♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ Okay, great. And if there are any materials, as you all are seeking volunteers, in addition to directly contacting you, that we could put in our newsletters, I think we would have some folks who would be interested. Sounds great. Thank you. Colleagues, any other questions for Ms. Young? Okay, thank you very much. I appreciate the update. All right. So our second presentation today is the Mint Lane Pump Station item related to the consent decree and to our future sewer service plans. Council Member Savigny, as the sponsor of this item, I'd like to turn it over to you to make any opening or contextualizing remarks before we open the presentation to Director Martin, our Director of Water Quality. Thank you, Chair. I want to thank Director Martin for his work on this presentation. He pulled it together pretty quickly through the summer, and we've had some back and forth on it. I originally, because I was the chair of the EQBW link, we put this requirement in because there seemed to be some contention about location and preparation for growth. And I just wanted a good discussion to take place, and I needed a presentation to do it. And, Director Martin, I really appreciate you putting the time in to do this. So I'm going to turn it over to you, and then we'll have a robust discussion afterwards. Thank you. Okay. Yeah, we had a lot of conversations back and forth through the course of the summer, and so I have to start out with an apology, because the presentation that I've been preparing for for the past week is not the one that's in your packet. Apparently I sent the wrong iteration of it and stuff, and so I'm going to try to be able to do two presentations at the same time. We're going to follow the one that's in your packet, but I may deviate a little bit from some screens because I had added some mapping and some other comments. And so when we're done tonight or tomorrow morning, I'll send out the one that I intended to do with the note pages, which will help maybe fill in parts of it that I skipped over today. So the agenda of today's presentation is really to focus on the Mint Lane Pump Station and its current situation, along with the consent decree obligation. As Council Member Savigny mentioned, is that we had requested money in the FY26 budget to start the design process of it, because it is a consent decree project, and like all consent decree projects, they have to be done by December of 2030. And we're running short on time. One of the things that delayed some of the work on this is obviously we were waiting to see how the sewerability study and expansion recommendation unfolded. So, again, the reason why we moved forward with this in 2026, that that discussion had basically concluded. So I want to talk a little bit about that expansion income outcome and hopefully be able to come with a path forward. Here's where one of my maps had deviated here. I'm going to try to cover three maps at one time. Right here is the Mint Lane Pump Station. It's right in the middle of your map there. It's behind Dunbar High School and Dunbar's baseball field off of Man O'War. The reason why it is there is that it serves the area that is Palomar, Palomar Circle there, and parts of Beaumont. You can see the purple lines. Those are gravity sewers that drain to Mint Lane Pump Station. Likewise, it serves multiple pump stations that are located at the airport. You have three of them, including the armory, one that serves some of the hangar area, and then one that serves the main terminal area. They all come together and they pump down Man O'War and come to the Mint Lane Pump Station. Area 1, which was added as part of the expansion, is this area right here bounded by Parker's Mill, Man O'War, and the existing Beaumont neighborhood. During the course of the sewerability study, there was a lot of discussion about how to serve that area if it were included in the urban service boundary, and it was decided at that time to send it to Mint Lane Pump Station because geographically it made sense, but also the fact that future plans for improving Mint Lane were already on the table basically because of the consent decree. Theoretically, it could be sent over New Circle Road, over the hill, into what we call Wolf Run, which is laying out in that area there, but since RMP or consent decree improvements had already been completed in those areas, we felt like that was probably too risky to put pressure on something that just had gotten done as opposed to something that was planned to be done. So Mint Lane has been on our mind for a while, and when the sewerability study came along, we wanted to make sure that it became part of that discussion only because it's an opportunity potentially. You see Mint Lane Pump Station here a little bit closer in the aerial. It is a landlocked .08-acre piece of land sitting behind Dunbar High School, behind the baseball stadium, and the natural drainage area wants to go to this point. This is the edge of the urban service boundary. If that pump station weren't there, obviously it would drain further downstream onto Mill Ridge Farm along Cave Creek. You see the picture of the pump station back there. If you never drive down that driveway, you wouldn't even necessarily know that it's there. A little bit of facts about Mint Lane Pump Station. The main one is the last bullet, identified as a recurring SSO remediation required by the consent decree. You see the schedule that we have there right now, which is part of the reason why I'm here, is because we wanted to begin design in this fiscal year. This is where I get a little geeky for a couple of minutes here just to basically show you what's going on with this. This is a copy of basically our monitoring of the pump station, and what you see here is pump on, pump off, over the course of an eight-hour period during dry weather. Mint Lane performs pretty well. It comes on and off about eight to ten times. I'd like to see the run times, those peaks of the columns, last a little bit longer, but it's fine. Here's where it's a problem. This is a rainy day, fortunately not an overflow day, but a rainy day still. You see the green line. It shows that basically it came on in the morning and it ran all day long. A second pump came on and even a third pump came on. There's only three pumps in that, and when you have a prolonged period of time where all three pumps are running, you have overflows. As you saw in the previous slide, we have a significant history of overflows there, which is what led to get it into the consent decree. Because it was in the consent decree, we wanted to make sure that it became part of the conversation of the sewerability study that we were asked to do. In 2002, I was invited to the Goal 4 work group. I saw many of you there during some of those discussions, and I gave a pretty lengthy discussion about what the sewer system looked like currently. And several of you were concerned that there wasn't a current sewerability study. The last one was done in 2006. So the council, I think it was Council Member Bledsoe, former Council Member Bledsoe, led the charge in that and got it funded in the middle of the fiscal year. And so we started down that path of a new sewerability study that was focused on the same areas that we focused on in 2006 with one exception. And that was this area, what was at that time known as Area 2 and Area 3, around the Mint Lane pump station. Again, trying to examine are there opportunities in order to be able to solve our consent decree problem while at the same time looking at expansion, if that's what the decision was. So we went through that process, and what it looked like