# Environmental Quality and Public Works Committee - June 22, 2021 > Auto-transcribed civic record · June 22, 2021 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/5382 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/5382?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2021-06-22 - **Last revised**: June 22, 2021 - **Length**: 16,772 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed with OpenAI's open-source Whisper large-v3-turbo model, run locally by The Lexington Times. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude. Verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Environmental Quality & Public Works Committee met virtually on June 22, 2021, at 1:00 PM, with F. Brown presiding as the committee chair. The committee addressed four agenda items during the session, including routine administrative matters and substantive policy discussions related to infrastructure and environmental management. The committee took three formal votes during the meeting, approving both the May 18, 2021 committee summary and a vegetation management agreement with KU (Kansas University). One agenda item regarding abandoned shopping carts was tabled for future consideration, while the FY22 Pavement Management Plan was presented for informational purposes only. No public comments were received during the meeting, indicating this was primarily a working session focused on committee business and staff presentations. ## Attendance The following members were present at the meeting on June 22, 2021: • F. Brown • Kay • Ellinger • Moloney • McCurn • LeGris • Sheehan • Kloiber • Worley • Bledsoe No members were reported as absent or late for this meeting. All ten members were in attendance. ## Votes and Decisions The committee took three votes during the June 22, 2021 meeting, all of which passed. **Approval of May 18, 2021 Committee Summary** [timestamp: 00:10] McCurn made a motion to approve the May 18, 2021 Committee Summary. The motion passed unanimously with no opposition. **KU Agreement Authorization** [timestamp: 02:30] Kloiber made a motion to pass the agreement out of committee recommending and authorizing the mayor to negotiate with KU. The motion passed by voice vote with no recorded opposition. **Motion to Adjourn** [timestamp: 02:44] Worley made a motion to adjourn the meeting, which was seconded by McCurn. The motion passed unanimously. All three votes were conducted without formal roll call votes, with outcomes determined either unanimously or by voice vote. No members voted against any of the motions presented during the meeting. ## Contested Items The June 22, 2021 meeting featured two primary areas of contention that generated heated discussion among committee members. **Abandoned Shopping Carts** The committee engaged in extensive debate over the management of abandoned shopping carts throughout the community. The discussion centered on the complexity of enforcement and the burden placed on local businesses. Committee members grappled with the practical challenges of implementing effective cart retrieval policies while balancing the responsibilities of retailers and the costs of municipal enforcement. The heated nature of the discussion reflected differing views on how to address this ongoing community issue, though specific positions of individual members and the final outcome were not detailed in the available materials. **KU Vegetation Management Agreement** A significant debate emerged regarding negotiations with KU (Kentucky Utilities) over tree removal practices and vegetation management. Committee members expressed concerns about the potential financial implications of any agreement with the utility company, as well as the impact such tree removal activities might have on residents. The discussion highlighted tensions between utility infrastructure needs and community environmental concerns. Members appeared divided on how to approach negotiations with KU, weighing the costs of potential agreements against the effects on the local tree canopy and resident quality of life. Both contested items demonstrated the committee's struggle with balancing practical municipal concerns against community interests and financial considerations. The heated nature of these discussions suggests significant disagreement among members about the appropriate approaches to these ongoing issues, though the specific outcomes and voting results for these items were not documented in the available meeting materials. ## Approval of May 18, 2021 Committee Summary [timestamp: 00:10] The committee reviewed the summary of their May 18, 2021 meeting as agenda item I. F. Brown served as the key speaker for this agenda item, presenting the summary for committee consideration. The committee conducted their standard review of the previous meeting's summary document. This routine procedural item allows committee members to verify the accuracy of the recorded proceedings and ensure that key decisions, discussions, and actions from the prior meeting are properly documented. Following the review process, the committee voted to approve the May 18, 2021 committee summary without any noted objections or required amendments. The approval confirms the official record of the previous meeting's proceedings. ## FY22 Pavement Management Plan [timestamp: 00:20] Commissioner Albright presented the FY22 Pavement Management Plan during this informational agenda item. The presentation covered several key components of the upcoming fiscal year's pavement maintenance and improvement strategy. Albright discussed the budget allocations for the FY22 pavement management program, outlining how funds would be distributed across various road maintenance and improvement projects. The presentation included details on project timelines, providing the meeting participants with a schedule of when different pavement work would be undertaken throughout the fiscal year. A significant point raised during the presentation was the need for updates to the existing pavement management plan. Albright emphasized that revisions would be necessary to ensure the plan remains current and effective in addressing the jurisdiction's road infrastructure needs. F. Brown also participated in the discussion, though the specific nature of their contribution was not detailed in the available materials. This agenda item was designated as informational, meaning no formal action was taken by the governing body. The presentation served to inform attendees about the pavement management strategy and budget planning for the upcoming fiscal year, allowing for transparency in the road maintenance planning process. The discussion provided stakeholders with an overview of how pavement management resources would be allocated and managed in FY22, establishing a framework for the year's infrastructure maintenance activities. ## Abandoned Shopping Carts [timestamp: 01:30] Council member Kloiber brought forward agenda item III regarding the ongoing issue of abandoned shopping carts throughout the community. Kloiber discussed the problem and presented a proposed ordinance designed to address and manage abandoned shopping cart situations. The proposed ordinance would establish a framework for dealing with shopping carts that are left on public property or private property without permission. Kloiber's proposal included provisions for penalties that would be imposed on businesses whose shopping carts are found abandoned in unauthorized locations. Council member F. Brown also participated in the discussion of this agenda item, though the specific details of their contribution were not detailed in the available materials. The shopping cart ordinance represents an attempt to address what appears to be a recurring municipal issue, with the proposed penalties serving as a deterrent mechanism for businesses to better manage their cart inventory and prevent abandonment. Following the discussion between Kloiber and F. Brown, the council decided to table the abandoned shopping cart ordinance. No immediate action was taken on the proposed legislation, indicating that further consideration or additional information may be needed before the council moves forward with implementing the cart management framework and associated business penalties. The tabling of this item suggests the council may revisit the abandoned shopping cart issue and Kloiber's proposed ordinance at a future meeting. ## KU Vegetation Management Agreement [timestamp: 02:00] Council member Kloiber presented a resolution to authorize the mayor to negotiate with KU (Kentucky Utilities) regarding their tree removal practices. The proposed agreement aims to achieve zero net canopy loss when KU removes trees for utility line maintenance and infrastructure projects. The discussion focused on establishing a formal framework for vegetation management that would require KU to replace or compensate for trees removed during their operations. Kloiber emphasized the importance of maintaining the community's tree canopy while acknowledging the utility company's need to maintain safe clearances around power lines. Council member F. Brown participated in the discussion, though specific details of their comments were not captured in the available materials. The resolution would give the mayor authority to enter into negotiations with KU to develop specific terms and procedures for tree replacement or compensation when vegetation removal is necessary for utility operations. This approach seeks to balance public safety requirements for electrical infrastructure with environmental preservation goals. The council approved the resolution, allowing the mayor to proceed with negotiations to establish a formal vegetation management agreement with Kentucky Utilities. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approval of May 18, 2021 Committee Summary - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Motion to pass the agreement out of committee recommending and authorizing the mayor to negotiate with KU - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Motion to adjourn --- ## Full transcript I'd like to call the Environmental Quality and Public Works Committee to order. First time in over a year that we've met this committee in person, so glad to be here. Looks like we have all our members here, and we'll go forward here. and first item on the agenda is the approval of the May 18, 2021 committee summary. So I need a motion to accept that. Second. A motion by Council Member McCurron, second by Council Member Ellinger. Any questions on that? All those in favor, signify by aye. Aye. Any opposed? Okay, passed. Let's get right into our agenda. The second item on here is Physical Year 22 Pavement Management Plan. Commissioner Albright will present that. It's got my name on there, of course. It's one of my babies. It's been around a while, since 2015, I believe. and we we get this every year an update on on what the commissioner is going to do how even some of the money is going to be spent and we usually do this after the budget so we know what dollars we're talking about I think so Commissioner Albright go ahead and start your presentation thank you all righty thank you sir and thank you council members I appreciate coming and speaking with you all today about this this is something I enjoy getting to speak about as well we will start out with just of course the kind of things that we'll walk through during the presentation today and to councilmember Brown's point we started this with the two resolutions packed passed back in spring or summer of 16 and developed our first pavement management plan previous to that and had adopted at that meeting and along with the resolution about the the dollar amount that would be appropriate moving forward so those two have been in existence since 2016 and since that time here is the funding that we have adopted every year and then our expenditures every year and you'll notice of course that the expenditures don't quite marry up with the adopted budget and that is in large part just due to the kind of lead and lag that goes we go through as we issue work orders against the the budget so some years we're still playing catch-up in the course the paving season and the budget cycle or 180 degrees apart and so they're in the middle of paving when