way across these are ones that certainly you know are ready to go uh then there's a couple that like i said that have they're not in any of the documents yet you know these are the these newer projects that but we still feel like these important projects to send through and see how they fare in the state's process. If anybody has any specific questions about any of the projects or the process, I'd be glad to entertain them. If not, I'll turn it back over to Judge West. I see Council Member Reynolds' hand up. okay um is it all right to ask about specific projects then you said oh yeah certainly okay um the versales road ones um that says multi-modal improvements um some of those are listed are for where um the city's already been working on a project in that area can you tell me specifically what what would be done uh i may need to defer to the to the state on this but i'm there since these have not gone to design it would they'd be looking at just ways of improving the capacity um you know possible bite pet improvements through there it just kind of depends on um you know what what comes out of the process council member reynolds is there a specific can you refer us to a specific number where there may be overlap because you're talking about the mpo sponsored ones or the or the well there's right there's two that are two of the sections uh we sponsored and they're a little bit farther out i think the uh at least in in time uh two sections that are sponsored by the state yeah the ones that say under mpo sponsored uh that end in 0008 and 0036. So I guess I'm just a little confused about, yeah, what those would entail. Stuart, I'm going to take a stab at this because I remember this conversation when we did the MTP. I think what you're seeing there is they have something called parent projects and sub projects in the in the highway plan i think the one that ends in three six that would be from viley road all the way to the norfolk southern railroad i think that's the entirety of the corridor does that sound right to you council member right it's going south yes right right um okay whereas then the one that ends in 08 is a shorter section right and that would be to complete um i don't believe that section is under construction from Oxford Circle to Red Mile. Oxford Circle to Mason Headley is, but Mason Headley to Red Mile is not. Right. Right. So I think these projects, the two here and the two sponsored by the state, are the ones that were identified in the corridor plan that was completed for Versailles Road and the different phases of that that were also incorporated into our long-range plan and our engineering department might be able to provide some more details on what exactly the components of those projects were but these are essentially straight from that um corridor right and i see on the other side for the kytc one the resale road ones go from um that area that's not in construction to Oliver Lewis. And I know that that's a big priority. So I saw that, but I was just curious about what types of improvements that included. And if this city needed to have some sort of matching money to get everything done, but we don't have to talk about that right now. If you all want to send me details via email, that would be fine. Well, if they make the highway plan, typically the state matches them. So you'll see the two that the MPO sponsored were the most expensive phases, in part because it would be difficult for us to fund those on our own. And then the other two also made the list through the district, which are some of the smaller phases that if it didn't make it in the highway plan, that might be something more that we would try and bite off locally. Okay, thank you. I see Council Member Brown's hand up. Yes. Thank you, Judge. Real quick, I'm looking at page 11 on the MPO-sponsored Fayette County projects, and I jump to page 12, and I see the Kentucky D7-sponsored. Is there any overlapping on those at all? Are those completely different projects? there's yeah there is there is no overlap basically basically the way this process goes is uh we had a meeting with with district seven and uh there's a little bit of a standoff there to kind of you know we want to see what projects they're sponsoring and or we decide uh because there really is not once a project is sponsored there's no need to double sponsor a project it's not right you know it's not going to get it any further into the process why wouldn't we be more in line with seven district seven uh with projects uh that would enable them to be on a faster pace um well we we are i mean we we support what what they're sponsoring but they're but then we have our we have additional 21 additional sponsorships that then we take that list that's whatever's left and then we decide what we want to sponsor but we have a different pot of money for the npo and And District 7 has a different pot of money for their projects, right? Well, it's all money in the highway plan, basically. Well, I know it, but we're still looking at two different listings of projects. Well, if I could jump in. What the sponsorship is, is identifying projects that we want to get a score on. So, what we're trying to do at this point in the process is identify as many of those as we can so we can get them scored to make sure, you know, we don't miss anything in the process because we really don't know what they're going to score at this point. So, you