in the sewerability study was right there is the Mint Lane pump station. There was an area that was part of Mill Ridge Farm that was examined, along with the part that eventually became Area 1, which is that triangle bounded by Man O' War and Parker's Mill. And there was also an area that was closer to the airport that was outside of Parker's Mill and on the inside of Man O' War. Basically, we went through that whole examination, and it is included in the 2023 sewerability study. Again, focused on sending it all to Mint Lane pump station. Now, I want to make sure that I'm clear on this, is that the sewerability study, we didn't provide recommendations. The whole goal of our purpose of this was to inform the decision makers about what options were available to them as far as expanding the urban service boundary. That's not our role. We're water quality. We're about providing infrastructure. So we provided the projections on how much it would cost, what it would take to get there, based on some pretty high variable parameters, including population density, developable versus undevelopable land, and timing, obviously. One of the things that came in during the course of our discussions this summer with Council Member Savigny was about the airport, that the airport is planning some type of renovations and expansions of their operation. And so we met with the airport folks to make sure that we weren't making decisions downstream at the Mint Lane pump station that would curtail or limit their ability to do what they plan to do. So starting out with that, I looked at the Blue Grass Airport pump station itself, and the headline of this is they don't have a history of overflows there. They were in the early stages of the consent decree, and they actually improved that pump station at the latter part of maybe 2008, 2009, something like that. And so they haven't had a history of overflows since that time. Their real challenge is probably dealing with the de-icing operations. Three to six times a year, they have to de-ice planes and stuff because we've got winter weather, and they have to be able to store that in order to have it treated. They can't just send it to the pump station. It overwhelms the pump station, and they certainly can't send it to the creek because it's a pollutant. So you see it right there. That's the pump station. I kind of did some Photoshopping here to show that the basin that they have, it's uncovered. It's just basically almost like a detention basin that's right next to the pump station. They hold that de-icing liquid in there, let it evaporate as much as they can, because they have to pay us to discharge it into the pump station that's there on the left, and obviously the fewer gallons they put in there, the less they have to pay us. So similar graph that we saw before. During the daytime, normal dry weather day, that pump station is way oversized. I commented to them during their presentation. I don't think anything they're planning on the near term in the airport is going to give them any issues with being able to expand terminals or renovate or anything like that. I mean, you've got four to five starts over an eight-hour period, and sometimes at night it doesn't run at all. So during the daytime, during dry weather, not a big issue. This is a wet weather situation, a little bit more on and off, but not anything that I'm concerned about. One of the things I am concerned about is the de-icing, and we're going to have to make sure that we stay with them on that. And if we do something, whatever it is we do decide to do at Mint Lane, needs to be cognizant of the fact that they still need to maintain their de-icing operations. But the headline of the whole airport part of it is, I don't feel like there's something that we need to address near term with Mint Lane Pump Station. All right. So back to the expansion outcome is the sewerability study, you know, the Cane Run or Cave Creek was reduced. Your earlier map showed that there was parts of Mill Ridge Farms, there were parts outside of Parker's Mill that were included in the sewerability study. But in the end, some of that was eliminated or constricted down to what is now known as Area 1. I call it 2003 Area 1 because there's a 1996 expansion that's also in Area 1. But it basically established that area that's bounded by Parker's Mill and Man O' War to where that is the service area that's expansion. And my challenge was to try to figure out what to do with Mint Lane Pump Station in order to be able to serve that area. And part of that was to make sure that we stopped at the edge of the urban service boundary. I've been here since 2000, no, 1999. I've been here 26 years. The instructions I've always been given is that we put sewer infrastructure at the boundary. We don't put it outside the boundary unless there is a council action. There are numerous examples of sewer service outside the urban service boundary, the horse park, the airport itself, Jesmond County. But every one of those that I've ever been associated with has a resolution that's associated with them that authorized us to do that. We're not at that situation right now, so thus is why we moved forward. We've got to get something started in FY26. I need to work inside the boundary, and I need to serve that area there. And that's what our goal has been, and it's why I'm here today, basically. I think I just said this, and I got off my slides there a little bit. What we're intending to do is construct a new pump station and wet weather storage tanks within the limits of the existing urban service boundary. That would be behind Dunbar High School. It is a tight site, .08 acres currently. We're going to need more space than that. We feel like that the existing pump station capacity is adequate to be able to accept the additional dry weather flow coming from Area 1. And that's important for us because to expand that dry weather capacity then puts people who are downstream, such as in Palomar and Bowman's Mill Road area, at risk if we oversize that pump station too much. The real difference will be the amount of wet weather that comes from the new area in addition to the existing service area. We will probably have to increase the size of our storage tank and our diversion structure. So this is what we're planning to do on that site behind Dunbar High School right now. This is what's in the preliminary engineering report, is to basically build a diversion pump station and a storage tank at that location and then run that while we rebuild the existing pump station on its existing footprint to where we meet the consent decree obligation and then also serve Area 1. I think I got through that as about as best as I could. You did, you have one more minute. Anything else? Oh, they just took it away. Pardon? I said you had one minute left even. I was worried about running over. Yeah, I know, you did a great job. You didn't run over. I feel like I'm losing my voice already, so. Well, I imagine that there will be some questions to follow up on some of what you've shared. So thank you for the presentation, Director. Colleagues, I'm waiting to see if anyone's going to sign in. All right. Council Member Morton. Thank you. And thank you, Mr. Martin, for the presentation. So I'll just kind of, so the pump station currently sits on private property, correct? It sits on a lot that is owned by Irby County Government .08 acres, and it's stuffed in there. Okay. We're in the process of having that surveyed to verify that the pump station is actually sitting on the parcel that we own because I have some doubts about whether it is. Okay. Okay, so, okay, cool. And the proposed location is on private property? I'm