we're passing a new budget and so there's some some lag time sometimes with that at the beginning and end of the budget cycle so but last year we were the current fiscal year we were able to catch up a little bit on our spending we didn't have as much budgeted as previous years but we were able to spend a little more than that just thanks to kind of cleaning up a lot of our old accounts so we did it still make some forward progress and as was mentioned the this This is what's in the budget currently, so we're starting to have the conversation about how to divvy up this money based on our needs at this point. And you'll notice the asterisk there to address and confirm just the budget amendment that we did a couple weeks ago to move one and a half million into this fiscal year to allow us to get a head start on a couple of big projects. And just to let you know, one of those has already started. going to start milling man-of-war this week so we're very excited to be able to engage that project early while we can and while ATS is available before the massive redo of the airport in August so thank you very much for that and then you'll see there we are once again due to have our data collection every third year is our effort our goal on data collection so we have money set aside in the budget to do that work and then that leaves us with about 13.8 then we take down the 1.5 million that we've already set aside for the work that's coming up in the next week or two starting us with 12.3 million to do paving across the city for the current fiscal year the upcoming fiscal year and then there's three or four things I wanted to just bring to go on and bring to your attention as we start that show some city-wide initiatives they're not really big enough that they need to be broken down by council district they are more addressed as needed and those are the base failures service roads came up in the last two years of little bitty roads that are usually either behind a shopping center or connect to a small industrial park or an office park they're classified as local roads but they're they're not ones that get a lot of attention because the people who work there don't live there and so they just kind of get forgotten and so we started pulling out money to make repairs on those citywide as needed rather than try to catch them all in one of our other pots because they just never reach the top of the list and then the last one there at the bottom the fourth one is we're going to do another run of high friction pavement this year so we're going to start putting that together one of those hopefully will be addressed as West High Street and then we're going to look at some other roads that need to either be refreshed or added as we move through putting that work together starting in the next week or two and then the last one that I did on a different proposed doing on a different allocation then how we do some of the other things is Tate's Creek we're still doing a lot of repair and resurfacing work on Tate's Creek as we adopted Tate's Creek into the city network after the pavement management plan came in to be so it's not really got a solid funding source and it would skew our numbers I'm afraid if we tried to add that one at this point so then that leaves 11.2 million to break down by functional class and you are familiar with this this is where we're just following the pavement management plan that we've had again since 2016 broken down by lane miles should reflect the percentage that we have this is part of what we may want to revisit as we move into the next update of the pavement management plan or those percentages but for now this is what we've got and so this is how that 12.2 breaks down and then when you go into the next category of kind of splitting the money apart into different pots our pavement management plan indicates that what we approved was to do 25% on preventive maintenance crack sealing rejuvenation there's a couple other treatments that we may also look at and then there's this the standard one to two inch resurfacing project so that's the money that's left for that is that 75% and then this last part again of course we tend to break that last local part down by council district and we split those out by percentage of local lane miles with a low OCI on them our operation condition our operating condition index and then that becomes sort of how we spend that money around the city over the next fiscal year and then finally our next steps on pavement management we've already started looking at arterials and collectors we will share those with you I know that at least one council member is a big fan of knowing where those main artery and collector roads are before they make a final decision on locals and some of you may know who that is and And then, but we'll start sharing that information in the next few days so that we can give that to you to make your local road decisions. And we'll start sharing with you all as well the local roads that are below a 60 so that you can start putting together those strategies that you want to look at this year as well. And then, like I said, our data collection that is included in the new budget starting in a week or two, we have the data collection group scheduled to come in in august i believe to run all the roads so it won't be available for decisions this summer but it will be available hopefully what we plan is for decisions with any remaining funds next spring and then starting forward from there and again one of the things that we're going to look at hopefully if you all are agreeable that the existing pavement plan pavement management plan actually has an end date on it of 2021 And so we take that as a charge from council that it means it's time to update the pavement management plan. So we would anticipate working on that over the next year to be presented next year. And with that. Thank you, Commissioner. We'll take questions now. So you should probably stay right there. Yes, sir. I've got Council Member Ellinger. Thank you, Chair. Looking at the resolution, it looks like being a resolution though, the directing administration to do 15 million and looking at our prior budget, it doesn't look like we've hit that any of the times we've done it. That's correct. We're better this year, but we still haven't quite hit Fred's 15 million, so I'm surprised he didn't add that in there this year. Could you give me a definition of what high friction pavement is? I'll do my best it is a different rock the the rock that is used in Kentucky is usually limestone crushed limestone and that tends to polish over time as cars run on the track on the road and the the rock that gets used in the high friction treatment is I think it's bauxite and it so it doesn't polish and it will grab the tires a little better it actually sounds a little different when you're driving over it it's used in curves and in locations where you you may slide a little in wet rainy conditions and to help keep your tires it grabs your tires a little better and it lasts longer I remember we received thank you for that I remember we received an email because we wanted to get a little ahead of it because of the runway so what is our plan to do it June and July and then we're going to lose ATS through in August because they're going to be working on the runway and what's that time frame if I remember right the actual runway work is the weekend like the 21st 22nd and that is all hands on deck for three days straight with ATS every crew they have will be there but for the two weeks leading up to that most of their work will be there doing the taxiways and other approach work so they will be somewhat out of pocket they probably wouldn't want me to use the term completely but they will be really tied up they have committed for two weeks in August for that so our play is to get ahead of that and we're doing it right now as we speak yes sir yes so yes we are really focused on getting as much work as we can done between now and end of July of our main roads some of our school-based roads like we are looking at South Limestone trying to do that before UK resumes so we want to try and jump on that in early July thank you thank you thank you chair councilmember Bledsoe thank you chair Thank you, Commissioner. The friction stuff, if you want to look at it in action, if you go on Stone Road where that hairpin turn is, that's one of the first places, I believe, we place some of the high friction. And it really helps when it's rain and you're trying to go around that turn quickly. It allows the car to handle it better. So I think that's been a success. It's an easy place to kind of look. And then, two, I always want more money for my district, as everyone else does. But I think one of the challenges of different areas, and I'll use mine as an example, we have so many small courts and small streets that it doesn't get as many lane miles. And so I feel like, unfortunately for me, unlike the ones that have more grid patterns, I get lesser amount of lane miles. Is that a fair statement? Yes, ma'am. Well, I don't love it because of that. But I understand. I'm not sure I have a better plan for how to do that, but I just think we should. I don't have a better plan. I wish I did. this is the bet we keep getting better this is a good thing but i it's hard to to not it's hard to find ways to pave those courts and small streets with the budgets that we have right especially the developments that are set to be non-grid and one way and one out it just makes it harder to get higher so and i appreciate knowing where those arteriaries and collectors are going to be paved so i can work around that schedule i appreciate trying to maximize our our resources and hopefully we can get some different ways of trying to fund some of those small areas. I will make a note of that. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. That's Mayor Kaye, please. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Commissioner, for the presentation. First, I should say that I'm perfectly happy with the allocation to my district. Couldn't be better. Secondly, I did have a question about how you How do you determine the allocation that's set aside for preventative maintenance, crack seal, etc. On the surface, no pun intended, but on the surface, it seems like more attention to crack and seal would prevent the more lengthy or more expensive expenditures later on. So can you just talk a little bit about how you think about that? How we do the by each road or the percentage breakdown? Right now, you set aside 25%. What's that based on, I guess? That's based on the payment management plan. Actually, Vice Mayor came out of a subcommittee, Council Member Brown headed in that level was set by council. Is where the 25% comes from. So, I guess I should ask the chair why it's, I guess it strikes me as a little bit arbitrary. and that is that the allocation ought to be based on whether spending more on crack and seal would save us more money going forward rather than kind of putting a cap on that. I think that's looked at as a minimum. You could spend more than that. In previous pavement management plans, there was a small segment of it that showed preventive maintenance extends the pavement life and therefore stretches our dollar, and that's where council came up with the 25%. Okay, so it's not a ceiling, it's a minimum, so Chair, if you... Well, yeah, I comment on that. This, you gotta look at, this is 2016, so it's five years ago. These things can evolve or change as far as what we need to do. I think once they do the pavement, the plan that we've got in August or September, they're coming for our rating, our new rating, we'll be able to better look at these percentages and find out if we need more or less in a particular area. And this, so you're right, it's an arbitrary, the 25% was, but it was based on some past history, and it was based on the commissioner at that time and the information they had, and I think Rob was involved in that also. Well, there is a lot more national research now to bring to that conversation of how often is a good frequency to do preventive maintenance. So that would be a part of the next update. Great. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Is that all you had? Yes, sir. Council Member Maloney. Thank you. So I'm looking at the paving. We have $150,000, $25,000. A few years ago by help with my colleagues, we set money aside for the bike trails. And I hope it was coming out of this fund to make sure it's mandatory that we always have money. Because when we build these bike trails, we didn't have money to keep them up. So I thought we made an ordinance to make sure. Is it still in that program? And how much is it in there every year now? I thought it was 150 or maybe 125. I can't remember. Are we still at it? You and Council Member Gibbs, I believe, set a minimum of $150,000. And that is funded separately from pavement. It is mineral severance, coal severance. Okay. And it is funded. And it is fully funded. And it has been since then. And we track it separately. I want to make sure we keep Councilmember Heliger happy that we have those bike trails taken care of. So that's one thing that I push out this. As long as he's happy, I'm happy. Thank you. Councilmember Lamb. Thank you, Chair, for recognizing me. And, of course, I always am appreciative of this presentation because paving is such a unique process for our city. The base failures, $150,000. do you all already have that allocated to certain projects no ma'am okay well I just want to put a plug in that there are there's additional segments on Lansdowne Drive that I think have been experiencing more base failures and then also as it relates to the high friction pavement I know you all probably already had this on your list but that the intersection of Lansdowne Drive at wilson downing i'm hoping that we can get in the next truckload that that goes out and so i appreciate this and look forward to working with you all to set it up so thanks thank you chair thank you any other council members before i i've got a couple of questions or comments Okay, first thing, go back to the slide that has council district allocation by local lane miles. The commissioner and I have talked about this. This schedule here probably is a schedule that is not as representative and I don't think it's as fair for all council members in looking at the, just looking at the dollars. But it was done back in 2016, and we've had questions on it ever since. But one of the things that contributes to what's in there is if you have money in your pot that you haven't used your monies for roads, then it doesn't get accounted for in that. Is that correct? Yes, sir. And that's one of the corrections that I would like to see made. for instance 9th district has got 612,000 allocated but the council member also has about nine hundred thousand dollars in their account at one point that had grown so I don't know what we do in this case but we need to make it a little bit more representative and I'm not you know if in other words if you're using all your money in each council district which you should be currently as you can then this allocation fund would be more accurate is that that could be true and I will say that hopefully now by the time they do the data collection that will have corrected itself to a certain extent but it won't correct the dollars that you have funded in there because you're going to allocate. Not in FY22. In FY23 it would look different. And when I'm looking at this other schedule, but I wanted to bring that up because it's, you know, I think you all in your office and Rob, you all ought to tweak that a little bit going forward anyway. Yes, sir. I don't know if anybody else has any comments on it, but Some districts, yes. Thank you, Chair, I agree with you. Because what happens is then it's alternately weighted because you've not spent the money cleaning up your roads. I don't think that was the intent of the current council member. It was an inherited issue. But that's something that I think we should move going forward. But if it's not spent in that calendar year, it goes back into the pot. Because I don't think it does disproportionately impact how many lane miles that don't have a high score. That would take some sort of motion and discussion, I guess, if we did that because it would change the plan. Council Member Maloney. $900,000. It seems like to me if they don't want to get in touch with you guys, you don't spend it. I mean, I'm sorry. I mean, seriously, if the council member does not want to spend the money, whatever the plan is out there that you all see in that district, you need to spend it. Because I don't want to see money be carried over because that's not, I mean, that's just me unless my colleagues disagree with me. You shouldn't be leaving money in a pot like that when you sit roads in the conditions they are and you're not spending the money. Now, I'm asking you, if you ever run into that problem again, and I don't know where my colleagues are, you should spend it for them. that's just me I mean I'm sorry I didn't up but that I'm not blaming you all I'm just saying the period I'm trying to help you I appreciate the confidence you have in us but I I do not have the liberty to spend money that's been allocated to a council district and reapportion it without this council giving me that authority and I cannot do that it would it would take a change in in the management plan and that's, we can do that in this committee or we can leave that particular item in the committee and address it next time or whatever. I've got Council Member McCurran has not spoken. Thank you, Chair. And I tend to agree with your sentiment with this, but at the same time, it's not always about me not wanting to spend the money. is that I'm trying to sometimes get an entire neighborhood done and be more cost effective. So if I have $100,000 and I'm not going to be able to get everything done in that neighborhood, I might wait until the next spring when we have paving allocation to us, and then I will go ahead and take $250,000 and put it towards completing the entire neighborhood. I do think this is something that we can look into and have a broader discussion on in the future, But, I mean, I hold on to some of my funds just for that same sake. Thank you, Chair. Council Member Bledsoe. Thank you. I think this is my second time speaking, so I'll. Well, you're the only one. Okay. So I respect that opinion, Council Member McCurron, and I do the same thing. I try to maximize the amount of money that I have in a certain area to do as much as you can. so you're avoiding change fees and movement fees and those things. I think the frustration point is when you get to this point of the year and we're reallocating funding, that then can have a negative effect on the funding allocation. And so I think there's a balance there to be had somewhere. And maybe it is a, I want to be sensitive to both issues. So let me just toss out a question to you, commissioner, and see if this makes sense. If we said something like if at the end of the fiscal year you could have no more than 10% or something left in your budget or something that would maybe be a small compromise, 10% of the budget wouldn't be too much? I don't think so because there will always be a certain amount that is probably not able to be allocated. Everybody kind of rolls forward a little bit at least. Do you have a recommendation of a percent? One of the suggestions that Mr. Brown threw out earlier was, what if we just somehow accounted for if those roads had been paved in the percentage of the split, so that their percentage of roads below 60 didn't keep growing? I would be okay with that, because that really is my frustration point, or what disproportionately affects how much money we all get. I think you can do that administratively, can't you? Or would that have to have a change in the plan? I think that would be addressed best in the plan. Okay. So I'd like to make a motion to make that into the plan. That when the administration comes forward with recommendations, that it accounts for roads that would be paved should weather and resources accommodate. Does that sound sufficiently worded? So moved? Yeah, you have a motion. Second. We have a motion and a second. Discussion? Chair, I've just got a question. So this is a motion to make this what will be a part of what they come back with with the new plan? I think my intent is to change it from moving forward. Okay. Does that mean this year? I mean, like, addressing that in this place? I was thinking next year. Okay. But if you are open for this year, that's fine. I was thinking more for next year. That's fine. Okay. Does everyone understand the motion? It's to do a fairer allocation for each council district is what it does. The motion does. Council Member McCurron. Thank you, Chair. Council Member Bledsoe, is this going to be just a recommendation that would come back to this committee for approval then? Is that right? I don't know that we approve the pavement management plan every year, do we? There's an approval of the allocation. Of the allocation. Yeah. And the pavement management plan itself is a document on our website that's five years. years yes so it would already it would impact the ordinance and then it'd come back in the plan every year perfect thank you thank you chairman so I understand what happens is if you don't spend it then it looks like you have more roads under the 60% than you would and you're going to look at the money that they would have to spend and take that down off of the 60 so it would be less under the 60 percent. Right. Okay. And how would you go about, what would you use as the number to determine that? Well, we'll have to do a little research on that. I'd hate to give you a method right off the top of my head. Okay. But I think that's the fairest way to do it. Yeah. Thank you. They've got some sophisticated computer analysis on all of this that has even brought it in the words that. Council Member Worley. Thank you chair and this is this goes to the the motion generally but it's helped me better understand also when we look the OCI is not measured every year correct? Correct. And so and I've asked this years ago and I'm not sure I got the answer that I've really understood but how we are trying to adapt as we go along because certainly an road that is a OCI of 63 three years ago is not necessarily still above a 60 now and but I was told then we don't particularly we have not built that mechanism into the pavement management plan and maybe we have maybe we're and maybe you could explain that to me some way because when I look and I know that council member Bledsoe was complaining about the amount that the 10th district gets but if you'll notice the 7th district always gets the least amount of paving money and we have we do have fantastic roads in the 7th district but I imagine over time we've got a few that might slide in that could be counted as under 60 but we've not accommodated for that yet well my understanding I'm gonna look to Rob to nod or shake his head, but is that it does downgrade each of the road segments that are not addressed every year. And then the roads that are resurfaced every year get reset up to about a 90. So it does take some of that fluctuation over the three years into account. And it does have a degradation component. And that is where the variance is because it can't account for weather. It can't account for utility cuts or construction. But it's supposed to degrade. You're exactly right. So road rated at 63 three years later should at least be a 60 going down in the scale. And that's built in. And we have the capability to speak to Council Member Ellinger's question. We upload data to road care twice a year when we pave in January and in July. So a road that has been repaved is reset in that software. So if you were a 63 and you got paved, you'd probably come in at a 98 or 100, and then it would further, you know, as we run it. But that's why we have to do the survey every couple years, because even though it gets more accurate each time we do it, we can account for the weather, the fluctuation in the price of asphalt, and, as I said, construction. Well, that's helpful to know, and I think that then goes to Council Member Bledsoe's motion here, that while the degradation formula that's built in may not be 100% accurate, it does help to look at streets that are being paved as they're being paved, and then ones that are sitting out