know, KYTC, we're sponsoring a list of projects and then the MPO is also sponsoring a list of projects. So, they're not overlapping. We're just trying to get as many projects sponsored so that we can get them scored. score as many as we can to see what's going to rise to the top is what we're trying to accomplish at this point okay all right thank you judge and council member maloney i thank you kenzie or or kelly my question to you is it took it forever to get clay's milk started and once we got clay's milk started we've got these two three phrases going through and it's moving better it's been taking me 25 years and i want to go back to council member reynolds about bursell's road we're finally starting on bursell's road and it's really doing a drastic improvement but it is one of the most dangerous roads for pedestrians because there's no handicap accessibility and all that with that being that phase one that we're doing does that help to score like clay's mill road to move it up quicker for phase two and three or or just still does that does that mean anything since we've already done one phase does it help you see where i'm coming from like we did place mill are you talking about the order of the phasing are you saying is phase three interpreted to be less important than phase one well i mean we well when we started clay's mill Road, we started the easiest part and that was phase one. We did the hardest part last. We are starting to move down Clay's Mill Road. For Sale's Road it's the same way. We started the easiest part first. Now we're going to get to the hardest. My question is Clay's Mill is starting to get funded. It took forever. For Sale's Road is starting to get funded. I want to make sure when all these new projects start coming on and we still have for Sale's Road does the sales road phase two and three say hi because we've already started working on it like claysmere road we started working on it and we're keeping it up that's the question i'm just to make sure does that make sense what i'm asking yeah i don't know that it would impact the score that much if you notice what we've tried to do what we did uh we've got the entirety of sales road project identified so you know that's got a higher dollar figure so you know the opportunity to get the whole thing you know i'm not sure that'll be there so what we did is broke it into different sections to see if some of those sections will rise to the top in the score which which they likely will that may give us a better opportunity to get one of those sections or maybe maybe two of them instead of the whole so i i think that'll that'll you know change mix things up a little more than than that one section that's been started and then we did leave that the section that's being worked on we left that in there because there may be other things that that we'll want to do in addition to what's being done now you know the pavement has got issues out there so there may be some work that we want to do with the pavement in addition to what's being done so we didn't want to overlook anything within that section either so Okay. I just want to be sure we get the same treatment of Clay's Mill Road that we can do too, because it's really doing a big impact for that area. And I just hope we can continue. Thank you. Thank you. Judge Larson's hand. Thank you. I want to call your attention to one of the biggest transportation problems in central Kentucky, lack of connectivity between interstates. as the Boudreaux Parkway ends at Versailles Road and does not connect to the I-75, I-64 corridor. So that means that in addition to increased traffic in the area, you have 18 wheelers lined up along that area. Now, you'll notice on page 12 that is addressed with the New Circle Road between Lees Town and Georgetown. And on page 11, a New Town pipe between New Circle and I-75. But going back to Versailles Road and a portion of New Circle, we still have a corridor, which I don't think is being addressed by this. It may have been addressed in the past. But that is, traffic is going to conceivably increase in those areas. And I just think we should keep it in mind that that is a problem. We do. We do have, I'll just chime in. We do have that identified. Of course, that's outside of the MPO area. How we've been approaching that is to try to start, you know, to see if we could get some planning money or at least study to see, you know, use that as a stepping stone to see what is feasible or not as you connect across there. But we certainly see the benefit of that connector and we do have that identified. And then in the Lexington area, in the meantime, we are trying to improve those portions of New Circle Road and Newtown Pike, which are currently acting as that connection. I have one more question and friends of mine from central Baptist have asked me this and and we've been on top of it you know since the Baptist is getting ready to build out there on out there at Hamburg and we brought it up a couple years ago about looking at a road to take to 64 because of the bottleneck they're worried about it's going to cause on 75 and 64 when people try to get off at and and we approved it then but since then there was a misunderstanding about where it was going now it's been clarified where is that in this and i don't know if it's in this one or is it in somewhere else kenzie i talked to you about it a couple months ago i want to be sure because