sorry. The proposed movement of the pump station is on private property? What we would do when we get into, if we hired a design engineer, one of the things that we would have them do is do surveying for a new footprint and prepare an exhibit and approach Fayette County Public Schools about acquiring the land that we need in that same location behind the baseball field and behind the school in order to build the facilities that we need. We would have to acquire it from the school system. Okay. So it would go on the school system's property, not a private property owner's property? Let's back up again. Whoops. I don't know. We're not going backwards. Can you bring me back again, please? You see the road that goes, I mean, do this. This is all school system property. The urban service boundary runs roughly, and this is where one of my maps that I didn't get into this presentation, I apologize for that, that road basically matches the urban service boundary. So to the left of this map is outside the boundary. It's in the rural area. To the right side of this is inside the USA or inside the urban service boundary. And again, what I had said before, our marching orders has always been build sewer infrastructure inside the urban service boundary. Okay. And is it correct that there's a current option that is being talked about to move it outside the boundary? It's not. That's not? It's inside the boundary. Inside the boundary. Yes. But there's no talks of trying to move it outside the boundary at all. Maybe not internally, but externally. The talk about the sewerability study was about expanding the boundary because, again, like I said, in 26 years here, I have been told over and over again that sewer infrastructure stays inside the boundary unless there is a council action that says otherwise. When the stockyards caught on fire and they moved out, you know, closer to Georgetown, they're outside the urban service boundary, but they are still a customer of ours because there is a resolution that allows that to happen. So basically the instructions that I've always been given my entire career here is that we do not construct sewer infrastructure outside the boundary without approval by leadership being the council. Okay. And you're telling me that basically that's not even being considered at all anyways, putting it outside the boundary? I'm sorry, what? You're saying that it's not even being considered to put it outside the boundary right now, and that's not even an option on the table? Not since the sewerability study. We presented it in the sewerability study, but then when the decision makers began deciding what was going to be added to the urban service boundary, it wasn't in there anymore. Okay. So I guess since we're talking about the boundary, putting this outside the boundary, that's not correlated to expanding the boundary, is it? There's no correlation to that? No. I think that the impression is that if you put sewer infrastructure outside the boundary, that it creates development pressure to add it to the boundary. Again, that's not my show. My show is about somebody tells me what it is that they need to have served, and my job is to try to figure out how to serve it and tell you how much it's going to cost. Okay. Thank you. Okay. All right. Thank you, Councilmember. Councilmember Boone. Thank you, Chair, and thank you for your presentation. I guess a couple questions. As far as this proposed improvements to the current site, is that, I guess, adequate size for your Area 1 with the wet weather overflow? The existing pump station capacity, provided that the new station matches that existing capacity, our analysis indicates that it is a sufficient capacity to handle the dry weather contribution coming from Area 1. The wet weather contribution would then force that big yellow circle that's up on the screen to be larger than it is currently. Is the site big enough, or is it suitable to handle this infrastructure? Until I get into the design and hire somebody to do the surveying, do the geotech, do all the work that is necessary to figure that out, I can't answer the question about whether or not it will work or not. I felt like my marching orders was to figure out whether it will or not and make it work. As far as the airport, you kind of mentioned it wasn't a problem when that expansion was done. Is there something that we can learn from how that was oversized, different uses of pumps or tanks or anything to bring over here to MidLane? Well, I worry about the capacity when three pumps are running. You had that example there, is that that pump station then pumps to a gravity sewer that's across from Palomar Shopping Center. It meanders via gravity through the Palomar neighborhood and then ends up on Bowman's Mill Road. Sure, you can make bigger pumps and stuff and make bigger pipelines, but at some point in time, now you're working in people's backyards to expand that capacity and stuff. Having it at the same capacity, to me, was less risk because it didn't make a problem worse for people downstream. Everything that goes at MidLane eventually has to make it to West Hickman, which is down off Ash Grove Pike south of Veterans Park. That's a long way to go, and so there's a lot of improvements that need to go. So one of the reasons why, just to remind everybody, why we build these wet weather storage tanks to begin with is we started down this path to build tanks. We needed to get all this extraneous water to a point we could control it, hold it until the storm went away, and then bring it back into the system. Because if we tried to move all of that flow through the entire system while it was raining, you'd have had to tear up everything in town to try to do that, and the cost would have been hugely prohibitive. So we use storage tanks as almost like a surge tank to be able to kind of dampen that out. But during dry weather, other than some mechanical problems with MidLane Pump Station, the capacity of it's fine. It doesn't overflow when it's not raining. As far as the other areas that were added into the urban service boundary, are there other sewer pump station problems that are going to need to be addressed when the thousands of acres, I guess a couple thousand acres, they get built up, I guess? Area two, which is across the town in the Hume Road, Winchester Road, I-75 area, has an opportunity to move a pump station, but move it downstream that benefits us where it still remains in the urban service boundary. The area around Athens, Boonesboro, I-75, that one's kind of tricky because there's some existing pump stations out there already. And we're still kind of examining that as far as what the opportunities are and what that might look like in the long term that is most beneficial to the city. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Council Member Brown. Thank you, Chair, and thank you, Charlie, for your work and your presentation on this. So I was on Man O' War, I think sometime last week, and I was driving past Dunbar High School and started to smell something in my car. Is the result of this pump station overflowing, is that what I'm smelling? Are neighbors and folks complaining about the odor? No, I think that's kind of a day-to-day thing, depending on what the weather is and which way the wind is blowing. You remember this from being on the work group and stuff and me talking about the fact that we pump stuff in such long distances and stuff like that is that it's really hard to control the odors. What comes from the armory gets pumped three times before it gets to West Hickman, three times. We're on a hill and everything runs away from us and that really creates a lot of challenges from a sewer standpoint. But no, there hasn't been any overflows that I can recall because we haven't had enough rain to really make anything. So if you smelled something last week, it's a dry weather impact, not necessarily a wet weather impact. I use the pump station from the airport. With those long times between it coming off and on, usually that means something's sitting in that wet well and collecting. And when it does pump, it probably actually is the biggest contributor to the part of it because it doesn't run all the time. Okay. Yeah, and since you're talking about gravity, because you did explain that to us a lot, and you said that's the one thing that doesn't change is things flow a certain way because gravity is gravity. Can you explain to us a little bit about the current location of the pump station and then what happens a little further downstream or how it could be, the impacts if it was a conversation about moving it outside the boundary a little further downstream? I think I understand your question, and this map probably maybe serves it the best. You see these blue lines here, like fingers, and then they join in and then they join in with others. That's basically the stream network. And if you look at that as a whole, Mint Lane and Beaumont is basically the top of the hill of what becomes the South Elkhorn Creek. Everything wants to drain to a point back behind the airport. So in sewer world, I mean, obviously the perfect place would be all the way downstream here, you know, because you're able to serve everything that's off of this leg, everything off of this leg. We look at contours and elevations. We don't look at property lines. And as I learned from the course of the whole sewerability study and the work group, was that property lines mean a lot to people and stuff. And so what I kept trying to encourage everyone is to think about, though, is that if you're going to build a pump station, stopping to a point that is short of where streams join in limits you as far as your future. If you were going to move someplace, move to where you can serve this area or this area. So, for example, this is area one right here. The way that it's set up right now, you would have to pump it to be able to get to Mint Lane Pump Station, most likely. If it could follow this blue line and come to a point down here, now you can serve it by gravity. Gravity is your friend. It's free. It never takes a day off. It doesn't smell as much either. So the place that you identified further downstream, that is on the airport property, correct? That is on Mill Ridge Farm. So this point right here that I was just talking about next to this, this is on the farm. As you move further down, I don't know whose property this is, but clearly it's behind the airport. Okay. You remember we went through that exercise as far as what is developable and what is not, because a lot of people own 25 acres or something like that and their house is there. And so it's their farm as opposed to vacant 25 acres. And we spent a lot of time trying to figure out what is really developable in this catchment area of what would be sewers and all that. The farther you move out past Bowman's Mill, as I recall it, you got more into those smaller lots that weren't really necessarily development potential. You can kind of see it on this map a little bit here where you see these property lines here. So let me ask this question before I run out of time. So the improvements that we're talking about making now is just only to take on the existing capacity. It's not increasing for, it's not making it to be able to take on future increasing capacity. It's the existing capacity, the existing consent decree obligation, along with Area 1, which was approved as part of the 2023 expansion. Okay. All right. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Councilmember. Councilmember Hale. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Director, for your presentation. My question kind of shifted a little bit. So you're saying that the ideal place for that pump station would be down where they all connect. You said back behind where the airport is? Is that what you just said? The ideal place from the terms of sewer standpoint, it should always be at the bottom of the hill. And so the farther you go down the hill, obviously the more efficient your sewer system is, because you can serve all the areas that drain to that point by gravity rather than pumping. That gets in conflict when you apply that to Lexington, because again, everything runs away from us. And so you have a lot of these streams that go into rural areas, go into the farming areas and stuff. And obviously from a preservation standpoint, you get a conflict to that. You think about it like this, is that Lexington is one of the few cities you go to that doesn't have a river that runs through it. Most other communities, everything runs to the center, and they have one treatment plan, and they're able to be able to serve everything efficiently. When I came here 26 years ago, and they said they had 80-some pump stations, I thought they were lying to me. And I found out differently, they don't. So wherever we draw the boundary at, we end up having to put pump stations to have them pump back into where we serve. So in this case, like I said, starting where it says Mint Lane Pump Station, you can follow that blue line. And the farther you go down that blue line towards the airport, the more property you could serve potentially in the future if you so chose to. And you could do that all the way to the Mississippi River. So in expansion, are we not looking to be able to serve for expansion purposes? If we are going to build more over in that area, are we not looking for that pump station to be able to handle more? Because we just said we're just looking for it to be able to serve what's currently there. Because if we're putting it right where the existing pump station is right now, we are sizing it to serve the entire urban service boundary that is serviced by that pump station. If you move it downstream, you could still serve that same area, but you also could potentially serve more area. That's where we get into a sticky spot because that's not our role to decide whether or not we're going to expand the urban service boundary. That's the council and the planning commission and the division of planning. Again, like I said, somebody establishes where the boundary is and what the service area is. And then we tell them what type of infrastructure they need. As what we're told right now is the service area stops behind Dunbar High School. And the only thing that's different from before is area one, the one bounded by Man O' War and Parker's Mill Road, has been added as now officially part of the urban service boundary. Okay. So I'm just going to ask my original question just so I can be done. So just looking at all the data and just comparing all the data, does it make more sense to expand this pump or to relocate it? If you move it farther downstream, I would be concerned about, again, how it impacts the people in Palomar and in the downstream pump station, which is what we call South Elkhorn. But for your purposes, it's Bowman's Mill Road. We never evaluated what the impacts would be downstream because it never made it past the sewer ability study. Nobody wanted to talk about it anymore, so we didn't spend any more calories on trying to figure out downstream capacity. But, yeah, you could move it downstream. You could expand the boundary. You could make it bigger. But you're going to also have to figure out how are you getting it delivered to West Hickman and is there capacity in those downstream segments in order to be able to deliver it to your treatment plant. All right. Thank you, Director. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. Council Member Curtis. Thank you, Chair, and thank you, Director Martin, for being here and for your presentation. So I've got a couple of questions following up on some of the process element of how we got here earlier. And, again, thank you for your grace as one of the newbies on council who was not here in 2023. So when you're talking about your marching orders from, I believe the term you used earlier was the decision makers to stay within the USB. Could you just clarify for me specifically who you're referring to when you say that? To me, the decision makers are the council because, again, like I said, everyone that I've ever been involved in, there is a resolution associated with it that says we're going to serve this location under these conditions. So, for example, the horse park, that was one of the first ones I was involved in when I came to work here. They were eliminating a failing treatment plant that was located on the horse park property. The finance cabinet did not want to stay in the sewer business. And so they came to urban county government and said, help us. And so there was an agreement that was hashed out, and it was approved by a resolution that said that we were going to serve the horse park and spindle top. It is also restricted at that pipeline that comes from that location and comes in at the legacy trail that nobody can connect to it. And to this day, with the exception of the stockyards, nobody is. And the stockyards was able to connect to it because there was a council resolution for it as well. So when we're talking about this specific pump station, could we not as council pass a resolution to, not talking about expanding the urban services area, but to say in this particular instance, if we had a willing partner who was outside of the urban services area, that we could pass a resolution to allow that to be pursued and studied? Is that am I correct in understanding it that way? That we could pass a resolution and allow that? Well, councilman, of course, it's probably a better question for the law department, but I don't I don't see why you couldn't. But I mean, I think that I would have to defer to them ultimately, because, you know, the devil's in the details as far as what the language looks like. Sure. And Dave, would you mind? Sorry to put you on the spot like this. Good afternoon. I think that Director Martin is accurately reflected where you all would be in every instance where you all have done one outside. We we make recommendations on how to condition it so that it protects the interest adequately. OK. Thank you. Because what I'm getting at, as you probably know, is that there has been discussion outside of your purview, your marching orders with folks from Mill Ridge Farm who have offered to donate land for a site that by the criteria set forward seems to be a more ideal location. But that my understanding from your presentation today is that that hasn't been considered specifically because it is outside of the urban services area. Again, we offered it up for consideration as part of the sewer ability study. And if that decision would have been made to add that area or some segment of it to that area, it wouldn't have got any complaints from us because the constructability is probably a lot easier there than it is on that very tight lot behind Dunbar High School. I won't make that up. That's a fact. I'm not so again, I've said this earlier, I may have glossed over it. And we're not even sure we can really build on that site yet because we don't own all the land. I don't know anything about the geotech part of it. So if that was the will of the council to do that and obviously the law department agreed to it and passed as a resolution, then I would do that because that's what I've done before. OK, awesome. I appreciate the clarification there. And I'm running out of time. I might have another question or two, but I'll log back in. Thank you so much. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Council Member Curtis. Council Member Savigny. Thank you, Chair. And thanks again, Charlie, for the presentation. I do learn more and more each time we talk. So I do. It's fun. It's fun, fun stuff. And I will say that in Dunbar, they call it the Dunbar funk, whatever. The kids that are over there, they're all like, oh, it's the Dunbar funk. So that is something with MidLane. So I've got a few kind of questions. Does, have you, I don't think, I think you, I just want to recall you said that you actually haven't done the survey yet of MidLane to know if it's inside or outside the urban service boundary. We've done surveying of the lot. I'm concerned about the physical location of the pump station as it relates to the lot. Yeah, okay. All right. And then, do we frequently put piping and stuff outside? Like, do we do sewer pipes and stuff outside the urban service boundary? Again, when I send you the presentation I intended to give you today, it has a couple of extra maps. I'll include a spreadsheet that I've put together that lists the ones that are outside the urban service boundary. There are a couple pipe segments that are outside the urban service boundary, including one that goes on Mill Ridge Farms. Okay? Now, all that was built in 98. I arrived in 99. And, of course, that would have come through new development engineering. I have no explanation of why that was allowed to happen, but it did. Okay. Thank you. You have come to many neighborhood meetings with me over in that section. I think you were at a Harrods Hill meeting one time. And maybe we're at a Beaumont meeting. I believe that you had been stating to those groups that, because we were talking about Area 1, and you had made a comment that was along the lines of, we can probably handle a couple hundred more units. That's about what we can handle at Mid Lane. And when the master plan was done for Area 1, it's calling out between 1,200 and 1,800 units. And so I am struggling to kind of get the capacity piece correct there. And I'm just struggling. And so maybe you can help me with the math or re-clarify. Just to clarify, first of all is that when you and I were at the neighborhood meeting a summer ago or something like that, what I was talking about was in the context of today. We have capacity banks that we were required to do as part of the consent decree. And there's a cap bank or capacity bank that's called Mid Lane. Mid Lane has some capacity available to it, but it's very limited right now. And so that was the context of what I was talking about then, is that if you don't do anything with Mid Lane and you wanted to start building today, you'd only be able to get to this threshold and you'd have to stop and it's probably not worth the investment. Now, if once we do a new Mid Lane pump station and put in the wet weather facilities, this is what I got from our cap consultant, Stantec. This came today, is that we would still hold the dry weather capacity at 3.6 MGD and still be able to handle Area 1. The wet weather storage tank would increase to 4.8 million and the peak diversion rate would increase to 4 million. So I said this earlier, and just to clarify, dry weather capacity, we're okay. But consent decree wet weather capacity is what really drives everything. And so in some cases, we've oversized some of our facilities so much in order to handle the wet weather stuff. That's what's creating some of our odor problems that seems to have manifested themselves over the last ten years, not foreseeing that. So in this pump station, what I wanted to do was not oversize the pump station, the dry weather