there. So I think that that is helpful and seems like a good way to try to encourage us all to move forward. I also know that our contractor is always ready, particularly the more lead time you give them. They are always ready, and I think they try to build in two, three months' worth of work at a time. So the better that we can be of making sure that that work is submitted and ready, the quicker and more efficient that they can do it. And they usually do it cheaper than what we've estimated. And so we could probably carry our money a little bit further if we keep them operational and efficient. So thank you. Well said. Thank you. I'm off. There we go. Comment on the motion. Commissioner, if we made the motion effective for this year, could that be done? I mean, is that a big problem? You just put the numbers back in the computer. It would probably be a little bit challenging because I'm going to have to figure out exactly what that would look like as far as how much we would go back and try to recapture what got done this spring and what didn't get done this spring, moving to reallocate everything right now. You're also in the last year of your data set, so from the actual survey, you're kind of basing that then on the degradation model, which we know is not super accurate. It would be really difficult to kind of change midstream this year. So our motion reads that going forward, fiscal year 23, I guess. Is that correct? Okay. Any other questions on the motion? Let's vote on it. All those in favor, signify by saying, raising your hand. That'll do it. Raise hands. Yeah. Any no's? Okay. Fast. So that's an addition to the pavement management plan. addendum to that. Okay, great. Going forward. And we've figured out the hybrid between the Zoom and the live meeting. Yeah, right. Yeah, we can do it any way the chair wants to. Didn't you know that? I've got a couple other questions. Yes, sir. Yes, bring up the schedule on next to the last page, page 12, I believe, it shows the allocation, the 25% and the 75%. My understanding is when you look at that 25%, there could be monies left over each year. I don't know that we've always spent that much on locals. I would tend to agree with you that could happen. What are you doing with that money? are you obligating that into another area? I think it probably tends to get rolled over into the local pot in general, anything that doesn't get spent. Okay, okay, because I didn't think we had spent that much. A million eight is a lot for local streets. It is. Now, we do have a couple plans, if you remember, that are automated on a cycle, and so we don't necessarily have to keep going back as much as we just use the list and we say, what did we do three years ago? Because it's time for that to be sealed, or it's time for that to have a treatment. And the other question I wanted to highlight was the next schedule back is where you're showing the allocation majors, collectors, and locals. Yes, sir. One schedule back that shows 10%, 25%, and 65%. I think we're shortchanging our collectors and all the history that I've looked at since I've been on council since we did this pavement management plan. This can fluctuate. Of course, Commissioner, you can suggest different percentages here. That wouldn't change the plan so much. It just changes the percentages. But I say this in regard to if we put any extra money out of our funds that we're getting our COVID-19 funds, which we probably can, I would hope that the council would consider beefing up the collectors because when you get that information back, you'll see how little in your district of the collectors you're getting paid. And they are very viable because they wear out quicker, they're longer, they cost more. So I'm just questioning that 25% now and what we have, and hopefully if we can put more money into the pot, certainly it can get spent, but maybe the collectors. So we'll look at that down the road. But that's kind of my idea. Any other questions on this topic? None? Great. Thank you, Commissioner. You're welcome. Thank you. We'll go into our second or third item here, abandoned shopping carts. Council Member Klober has this. You want to start? Thank you, Commissioner. I guess you can stay up there again for another presentation. This was something that I put in committee a while back, and we've been looking into it as the problem is happening all over our city, and we've been getting lots of complaints about abandoned carts that have to be picked up. And when we originally looked into it, there was no real centralized process we had for handling this. So this is the presentation about how we can try to put something in place that's similar to what we've seen implemented across the country and trying to take best practice and implement it here in Fayette County. So Commissioner if you would okay. Thank you, sir. Appreciate that As he mentioned especially as councilmember Kloiber mentioned especially back over the winter was when it seemed to really become a lot of No more noticeable and the the second bullet there was a particularly noteworthy Opportunity where we had about 80 shopping carts down around off Winchester Road in one location and then that one we we were able to they were almost exclusively Walmart shopping carts and so we called the manager of the Walmart there in Hamburg and they came and collected them so that that problem was addressed that way other ways when we got to talking about it with both with the council member and then internally in our department a lot of our group was getting random calls either 311 was routing them based on some of them might have gone to code enforcement some of them might have gone to streets and roads some of them might have gone to waste management some of them might have gone to environmental services our groups were finding them as part of our contract work so we did find that we needed to kind of better address how we were collecting data on how many we were seeing so we could kind of get our arms around how big of a problem we had and one of the other background points that that we've talked about that didn't i didn't make us on the slide unfortunately was we had a crew that was addressing this through some of our trustee program and with coven 19 the thought of that program you know they don't leave the jail as often anymore and so that also added to those not being picked up on a regular basis like they had been leaving them more visible for longer so we we are now at a point where and to just make sure that I let you all know right now we have collected all that into the Division of Environmental Services our litter contractors are the primary contact when we get a report for that and they are treated like litter right now they are just collected and and disposed of at our transfer station so we are seeing about four calls per week come in now we don't have a lot of history going backward because of the disparate way that that's been addressed over the last several years so and to the the first bullet point there just to show you a couple of examples a lot of what we find are they are either at corners with bus stations at bus station locations at entrances to house to apartment complexes or something and that can be anywhere around town so that is it is kind of widely spread around of different areas and not necessarily always connected to in destination we did look into as councilmember Kloiber mentioned we looked at what other cities have done we did not find any local comparison so we looked more broadly found several in Florida and in California so literally coast to coast about how these are done and there is a lot of variability about shopping cart ordinances as to some of them are really strictly about making sure they have identifiable information all the way up to a penalty process and a retention plan and how they are treated when they are discovered so there is a lot of variability around the country still about this Some of it's driven by the state, but not all of it. And so I think you'll see in your packet you've got a proposed ordinance. These are kind of the highlights of what's in the ordinance. I will lift up one additional proposed change that came in late was that to better mirror how we clean up our homeless camps, they they do not store the belongings they treat those as abandoned as well so once notice has been provided it they are thrown away along with the rest of the materials and so the proposal was to treat the the belongings in an abandoned shopping cart the same as we would treat the abandoned shopping cart and then just to let you all know we will some of the things that we have looked at as a administration we've talked with code enforcement and public safety and then our group has been doing it right now there are some challenges with the retention plan about knowing what we know and what we don't know as one thing about do we know that how many businesses this is and we have really no good way to know that right now so we won't know if a business particularly needs a shopping cart retention plan it could be rather burdensome depending on how it's implemented and punitive again the currently right now the the penalty for not complying with the retention plan is not yet defined and again the the belongings we may address modifying the ordinance and councilmember clover is agreed that that could be treated differently so that it mirrors how we do other work and then so some of this would would probably not necessarily need to be included as a concern moving forward if that change is made and then right now like I said we we just throw them away when we come across them we have had some complaints from businesses because they are not cheap and our hope has been so far but they are thrown away as soon as we come across them so we anticipate that that might be hopefully helping there were some businesses that used to have a contract with an individual that would go out and recover abandoned shopping carts at the retail bit level we are not aware that that business continues to happen so that would be one other potential change we'd like to potentially see from the businesses and And then so moving into the recommendations from the administration are to maybe just vet this a little bit more as far as better tracking our data, better tracking our kind of walking through intentionally with the ordinance one more time to make sure that we are on board with penalizing the businesses or appropriately, you know, the property owner frequently isn't the business, so making sure that code enforcement has the tools that they need if this moves forward into an ordinance. And then there's usually an appeals process. We haven't quite figured out what that would look like with this property. Okay. Ready for questions? Council members? Council member Reynolds? Thank you, Chair, for recognizing me because I don't serve on this committee. I just first of all want to thank Councilmember Kloiber for looking into this and putting so much work into it. I know Councilmember Henson before me was very concerned about this issue. And we have a lot of abandoned carts in the 11th District all over the place in the creek. And there's a lot of apartment buildings. So I thought over the years that the main reason why there are so many is because a lot of people don't have a vehicle. And so they walk to the store, they go to the store, and they don't have a way of getting their groceries back to their house without the cart. So I'm sympathetic to that. And I've thought, you know, what is the solution? And I'm not really sure. I think this is a really great start. and I guess one of my questions would be this is going to take extra labor and extra time how are we going to enforce this it will be a little bit of a challenge and that's not really been addressed at this point do we need additional staff time or how would we do that okay so that would have to be ironed out and and and it would have a cost i assume right yes ma'am okay and then the the violations what what what are those what would those look like i believe currently it says uh one to three violations in a calendar year there's a penalty but the penalty goes back to the retailer for not adhering to their retention plan and how much would that penalty be um let me is it it's pretty steep right is it find $100 for one to three violations a year and then it goes up to $200 for four to six and then $300 and then $500 once you get above ten okay and there's ways that these retailers can try to prevent their carts from leaving their property right so we're trying to encourage that that but then maybe we need to encourage a way for people to get back to their apartments with their groceries at the same time. And how would this affect the homeless population where you might see a cart of someone with their belongings? I'm going to let Polly speak to that. so similar to the groceries our population basically that's all their stuff however it's interesting because when we see abandoned shopping carts and we have in the past actually put a shopping cart under notice like it was a camp and it was truly abandoned and that's just how we treat it so if it's abandoned and we put notice on it like she said to post it for 72 hours either they can come back and get it and keep moving or they leave it there and in the past when we've actually put notice on a cart like it's an encampment it's just been abandoned so you feel like 72 hours is sufficient to know if it's going to be abandoned or not yes okay thank you that's all very helpful okay then I I think I would be in favor of this, and thank you. Council Member Sheehan. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Commissioner, for all the research that has gone into this, and Council Member Clover, thank you for bringing this forward. I have two things. One is thinking about the businesses and how we don't want to overburden them. I think it would be important to bring them into the conversation when we're setting that time limit of how long they have to pick the cart up, because right now in the proposal it's 24 hours, and I wonder if that is a little too short. And I think just opening up the conversation and including them in that I think would be helpful. The other piece is similar to what Council Member Reynolds brought up, is these plans that are in the proposed ordinance are due in January. so even just undertake the undertaking of having to figure out who should be turning in a plan tracking all the plans making sure people are following the plans if all of that is going through code enforcement i do wonder about the hours that will be allocated to this because i think it will require a lot of work and then tracking you know if the cart has been picked up in that 24 hours you know all of those kinds of things i think our code enforcement is already stretched pretty thin we put a lot on them and so i would want to make sure that we are considering that in the ongoing conversation thank you council member lagree thank you chair um thank you council member clover and thank you commissioner for bringing this forward um my uh primary concern i think council member sheehan just brought up and that that had to do with whether or not businesses that would be affected or would need to comply had been if they had been brought into the conversation at all thus far. Not by us, but. Okay. And one of the things that I'm thinking about, I think you all brought up as a question, and that's this issue of the businesses facing fines versus property owners being penalized and of the process for um determining that um have you all already explored um the idea of the property owners being involved or not or or the a joint finding system anything like that i'm just we have not talked about that yet do you mind if i go ahead so so to answer that question um so the property owner is the owner of the cart which is the business that owns the cart so if one of their patrons takes it off the property they're still the property owner which is kind of why it was going back that direction so i i guess that kind of answers the question i don't know if what you're saying is that wherever it ended up which in most of these cases is public right-of-ways so and a lot of times you know we're the property owner at that point so that's kind of the distinction we're talking about here so yes at the end of the day it is um the intention is to try to incentivize business owners to take responsibility for their property in this way i'm i would love to as you guys said bring them into the conversation and i think to both council members shien's and your points a good place for that is around this whole entire plan that has to be submitted because that's where we could have exceptions or change the time limit based off what they wanted and i don't see see it as something that's necessarily we have to have this for everybody to go track them down but more of as a tool that allows us to get the carts back to them right where they've told us hey this is the easiest way to get it to us or something that allows us to make those exceptions where we're going to need 72 hours in order to do this so we submit it to a plan so i think that kind of makes it all clear that it's not just intended to be a plan that is a requirement We have every single person who has over ten carts in the whole city. You have to do this. It's more of a tool that helps us to implement this, get the carts back to the right people, and make any exceptions to help these business owners out. So that's where I would say that the interaction would be most had with the business owners, yes. Okay, I guess when I said property, I was thinking about fines that are levied on the property that has the nuisance on it, right? So the shopping cart being the nuisance. So just to clarify, I understand now what you mean by property in this context. Yeah, I guess what I'm concerned about is just the burden on the business. And also, if you're a smaller business and you only have a couple of carts versus a Kroger, for example, where you have a mechanism where you could stop the cart from going off their property, then that's a different situation. I also am concerned about proper information for contacting the stores and up-to-date information there. Being on the carts, I know you would have to have the compliance of the property owner, the property being the cart in this case, and bringing them into the conversation could be really helpful. In that case, to make sure that the cards actually have the right contact information, just a logistical consideration. Thank you. Councilmember Maloney. Thank you. This problem's been going on for years, and I remember back in the 80s and 90s, and I go back to Councilmember Reynolds. We had a company that was a lot of golf carts, I mean, carts were going back to the apartment. And the problem was a lot of those apartments backed up to the creeks. And that was our number one reason why we were getting flooded real bad. Because one time we pulled out 20 carts right in front of my house on the end of the lane. And so I went and met with Councilman Hensley. We met with the owner of the company, and they were telling us how much money they were losing on these carts. And they end up creating something that when they go off the property, it locks up. All those carts lock up. They can't leave the property. That was our biggest area in our district that I remember that was causing the problem. That has gone away, most of them, because it locks up. The question I have is, were these districts that are having these problems that I had, have they done the spirits of what, gone talk to these owners and sit down like we did because you all have an idea where your number one carts are coming from? And to me, I think it would be a good idea that we try to sit down like that. I mean, it worked well, and they realized how important it is for this community, especially when they were losing a lot of money and especially the damage it was doing to us on water, blood problem. I'd like to see if we go on that angle, too. And the second thing I have to ask is if you all do this, right now you just take the carts and throw them away. Now, where are you all going to storage these carts if you end up getting them? And that's my concern is we're going to have to pay money or a place to keep these carts. And I know some of my colleagues are concerned about the short time. I personally, and I don't mean to say this, but if they are letting those carts go off the way they are, they might spend more money than anybody and not to worry. because I think to me, I would ask that our group take pictures, if they get a number or something on those cards, send a bill to them of what it costs you all to send out that day, and throw the card away. I personally don't feel like we should get into business. They need to learn the hard way, and to me, if they're in that kind of business making that kind of money, and they're willing to get rid of these cards, I think we have to babysit them and maintain these carts somewhere until somebody comes to pick it up. But I don't think there's that many companies that have that many carts. There are some, I mean, they probably have a lot of places, locations, but there's not that many, like 20, 30, 40 different companies have carts. They're my tent, probably down to 10 or something like that. I just don't want it to put a burden on us, but we'll end up paying more money. taking care of this problem than what it is now and to me it worked well when I did it and Peggy Henson did it I think to me I'd rather see us go that route and and maybe if it is that they don't want to cooperate we'll take pictures of it we know who the owners are we send them to build and show them to build what it costs either buildings I mean code enforcement or whoever want out there their time and gas and have them reimburse that back and on top of that We threw your cart away, you're going to buy you a new cart. It seems these businesses should learn like, cooperate like that other business that I work with. That's just me. Council Member Bledsoe. Thank you, Chair. And thank you, Council Member, for bringing this forward. I know we all work really hard to address issues that we have in our district, and this is one that's particular in yours, and I appreciate you working to do something about it. I know in the Beaumont Kroger, for instance, when we moved the bus stations down close, farther away from Kroger, there was a number of times people, to your point, they'd take the grocery carts down to carry their groceries, they'd stop at the bus stop, and then the cart stays. And I talked to Kroger as well as some others talked to Kroger, and now they move those on a daily basis because that's not going to stop. They're on Kroger property, they go down there, they just happen to look poorly on the right of way. So that is something that they have done, which helps. But they're self-regulating that in a good way. And so the anti-regulation person in me feels this is a lot, just on my first glance. It feels a lot. So I guess my question to you would be, now that we're down to four-ish calls a week, do you feel like that code enforcement is able to handle the current issue as is? Or do you feel you need another tool to make this work? well to be honest right now we're sort of balancing it between code and environmental services because it's that same private property public property delineation of frequently when code gets a a complaint i don't want to speak for cash but it's it's a part of a bigger cleanup on a property so they they don't have really good records of when they've just gotten a call about a shopping cart it's usually a nuisance complaint that's bigger than that we get them as a part sometimes as a litter complaint and then sometimes individually they're specific about it so better data tracking could help us with just kind of decipher this a little bit better so the ones we tend to go address around public right away okay and that makes sense I the containment plan I much rather favor similar to customer loanee where the carts would just stop I know that's an expensive thing for the owners to have to put onto there so mandating that makes me a little concerned however I think that's honestly the best way to handle it if they just stayed on the property we wouldn't have we wouldn't have this problem and I guess my second thing is maybe so I just I'm hesitant to do much about this today because of those concerns however