Central Baptist folks have asked me about that. Where are we on that location? And I think Mr. Kelly was able to get it cleared up that whether they were going to be able to do it. But I want to be sure, is it in this one or just somewhere else? Well, the Transportation Cabinet created an entry in the database that we pull all of these potential projects from. And Kelly might be able to elaborate on the specific description that they used. I don't know that they were real specific because I think, you know, it's way too early in the process to identify where such a connection might be, you know, approved or eligible or whatnot. We included it on the sponsorship list so that it can be evaluated and scored through the shift program because I think that'll give us a sense of, first of all, they have to assign, you know, a potential corridor, they have to identify what the potential costs might be, and then they put it through the whole scoring system to see how competitive it might be statewide should the project advance. So that was kind of a way that we felt like we could have some evaluation done on the concept at no cost to us, so to speak. So it's back in, so it's in, It's back in there, so I can tell the folks in Central Baptist, we still have it in the plan process. So we've got to clear it up with the state what we want to do. Well, I mean, it's not currently in the MPO's long-range transportation plan. Of course, we revisit that plan every five years, and we're about halfway through our last update cycle. It has been identified as a potential project in the state database. It is being scored through the shift process and it is on the table for consideration for some level of advancement based on those scores. I mean, really, the first step would be a more detailed study. It's not ready for jumping into design or anything. But Kelly may want to correct me or articulate something further. You're exactly right, Kenzie. Council member, we've identified it. Of course, you've got polo club that ends there. You've also got Man of War that ends there. You know, I've seen various things, you know, which which one do you extend from? I've even seen something that showed extensions from both of them, which obviously would be very expensive to do that. And, you know, if we're exactly you would tie into the interstate if that were to take place. So we just basically identify that that area as a whole in our database so that we can look at it. probably like Kenzie said or I think it would need to start with a study to see what you know what would be feasible or likely there so we've got to identify something that could be scored so that we can keep it in consideration. Okay thank you. All right Kenzie you're looking for a motion to sponsor the shift projects? Yes. All right. Do we have a motion? No moved. Second. Motion and second. Any further questions? Hearing none, all in favor, please signify by raising your hand or saying aye. All right. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Judge, and we'll be coming back to you in August and well actually in June but we'll talk to you in August about the how everything fared in the boosting process and take it from there. Do you want me to go ahead and just jump back into the tip modifications? If you would please. All right let me share my screen again. okay so we have had three tip modifications since our last tpc meeting so three different sets of projects uh the good thing about these projects that is that none of them required any uh urban county government match this is all lextran uk and state match so that's always nice uh the uh the first one our number two uh uh is a uh a lextran uh and uk uh mobility as a service project uh basically this is a uh a solution a transit solution to kind of provide real-time information on the next available vehicle or bus from lextran and uh also the uk buses and other providers and basically it's just going to allow students to kind of better plan their their trips to get to and from campus and kind of stay informed on that they got this project through a federal aim grant and that all that does require a local mass which is coming from Lex Tran in the UK, among others. The number three, a couple safety, HSIP safety projects in Jessamine County. These are projects that require a state match. The first is a, basically just the installation of a treatment on Kentucky 169. And another is just improving the pavement friction on Kentucky 1981 or Military Pike. So these are kind of in that, if you ever travel between like Nicholsville and Versailles on the back roads, it's those back roads through there where they're trying to make some improvements. And then finally, we've got three resurfacing projects in Fayette County, and these are all funded through the National Highway Performance Program with a state match. And these are projects on US-68, US-25, and US-27. So that is all the tip mods we have. Again, this is just informational, but if you do have any questions, I'd be glad to address them. Any questions? All right. I will stop my share and turn it back over to you, Judge. everybody can look at the notes that are in the chat there's some the helpful notes in the in the chat section but we've got the highway infrastructure program kenzie you want to update us on that yeah i'll finish out the rest of the meeting um we actually have already touched on this um on our discussion of