component of it to where it would handle base flow the way that it's supposed to and build a separate wet weather when it's strictly devoted for that purpose and that purpose only. Okay, I'm running out of time, but I'm going to throw one more out there. Location of this thing, so like we're looking at locations downstream. Could you describe how you're going to implement where you're at? Because we had a discussion, it was a side discussion that was what you're going to have to do in the current location to do this. And what you could do in a different location. You talked about the cutover and things being just a little bit different. And I'm out of time, but please feel free to answer that. The existing location is you're working on a very tight footprint and you're trying to build a storage tank. If you need 4.8 million and you're confined or constrained by your diameter, it means you have to build the tank higher than you would because everything's driving it based on volume. If your volume is this and your diameter is this, the only way you increase volume is doing that. But basically is that you see the new 2.9 MGD wet weather storage pump station. That would be built first along with the storage tank and then all flow would go to this new pump station. While the existing pump station, which is to the left of it, got rebuilt as well. So you'd have two pump stations and a storage tank back there. It's like everything we do. It's like driving down the road. on your car at the same time, it's hard. And doing it in a different location, I know I'm out of time. In a different location what you would do is you would build a whole infrastructure there, this station would stay in service the way it is right now, and when it was time to divert the flow to the new pump station, you'd stick a section of pipe in, connect the two of them together, all the flow would bypass the existing station and go to the new station and bang, you're in business. Okay. Thank you. Council Member Sheehan. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Director Martin, for all of the time that you have put into this and all of the discussion that we're having today. You mentioned Goal 4 workgroup, and I attended those meetings back in 2022, and there was a report at the end of that workgroup, and one of the recommendations that came out of that report, because of the discussion around sewer infrastructure, was that city infrastructure related to the provision of urban services may be placed in the most efficient and appropriate locations, including within what they were calling at that time the preservation areas, because they had a map that was urban service area, and then everything else was basically preservation area and potential expansion areas. So part of that discussion was that there have been times in the past where, because of the sense that we have to place everything within the urban service area, all this infrastructure, that there were times where we've had to make a choice to actually do a more expensive project to cover the efficiencies that we need, because it had to be, you know, it couldn't be judged over, for lack of a better term. It had to be pushed into the urban service area, when that might not have been the most efficient placement for that particular piece of infrastructure. Am I accurate in that kind of summary? I think so. I think so. You know, if the property line or the boundary is just upstream from the junction of two of those streams I was mentioning earlier, that creates a problem for you. At one time, we had two pump stations that were right next to one another because of the boundary. So one of the recommendations then out of the work group is that we should have these conversations and find the most efficient placement, but not in a way that assumes then expansion in that area, but oftentimes will make a more efficient system for our current needs, but then also be a lower cost project. So that's one of the things that I would like you all to consider as we're having this conversation about this infrastructure, but also future infrastructure is some of the work that has already been done on this and some of the conversation that has already been had about this, about the efficiencies of our systems, but then also the financial cost to taxpayers when we make alterations to fit a strict rule that might not be the most cost effective or the most efficient. And then we have gotten some communications, one letter from the Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources at the state level, that there is a wetland conservation project being proposed. Have you been a part of any of those conversations? Because some of what we have received is that that wetland conservation project basically cannot move forward with the pump station in this location. Have you been a part of any of those discussions? I have not been part of that conversation, but I'm very much aware that the property owners have been pursuing this for quite some time. And part of, I think, leading to some of this discussion about the exact placement or whether it should be more downstream, like some of the area that you have pointed out today, is that in the communications we have received is that wetland conservation project would not be able to move forward with it in this location, that it would need to be moved downstream to make sure there isn't contamination within that wetland area. But we have also received communication that that wetland area could potentially be donated to the city to make public nature space. So that's something that's going into my thinking on the exact location of this, in addition to what I mentioned before about the most efficient placement. Based on what I think I know, I mean, the wetland project as that pump station stands right now makes no sense whatsoever because there's an overflowing pump station upstream from it. Why would anybody do that? The moving forward is to have moved the pump station downstream then allows the pipe to be put in the ground, the manholes be installed and all that before that conservation is established because if you try to do it afterwards, that's probably a really heavy lift. You probably recall some of the conversation during the Goal 4 work group about crossing PDR farms, is that trying to cross it with infrastructure that we were told that you couldn't do that. And so that very well may be the same case here as well, is that if you don't go before the wetland project is established, you don't go at all. Thank you for your insights and thank you, Chair. Thank you. Vice Mayor Wu. Thank you, Chair. Director Martin, following up on my colleague's questions about capacity, so let's not consider the idea of future expansion of the USA nearby. Does the current proposed mid-lane improvements cover 100% of our current sewer needs in that area? Including Area 1, yes. Does that consideration, are we looking at future population growth of the area that it covers? Again, not considering expansion, just talking about the existing areas. Are we projecting out X number of years for that? Our marching orders has always been to provide capacity for full development within the urban service boundary for the calendar year 2035. Former Council Member Ed Lane, every time I'd come up here, he'd ask me that question to make sure I got that drilled in my head. Now, you know, again, that's always a tough number to get, because if we start choosing different densities and increasing density within our urban service boundary, that gets a little bit more challenging. I believe that, yes, we are able to provide full capacity for full development within the urban service boundary. That is