what I would like to see is maybe some better tracking and continue through this summer maybe when we're going to have you have more people out in general maybe track it this summer through july august and see if we can and see if we still need this tool and maybe go to some of our larger retailers and say this is a problem and you're going to have to develop a plan because it's not working we're not able to contain your particular property well that's just my that's my my gut i I get nervous about too much on our burdensome, on the business owners burdensome, but I also completely understand the problem to the constituents. So I definitely respect that and understand that. That would just be my preference today. Thank you. I've got Council Member Worley. I'll address him first, and then you can wrap it up, whatever. Council Member Worley? Thank you, Chair. and I think part of what your answer right there about what our current abilities to handle this but I see I count with three of our in-house lawyers and one of our out-of-house lawyers in the back there though I'll put him on the spot he's not here to speak on this issue but I guess I just generally have a question that despite our current code enforcement abandoned property if we have a business owner or a property owner real real property owner that we know to be a particular repeat offender do we not have other legal mechanisms that we can use to pursue these folks uh sue them for their cost of the nuisance that they're causing i mean don't we have certain certain mechanisms in place it costs two of them to jump up well the succinct answer is there's not a mechanism that makes you handle a case individually different for a repeat defender. The way code enforcement may handle it is rather than continue on the path of a continuing citation cycle, we would do an abatement and bill the owner. The owner's unpaid bills for us have to become liens to be collected. The lien goes against the real property. The partial issue there is like the Kroger on Euclid wouldn't get the lien or the citation from us typically. It goes to Kroger corporate which may be in Cincinnati and that may not even be a building or real property to file a lien against that's kind of where we lack a mechanism in our civil penalty process we go from citation to lien through the state statutes our other penalties are not we don't have a typical other penalty that's more like a traffic ticket ticket that's just an unpaid citation that accumulates and gets turned to a collection agency so from my perspective we only have the two means of citation to lean in our current regulations and it's basically set up on that whole right of appealing which is governed by sb 65 so when i penalize somebody they have a right to appeal to our appeals board for relief sure and that's where we're hamstrung in our process so i i can't necessarily like i said i i may not cite an individual for trash and debris uh because the abatement's going to cost four thousand dollars and i'm going to keep issuing citations to try and encourage them to get to that point before i spend the four thousand dollars but on the other hand if it it's only going to cost me 150 to mow it rather than issue a 700 citation i'll mow it and those are decisions i make with my supervisors on a weekly basis we we just have to assess the cost-benefit analysis, the abatement versus the citation methodology. Sure. I understand that. I guess where I'm getting, if we've got, if we've heard examples of particular offenders that we know stuff is getting off of their property and they're not taking care of it, and, of course, we have our code enforcement process, but Mr. Sanders back there, can't we, as a city, if we decide that someone's causing us that much trouble, can we sue them? Can we, what else? what else can we do and what I'm getting I guess what I'm getting to is I think we probably have some mechanisms in place that we could start using as we try to refine this ordinance that maybe we need to start with the difference between the ability to place a lien on a property and the ability not to in this case the shopping carts can be on private property or on public right-of-way now the ability of code enforcement to place a lien for their usual violations they place the lien on the property where the violation occurs so in this case the only way we could place a lien on the property through code enforcement is if the shopping cart is a nuisance on a piece of private property so we treat that as a general nuisance if the shopping cart is on public property the violations essentially on public property we have no plate nowhere to place a lien even though it may be Kroger's we cannot place a lien on Kroger's property so that's why we have the graduated fine system so that those who repeat offenders their fines keep going up now you can change that if you see fit but that's that's how that's how we address your your question about reoccurring violations is an increase in fines as they go on Councilmember Klover. Thank you, Chair. I just wanted to kind of address a couple of my colleagues' comments. I guess I'll do it in reverse order. Councilmember Worley, I think that the answer to your question is that we do not have a direct mechanism. That was one of the things we looked into of how we could recoup our costs and expenses. Because right now, the carts are there and they have to be dealt with in some manner. manner and the entire burden of that is being placed on the city so those costs are being incurred by us and we don't really have a way to easily recoup and i think you understand we could always sue people but that's a lengthy process that might not always give us the basis we need in order to recoup those costs in a timely manner so i hope that answers a little bit of that question um councilmember bledsoe i agree with you that the the best solution would be if we told all of the people who had carts that they had to keep them on their property they won't end up in a ditch or on public land if they're on the property who owns them i think that we came to a compromise when looking at the the national ordinances to try to say let's not just place that much of a burden on these companies there are some companies in our community that have contracted out people to go collect carts during the week right and we wanted that to be maybe that's a more cost-effective solution for them so we wanted to be able to create a plan with them that allows for more solutions than just the cart can't leave the premise also it allows for as council member reynolds pointed out those who do not have vehicles and are just going from their home and back to move those carts there and it not to be abandoned by the regulation um um over this direction to council member maloney i think that uh your direct you you basically summed up the entire intention of the ordinance by saying that we were looking to try to make sure that those who were causing this burden to happen were incurring those costs and i don't believe that we were envisioning um holding on to these carts before they went somewhere i think the notice period is we notice that it's there as a nuisance and if they take care of it within 24 hours or whatever time we get in a management plan um but if it's still there we just throw it away i don't think that we were looking to recoup them unless of course we had some kind of a partnership with a recycling company or some other way to make some kind of a profit off of that but that's beyond the scope of this so i think uh that's kind of the uh the direction we were going i wanted to throw out one other point just because i think it needs to be said we have a whole distinction in here about unintended unattended carts right and this provides that 72-hour protection for carts that had personal belongings in that I think we might be changing the language on that but it still allows for this notice period with your personal items are in the cart now that's something that we don't have currently it's not a protection that is afforded to anyone if someone has their personal property in a cart and it is in a place that we are taking it as abandoned we just throw it away I believe that's correct yes so we we have no protections there so this would actually add a level of protection to those individuals who are utilizing this to convey their personal property that hasn't existed before so I agree with pretty much what everybody has been saying here I think that this is a pretty large issue and I welcome more conversation and more discussion on it I think this is a really good framework in a beginning to go from and i look forward to having more conversations about it to try and see if we can find the correct solution for our community thank you would you like you don't you're not making a motion you want to keep it in committee i think that right now from what i'm hearing from everyone is that we would like to have a little bit more discussion about the nuance of the plans and how the plans will be implemented with business owners and i think that's a very good a good decision here. So right now I'd love to keep this in committee as long as we can make sure to revisit it in the not too distant future as well as long as everybody has this. Is there any objection to keeping it in committee? Okay, we'll do that. Council Member Reynolds. Thank you Chair for allowing me to speak again. I agree with what everyone's saying and about bringing in the companies and talking to them about this. I think that's great. But I did want to mention that in my little part of town, I can think off the top of my head over 10 companies that have shopping carts. And I have seen all of those shopping carts in the district somewhere. So we're not just talking about three major companies here for the city. So if that's just my little area of town, think about everybody's area of town. We're talking about, I think, hundreds of places that have shopping carts that end up in different parts of the city. So that might be challenging to bring them all in and have everybody on board, but we could definitely try and to talk to the biggest companies. But, yeah, I think that's why it's so complex. Because whenever I see a shopping cart, I try to make a mental note of where it's from, and they're always from just tons of different places. So thank you. Council Member Lamb. Thank you for recognizing me. And I do appreciate this conversation. I specifically have just one area, but that seems to be focused from Tates Creek Center that the carts come. But I like to, I'm not a member of this committee, but I like the establishing the Lex Call Code. and I would like to suggest if this committee, I think that is something that really is something that could be moved forward because I think that would be very important to understand where the location of them are and if there is a concentrated area that's worse or not and the location and the identity. I would like to see that and that I think would help move this forward with a more unique conversation down the path. So thank you very much. Council Member Bledsoe. Thank you. I actually, I completely agree with you. Do I need to make a motion to that effect to help, or are you already going to do that? Okay, I thought you were already going to do it. That's why I didn't make the motion, but I just want to make sure. Because I think that's an excellent point that we're looking for. Thank you, Chair. Let the minutes reflect then that the administration is going to check into that. having a particular procedure policy. Any other council members? Comments? Okay, let's move on to the next item and we have cautioned you a little bit council member Clover. We had talked about the time constraints. If you want to proceed I'm going to ask for adjournment at 2.30 so that we can have time for work session get ready for work session and if I don't get the votes I won't get them but if you want to proceed with your third item and I'll just address that a little bit because I don't like to put three items on my agenda I made the exception here for Council Member Klober because he said it was urgent so go for it All right, I'll go. I can ask for adjournment. Can I? Anybody can ask for adjournment. At 2.30. At any