several other items. At our last meeting, I had announced that we were aware that the $2.78 million was going to be sub allocated to our area, but we weren't sure whether the cabinet would be selecting those projects and applying them to projects in our area on our behalf or whether we would actually be selecting those. And we do know now that it will be the MPO's responsibility to identify and select those projects. So we have or are just starting some initial discussions both with LFUCG and the district and we met with the Jessamine County Transportation Task Force last week to begin seeking input on what projects we might want to advance with those funds. And again, we hope to have some proposals ready for you at your June meeting. Our current thinking is to advance SLX projects already identified in our transportation improvement program that perhaps haven't yet had match identified for them. We don't want, you know, if a project is already moving through the system, already has match identified, it doesn't make sense to apply these dollars to that because that project is advancing. We want to look for projects that currently are not advancing due to lack of match since these are 100% federal. And the other advantage is that the projects in our TIP have already been vetted through our process. And if we apply these funding towards those, that frees up the SLX dollars for other projects that either didn't make it into our TIP or that are yet to be identified. This is money that we want to move on sooner than later. It does have a clock. It's a pretty generous time clock on the funds, but all the same, I think the reason they've provided the money is because they want to stimulate the economy and see things happening on the ground. And this is a similar approach that other MPOs are taking, including Louisville. We've sort of decided that this is, it seems to be a good strategy. We'll also look at opportunities if we have an existing project, perhaps that we, that we want to get more out of that project. for instance, to give an example, the Highway Safety Improvement Program has a number of safety projects that are currently under development in both Fayette and Jessamine County, but they don't always have enough funding to complete all of the desired project components. So if there's a project already in the works where we would really like to do something above and beyond what they are currently able to do with existing funding sources, we may look at those opportunities to sort of piggyback on those projects as well. So I did want to let you know that we are, you know, kind of in the R&D phase of identifying some projects. We certainly encourage you to reach out to us if there's a particular project that you want to make sure is on the table for consideration in those discussions, and we will hopefully have some proposals for you to react to in June or certainly August at the very latest. You're muted, Judge. Very good. Some would say I need to be muted more, but are there any questions for the highway infrastructure? All right, Kenzie, keep us rolling please. All right just a few quick updates on some of the milestones for our ongoing studies. The Imagine Nicholasville Road final report has been posted to the project website and a public hearing is scheduled with the Lexington Planning Commission for May 8th or not May 8th sorry May the 20th. So we have tried our best to get the word out about that. The bottleneck study is about halfway complete at this point. The consultants have identified the most problematic locations and they're currently working on a list of potential solutions and interventions. We received a draft report for the I-75 crossing study just yesterday. So we are going to meet and discuss the information that's provided in there. We will probably make a presentation to you all about that sometime in the near future. The Jessamine-Fayette connectivity study wrapped up their first round of public input and they plan to arrange a stakeholder meeting in the near future to review some of their kind of the first pass that they've taken at some of the draft recommendations and then lextran is currently or was recently conducting on-board surveys with their riders to help inform their comprehensive operational analysis jill barnett with lextran may or may not have something to add but that is otherwise concludes the the staff updates that i had Thank you, Kenzie. That's accurate about our surveys. All right. Very good. Any other business then? Questions, comments, new business. All right. Our next meeting date. I'm sorry, Judge Larson. I just want to reiterate Councilman Maloney's item on the presidential stimulus, transportation stimulus, that we ought to be planning for things in particular, as I mentioned before, internet, interstate connectivity, and not only with the bluegrass activity in that area, but also in the connectivity potential from the Nicholasville bypass to I-75 near Whitehall. I think we should get back into potential for studying that if there are funds available and I want to reiterate what Councilman Baloney has suggested. If there are big dollars that's where money might go. Thank you. Yes sir. and our next meeting date's Wednesday June 23rd 2021 that most likely will be a zoom but say stay tuned do we have a motion to adjourn motion a second yes all right all in favor yes we will see you next time thank you Thank you. Thank you.