always our goal. Okay. This question might be for Commissioner Barbary, if you want to head on down. So the following up on colleague's comments, also the idea that, and you've stated multiple times now that the quote unquote marching orders has always been that we do not build this kind of infrastructure pump stations outside the urban service area. What I want to know from the law department is, is this written into ordinance or law, or is this just an unwritten best practice that we've followed? Well, it's pretty much, in concept, it's based on your comp plan and the whole concept of having an urban services boundary. The idea is you put the infrastructure inside those areas. So it's not really called out specifically, expressly in those documents. It's just kind of how they've always operated. With respect to whether you have any ordinances or resolutions, you have an ordinance and a resolution from the 80s that kind of touch into this, that really have not been addressed since that point in time. And they kind of dictate that this stuff should be located in the urban services boundary as well. So that's what Mr. Martin's referring to when he says this. That being said, it's already been mentioned, there are exceptions. We always get concerned about the exceptions. Because they can, especially how they're done, they can end up driving your development decisions untowardly as you go forward. And so this one's probably of more concern because of the piece of land you're talking about, which is one of the ones that was talked about being put in before. And so I think there's kind of a different kind of feel for how this one looks versus if Mr. Martin was coming to you and saying, hey, there's nowhere else to put this, it really needs to be over here. There really hasn't been an expression on the part of the property owner that they're kind of driving to get into future expansion area. So it looks different in this case. So there's probably more of a concern than there might be on some of these other ones that he's mentioned in the past. I mean, most of the other ones, I think one of them was Keeneland, the airport. There's a huge public purpose for why you're doing it and why you're willing to provide the service. In those instances, you are providing the service as well. But this one kind of looks a little bit different, I think, because of the history of it. Yeah, and I was just kind of curious how that was written out or how we've been practicing that. And I think the core reality of it is, and this is what I really appreciate about your work, Director Martin, is you are trying to give us your most sort of objective view of what's best for sewerability, where the best locations potentially are. But you're not ultimately the one making the final call of where the thing goes. Your words, marching orders, really hit home, because that's what we give. That is sort of our purview. So if we tell you, hey, we want you to look into putting this pump station outside the urban service area and we will support that with a resolution, that's what you'll do, and you'll do the best job possible there. And that's what I really appreciate, because in 2023, the sewerability study identified better potential locations for the Mint Lane pump station. And at the time, it lined up with property owners who wanted to be brought in in that process. And unfortunately, some of my colleagues on the committee that was deciding where that was going to happen had different ideas. And that is water under the bridge, no pun intended. But right now, through what all of my council members have talked about, is there are multiple reasons for reconsidering where this pump station goes, and ultimately that decision comes down to us. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Baxter. Thank you, Chair, for the recognition, since I don't serve on the committee. Director, thank you so much for your presentation and for all the many conversations you and I have had about this general area as it pertains to sewer. What my colleagues may or may not know is that the Palomar subdivision, which I represent, has a significant amount of odor issues. And so that's one of the reasons why I am here today, even though I'm not on the committee. So, I wanted to make sure that everyone knew exactly kind of what we were talking about when we talk about this storage tank. So, I don't have a picture prepared, but if you're on New Circle Road at Richmond Road, there's a massive white tank. It is, and Director, correct me if I'm wrong, but it's 5 million gallons. And it stands somewhere between three and four stories tall. So, what Director Martin was saying here is that if this is the location where this is going to go, and we can't go out, and we have to go up, then we're talking about the potential of building a storage tank that is taller than most of the apartment complexes that we allow to be built in this town. And I don't know about you, but that I don't think would be really nice to look at. So, I want that to be, look at that, there it is. Thanks, Haley. So, that is from the back side. New Circle Road is up on top, and it sits down kind of in a culvert as well. So, it doesn't tower over New Circle Road, but just for your reference, that's what that is. So, I have major concerns about just aesthetics, really. And then, whether or not we are actually fixing the problem, or we're just putting a band-aid on an issue based on what the consent decree has instructed us to do. So, my viewpoint on this is that if we are going to invest $2 million on this specific site that we're talking about now, I want to make sure that we're doing it in the most effective and efficient way possible, because that's a lot of money. So, Director, my question to you is, if we were to look at locating it further downstream, the pump station or any other infrastructure, would we still have to construct this overflow tank? Or does that kind of solve some of the issue? In my view, the tank has to be there under all circumstances. Remember before, what I said is that we're designing for dry weather and for wet weather. And these tanks are there strictly for wet weather. If we made the downstream infrastructure big enough to handle the wet weather flow and not store it, we would have a whole different set of problems when it goes to the odors that I talked about before and everything. So, the plan has always been about strategically locating these storage tanks in places to where we can capture that excess flow and then bring it back when the storm ends. Because that way, we don't have to build five miles of pipeline to West Hickman through people's backyards. Sure, and then I think just long term, as we're planning for whatever growth looks like in our future, whether or not it's now or in 20 years or 50 years down the line. We have to think about the investments that we're making currently and what that ends up looking like for our community down the line. I mean, I think there's the potential that our side of town, I say our side, my side of town. There may be a need for us to have another water treatment plant. That's a long way to pump sewage all the way to, well, all the way to Jesmond County. So, I just want to make sure that as we are considering this and any other infrastructure projects that we are really thinking with forethought and really trying to plan for the future as best we can. So, everybody else kind of asked all of my other general questions. Obviously, I definitely have major concerns about 13-ish million gallons of waste water being pumped into our streams and everything else. So, I just want to make sure that we're being really considerate as we look. I give her- Make