time they want. Okay. A motion to adjourn is always in motion. Hello, everyone. It looks a little bit different from this side, but hey, thank you. So the KU Vegetation Management Agreement, this is, oh, we have something? am I not I need a clicker you got it for me all right but thank you all right this is an issue that I know I think we're all aware of and it has to do with the K use management of trimming and cutting trees in Fay County that has gotten a little bit we'll say more aggressive in the recent months so let's just head on up to the next one to see where we're at so the transmission line clearing plan this is what has been happening there's been a national change in how KU has decided to implement this and it is affecting us here in Fayette County so right now according to their current plan any tree that could grow more than 10 feet must be removed and that's kind of what they're doing instead of trimming these trees back in in order to take care to make sure that the lines are not downed during inclement weather they are going ahead and trying to chop down all of the trees to make sure we don't have this problem going forward so in the recent months we've seen this happening and here's a couple pictures that we have but it's it raised to the level where back in October of 2020 the council passed a resolution condemning KU's extreme and unilateral tree removal practice so this has been a problem we've all acknowledged it and we're hoping that there's something we can do unfortunately the same problems that existed back in October exist today and that deals with the issues that we have actually trying to regulate these safety protocols that they have put in place we can see from this map right here that Kentucky utilities they have a wide swath of land where their transmission lines go and this is the plan that they will be cutting down so if your district has not yet been affected just wait we'll get there soon so this is a kind of outlines that it affects the entire city. So after all of the discussions with these fine gentlemen right here, we kind of came up with a couple of ways forward that keeps us within the lines and makes sure that we are abiding by the regulations and the jurisdictions that already exist. So the PSC, the Public Service Commission, actually has the full authority over regulating these utilities and what they cut down. And we can't step on their toes because it is a safety issue. And so KU has been given a wide discretion to determine what it is they want to do in order to comply with the PSC guidelines. So we can't directly say this is how we regulate tree trimming. This is the canopy cover we want to protect. It has to be something a little bit different. So we have two kind of ways forward. The second way is an ordinance, and the first way is a mutual agreement. So I'll kind of outline what an ordinance might look like that keeps us in those lanes, but full disclosure, it is very complicated, and the language has not been drafted up, and that is not something I'm going to be recommending we consider today. It's something I just wanted to put that kind of bug in your ear so that you understood it was an option down the line. so by ordinance while we don't have the ability to deal with trees being trimmed we do have the ability to ask for undergrounding or require undergrounding of lines you've probably seen this in new developments the new lines are unusually underground in the new developments but we also have the ability to have those lines undergrounded based off whatever criteria we would pass so again the language around all of that very particular. We're not necessarily considering that today, but kind of as a backup plan, because the first and what I would say more preferable option would be to have some kind of a mutual agreement. So right now, the mayor and her office are working hard talking to KU, trying to come to some kind of an agreement. So this has been in the works. People are trying to get there and I'm hoping that we can add our voice to this kind of a discussion to add a little bit of structure and show a way forward so that we can all kind of have that added support to get to an agreement so if we came to an agreement it would apply to the limited limited locations in Fayette County it would apply to the street medians parks and any of those right-of-ways that KU has existing above the transmission lines. And we would have to understand that any agreement we had completely recognizes that they have the final say in safety concerns of whether or not a tree needs to be removed going forward. So with all that in mind, we came up with these three asks that we wanted to include inside of a request. The first was that before they went to cut things down, they came and talked to us, that they would provide us with an inventory of the trees that were being removed they would tell us what type of trees they were the reasons they were cutting them down and just giving us 30 days notice so that we can manage expectations and move forward so a part of that is the second point where we would ask ku to agree to meet with the arborists the city arborists at least 30 days prior to discuss the necessity and again the final discretion is in their hands but i think that that the more times we have an opportunity for discussion, the better chances that we have of our concerns being heard. So the third point, and probably the most important one, is about the agreement of creating a zero net canopy loss plan. Now what this term means is that we would be looking for them to replace the canopy that has been lost in the event that they need to remove trees. This is something that is a little bit different than just a stem for stem or a one for one replacement. If you cut down a 30-year-old oak that's been there and you replace it with a sapling, you are not providing the same amount of canopy cover for what it is that you've removed. So we're hoping that since they've been willing to work with us, that we can build on that in order to get them to agree to use the National Tree Benefit Calculator in order to assess what kind of trees would be necessary and what amounts in order to replace the trees that have been cut down. so those are the three big points that we're going to be asking for in a mutual agreement and that's what i'm coming before you to ask today is if we could pass out of this committee a resolution that says we are going to be asking the mayor to take this agreement with these three major points and negotiate with that as our added support to what she's working on in order to give a little bit of structure to this pressing issue as quickly as possible. So, thank you. Thank you, Council Member. We'll go ahead and start the process here. Council Member Maloney. Mr. Clark, I appreciate what you're bringing. It is a concern to a lot of our colleagues, what we have seen over the years. But my question goes to, and I'm glad we have our attorneys here and also Mr. Gardner, who used to be the Public Service Commission, how much does it cost if you replace, let's say we cut down a 40-year-old tree, what does it cost to replace a 40-year-old tree? What's another 40-year-old tree? Well, the net zero canopy would not require replacement of a 40-year-old tree with a 40-year-old tree. It would depend on the type of tree. So, for example, you put the dimensions and the type of tree into the calculator, and then you would say what kind of tree you might want to replace it with, and it might say you need three saplings of an ash in order to replace your 40-year-old oak. So there's a calculator that's a national calculator. It's freely available online. That kind of shows how we calculate this net benefit and trying to get to a net zero. So, to clarify, I mean, let's say they cut down a 40-year-old tree, and you're concerned they're going to put a little tree up that's less than a year old, it's not going to make up for it. Well, our goal is to find a tree close to that to replace that tree. Is that correct? Or a combination of trees. Right now, KU has, in many cases, and by the way, they've been working with us, they have been doing a stem-for-stem replacement. that's if you cut down one tree that's 40 years old we will replace it with one tree that is much younger than that and go ahead and I'm thinking is and I worry about what it's gonna cost because the first thing they're gonna do if we have to replace all those trees but I want them to be replaced I think it's a great idea but who is gonna end up paying for it because if we go to the Public Service Commission and they say well we're gonna have to replace these even know we'll place some trees that cost x which is maybe hundreds of dollars less but if we end up paying thousands of dollars more we're going to have to raise the fees up because we can't afford that that's my biggest fear is how we would the public service commission understand that we're passing something that it is the cost never goes to them it's going to come to me with all these folks sitting up here it's how we're going to pay for it and then my concern is how we turn around and answer the public and say, the fee's going to go up because we passed this resolution. I'm just curious if that would ever happen. That's my biggest fear. I'm not trying to... I understand it's a valid concern. I think that a general rule of thumb is that mature trees are much, much more expensive than saplings and that younger trees, several of them, are never going to reach the exact same cost as that mature tree that was cut down. And the benefit calculator, if you take a chance to look at it, I believe we put the link in the packet. If it's not, I can get it to you guys. It's a robust calculator that takes a lot of these things into consideration and is not positioned in a way such as to create these large economic disparities that you're concerned about. I'm just not comfortable until I find out, example, what a large 30, I mean, whatever the canopy of that tree is going to be. If I have to look it up, I mean, to me, I'd rather see real numbers to see because somebody's going to pay for it. And it's going to be eventually the city of the taxpayers or the residents of Fayette County that will pay for those trees. After they tore down these nice trees, they got to turn around and pay for them again. That's my biggest concern. Council Member Bledsoe. Thank you, Chair. Thank you for bringing this forward. I know it's interesting on the railroad areas where they've done a lot of tree trimming. that is a noise barrier. And so when they cut down the larger trees, it is louder. And so I appreciate the desire to have not a one-for-one, but more of an effect for each other. I have a couple questions for the attorneys, though, if you don't mind. Of course. I'm happy to be at all hot seat. Thank you. Mr. Barbary, in this document on page 30, top item number five, it says we agree in some instances due to legitimate safety concerns. I'm guessing that legitimate is kind of open to interpretation. Yeah, the public's, first of all, good afternoon, but the public service commission is normally going to default to the utility on a safety issue if they purport it to be a safety issue. Yeah, I would think that they would think all their safety concerns are legitimate. And then on page number 37, at the very top, it says, or the bottom, let me go into it, that the government is considering adopting significant regulations related to eliminate or reducing these practices. I'd be fine with stopping there. I'm curious about including requiring the underground of existing above-ground facilities at the expense of utilities. We could require that, correct? well if you if you thought vegetation management was complicated whether you get into undergrounding but I think that we have concluded that you could legally require them to underground existing facilities that is contrary to long-standing practice right and one of the reasons that we have never moved forward with something like that is ultimately to councilmember Maloney's point the customer always pays and I think there have been analysis done that suggest I think there was one done after an ice storm that they went through the entire analysis of what it would cost to underground virtually everything they had and it was billions and billions of dollars just in Fayette County so that's been one of the long-standing concerns on on a discussion about undergrounding existing facilities versus the new ones okay and that's that was gonna be my my point is that I knew it was astronomical to do and that that would be passed down to the consumer if we were something to do that. And so I guess my hesitancy is threatening something that we have no intent of actually following on, which is kind of what this says. And I'm not real comfortable with that element of it. So I just wanted to share that. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Council Member Sheehan. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Council Member Kloiber for working on this, and I know you've had a lot of conversations with a lot of people. So also thanks to the lawyers here and our arborist, John Saylor, who was here for a little bit, but I think has popped out. I know for my district, District 5, they are about to come through Lansdowne Merrick Park. And I have done a walk through with them, with our arborist president, and they are going to, their plan was to clear cut hundreds of trees. is going to have a huge impact on our tree canopy. So I do have interest in seeing what we can do. I know there are conversations with the mayor's office and KU, but anything we can do to strengthen that conversation I think is important. I've heard directly from constituents about their concerns over this. I think when we're talking about zero net canopy loss, we also need to be thinking not just for our public areas, but for the trees that will be cut from residential areas as well. For the Lansdowne Merrick Park example, there are residences right along the line there, and a lot of their backyards are going to lose trees. And I know that is not just a constraint in my district. I know this is happening in other districts as well. So I think when we're talking about tree canopy, we have to include that as well. And KU does have a residential program where the residents can apply for some tree replacement, up to six trees for a certain amount, but that doesn't guarantee that a tree is going to be replaced. The resident gets money back, and that is not always used for a tree replacement. So that is one concern, is that overall tree canopy loss, because that affects our air quality, it affects our stormwater, which we know we have problems with already. it affects our ecology so a big concern one of the things that i think is important to be talking about in this agreement is working with our city arborist that is a huge potential bonus for me i believe in this conversation because i think that council member maloney when you're talking about the cost of removing a tree it's it doesn't cost as much to trim that tree than to take that tree down so if we could have an agreement from ku to trim wherever possible instead of clear cut i think that also has a more less of a loss on our tree canopy it means they're working with the city we can have an agreement we know we have an expert in that conversation so i am very invested in this because it's coming in my district very soon and again is of importance to my residents so So thank you, Council Member Clover, for working on this and trying to figure out some movement forward. No, thank you. Council Member Clover, can you wrap it up in any sense or form? No, ma'am, I don't recognize you. Council Member Clover. Yes, I think I will make two comments real quick. Thank you, Council Member Sheehan, for the words on that. I think that it is a very pressing issue for our community and for our residential partners in this, say i think we can have an agreement with ku about a lot of things and hopefully that will shape policy going forward so even though we don't have direct control over what happens in those residential areas the hope is that if we could have an agreement that we would be able to get them to employ that agreement across the board just as an efficiency sake so that's the hope is kind of nudging them in that direction um to councilmember bledsoe's point i think that yes there are always concerns about the ordinance and as something in the background there are some ways that the cost might not be shifted onto us which might make it more viable for us to move forward with it but as mr barberry pointed out it's a very complicated issue and we're not i don't have the time or the inclination to discuss that today as it's not a recommendation so i guess as the final thing to wrap things up chair brown i would like to make a motion to read out the resolution as presented here today about presenting this to the mayor for negotiation consideration. Do you have a second? Second. Discussion? I think we got a little bit of a time problem here. We had a gentleman's agreement and I extended that to allow you to present this third item on here. It's past 2.30 now. I would ask for a motion to adjourn. Excuse me, Chair. Point of order. There is a motion on the floor that was seconded and so is open for debate currently. So a motion to adjourn would take precedent if one was made, but there is currently a motion on the floor for debate. A point of order? Yeah. Just to clarify, you asked for a motion to adjourn, but you did not receive one. Given that, that request would fail unless someone makes the motion and it gets a second, and absent that, then we are back in regular order, which we have a motion on the floor and an item on the floor. I'll reserve for the comment. Thank you, Chair. I've got a question. Ayes, Chair. Will you take over, please? All right. I just, on the motion, Council Member Ellinger, please. Thank you, Vice Chair. When they cut down the trees, what are they going to plan on putting the trees back? I think that was Council Member Reynolds' question, and I was curious about that myself. So right now, in the agreement, we have language that would have it in the same council district so that we are keeping it regional. Obviously, all that could be up for discussion and negotiation. But the idea would be that the impact of who was feeling these trees being cut down would be the ones benefiting from that net zero loss calculation. So it would be in the district itself, but it would stay, I hope, close to where they were cut down, but obviously not in the same spot. So we would have them again. Yes. Okay, thank you. Vice Mayor, are we signed on? Sorry, Council Member Lamb, please. Thank you for recognizing me. I wanted to clarify, and this, your proposal, is it strictly to do with the removal of the vegetation management plan as it is with the public property and not private residential or private property? That is correct. It is a recommendation. It is asking the mayor to negotiate on our behalf for the properties we have the ability to bind on. We do not have the ability to bind for private residences, and the hope is that by kind of helping with the structure and getting this together, that we can kind of lay the groundwork for it to be spread throughout the entire city. Okay. Well, I would just make one statement, and I appreciate this being brought forward because the 4th District has just been obliterated by this whole vegetation management plan. However, I do have some concerns with this, but I will say that KU is currently working with arborists through my district, and we have started, and I'm glad to hear that Councilmember Sheehan, that they're working with her in her district as well. So I think that if we can just build on what we already have going on right now, which is really a lot more than what we had six months ago, and so I would just say just from my experience that I appreciate the way we're moving forward and that the willingness from KU to work with us and our arborists as it is currently so thank you Council Member Milley Thank you, I appreciate what you brought to the Council Member Clover I mean the sales road where we both live down I complain about the trees that were cut down half of it was kind of as ugly as thing I ever saw. And I brought it up. And I don't know, I support this motion. I don't know, does it have teeth? Can KU just say, we don't have to do this if we don't want to? That's my question. And, I mean, I understand the concept. I know what you're getting ready to go through. I do appreciate the harvest being there. Maybe we can trim. I wish they would have done that on Vassales Road. They really did a terrible job on Vassales Road. I mean, it looked like a tornado came through and left half a tree up and all up and down the sales road. This is an issue, but the motion that you're making, I hope it works. I just didn't know, can KU just look at you and say, no, we don't have to do this because we're KU, or is this going to be mandatory that we do have a little bit of teeth to make this work? I think the force is going to work. I think from what you're telling me, they're working with them, already communicating. You hope is what you're telling me. So my question, maybe you can't answer it, maybe law, but does this have the teeth to what we're concerned about? So if, Kay, you entered into an agreement like this. Oh, they have to come into the agreement. Yeah, that is correct. This motion right now is just to pass the resolution to the mayor to give her our support and put our voice with hers and also kind of give a structure for the kind of things that we would be requesting. So, yes, but if we could get that agreed to, then it would. It'd be a contract that'd be binding. Yes. Thank you. Vice Mayor Kay. Thank you, Chair, and thank you, Council Member Kluver, for bringing this forward. I'll just say as preface to my remarks that this has been an issue that's been frustrating to many of us in city government and some of us even before we were in city government. It is not just the clear cutting, it's the, I wanna be careful how I say it, let's just say that sometimes in neighborhoods when they're clearing away lines, they cut a lot more out of trees than they need to and we're left with half a tree, not very appealing. So I appreciate your working on this and bringing it forward, but just to clarify, the resolution before us is simply to authorize the mayor to negotiate this agreement. What we have in our packet, and it says the resolution in the packet, we do not have a resolution in the packet. What we have is a proposed agreement. The resolution refers to this agreement so is that correct so your motion is that is correct is is a resolution authorizing and encouraging the mayors to proceed with this negotiation on this agreement that is correct I emailed the resolution to everybody but it did not make it into the packet so I can send that back out if people want to I apologize for not having that here that's okay I'm just in terms of the record I want to be clear about that but again thank you for bringing that forward thank you chair thank you are there any other further comments comes my clover before we move forward would you mind restating the motion please yes this is a motion to pass the agreement out of committee recommending and authorizing the mayor to negotiate on behalf of us in that manner so moved were you wanting this to report out of committee i i would also like to um ask that we suspend the rules and then vote report this out of committee today i don't know if that's two separate votes but that's that's a yes it would be separate yes sir yes okay yeah do we have a second oh thank you okay so with all right all those in favor say aye aye any opposed motion passes and I'm sorry now we'll see a second motion here to report out tonight yes I would like to move that we suspend the rules and report this out this evening so moved all right we have a motion in a second all those All those in favor say aye. Aye. Do we have any opposed? The motion passes. Thank you council member Kluber. Motion to adjourn. With a motion to adjourn we have a second. All right council member will agree. Any opposed? We are adjourned, thank you. I'm out. My baby, I'll tell you that I'm happy if you want me to But one step further and my back will break If my best isn't good enough then hey, I can't be good enough or two Uh-huh, uh-huh I can work any harder than I do Uh-huh, uh-huh