these decisions, so. I didn't want to interrupt you. I wanted to clarify a couple of things. Number one, is the $2 million that's in this year's budget is for design and property acquisition. It's not the entire cost. There is 6.19 million that is in the CIP for next year. So, this is more like an $8 million project, not a $2 million. And that's today's dollars, right? That's not maybe in a year or two. No, that's in today's dollars. I just wanted to make sure you were aware of that. And then the second thing you mentioned was about the third treatment plan. We talked about that during goal four as well, too. I want to make sure I go on record of that. Is if this community ever wants to consider that, if they start today, they might have it 15 or 20 years from now. That is not something you just go do. Okay. Thank you. Council Member Reynolds. Thank you, Chair, and thank you for recognizing me, because I don't serve on this committee. A lot of my questions also got answered. I just had a few comments. Thank you very much, Director, for standing here and doing this time after time. We appreciate you and your willingness to put this together. So, we don't own the land where we're saying is possibility of the best site, correct? And we're saying that Fayette County Public Schools currently owns that land. It is not the best site. It is the best site that I have potentially available to me right now, because of its proximity to the existing station and the urban service boundary. Okay, so we will circle back to that. But right now, Fayette County Public Schools owns that land. Correct. We know that Fayette County Public Schools does not like to get rid of their land. We know, for many reasons that I'm not going to go into up here right now, that often they want to acquire more land and not get rid of land. And that if they were to get rid of land, the price might possibility, maybe not, be high. So we're saying that this site is not ideal, possibly for various reasons, and that we would have to acquire it somehow, which might include a fee. But then we're also saying there's a possibility of at least one more site that there would not be a cost, and that could be acquired more easily, and that might actually be better for our constituents in the future. I am concerned about us making a decision that is not forward thinking, and that isn't what's best. It's just to work inside a parameter, that maybe that parameter is not helpful for us as we're looking to provide for the needs of our sewer system. I think you mentioned that at one point that there were two stations, pump stations, next to each other, and that that wasn't ideal. So I'm just going to say moving forward, once again, I don't serve on this committee, I do care about our sewer system, that I don't want us to make a decision based on a line if it is not the best option for Lexington and for our constituents. I just want us to be open to the possibility of thinking outside of that box, so that's all. Thank you. Thank you, I see that we have two more people signed in. I do want us to be cognizant of time. We have one more presentation that may also have questions, but Council Member Morton. Thank you. So I guess some of my questions may have not been clear due to the stance on what is being considered and what is not, or what is considered by the marching orders and what is not. So I guess I'll try to circle back again. So let's talk about the option that was brought forth tied to moving the pump station to Mill Ridge Farm. Other than the fact that most pump stations are within or tend to be at that boundary, inside the boundary or at the boundary. What are the cons or negatives, other cons or negatives that you see arising by putting the pump station at the Mill Ridge Farm? I think it probably has to do with the discussion about what the future of that pump station is and whether or not there'll be additional flow that came to it because it's able to serve more raw land. I think that's probably not necessarily even a con, it's just more of a challenge. I mentioned before is that you make the pump station bigger, somehow you have to deliver that to West Hickman, which is as the crow flies five miles away, you gotta get there. And that'll be the challenge to it is if you double the size of it as it is right now. Made that up, but if you double it, how do you get it there? Right, and at your proposed location, what's the distance between those two? because we still have to get it from the proposed location to that, to West Hickman as well, right? It's about the same distance, but because you're limiting the pump station size and limiting the size of the pipeline to the same thing it is right now, you don't have to worry about increased flow. The increased flow is coming from the wet weather component. That's why you're building the storage tank larger than you were if you didn't have area one. Okay. But anytime you serve more land, the challenge is going to be, is that that's going to increase base flow and peak flow in wet weather conditions. How do you get it to a point to treat it, whether it be a town branch or West Hickman? Thank you. What is the concern about putting the pump station, well excuse me, being that you said the location is not tied to future expansion, what is the concern about putting the pump station outside the urban service boundary other than precedent, since it's not tied to expansion? I'm not so sure I understand your question. So you said the precedent is to keep it inside the boundary, or to keep it at the boundary line. But earlier you mentioned it's not tied to expansion at all, putting this outside the boundary. So what's the major concern putting it outside the boundary other than precedent? That is it, that's the precedent. Okay, cool. And then this lastly, and this is just from understanding, would building the pump station at the Mill Ridge Farm location bind us to expansion in any way? I'm sorry, you lost me on that too. Would putting the pump station at the Mill Ridge Farm, does that bind this council or any future decisions to expansion? I'm not so sure I can answer that question. I'll defer to the law department, what binds you or doesn't bind you? It probably largely depends on what conditions are placed on us acquiring the property that's needed to put it there. And what demands are placed on us by the property owner. Okay. We could try to protect that from happening, but I think the concern is given the history of this property and how it transpired last time, I think you all, it kind of would be the perception that it would come in next time. Regardless of what you put in the legal language in any kind of agreement. So just perception, the only way that that is considered to be inside the urban service boundary, we're talking about the Mill Ridge Farm, is if this, well, the council that's going to address expansion when that comes up again, when that comes. Yeah, it would always be out until you all make a decision otherwise, or until they petition through another process to try to get in, you know, to try to develop their land, it would remain outside the urban services boundary in its currently undeveloped state. Correct. Thank you. Okay. Council Member Curtis. Thank you, Chair. And I had a couple of more granular questions, but for the sake of time, I'm going to keep my comments brief. I would just really like to echo my colleague's comments, especially Vice Mayor Wu and Council Member Sheehan's about the long-term consideration and that how sometimes doing something because it's the way it's always been done is not a good enough reason to do it. And just state that I've engaged in good faith with the folks from Mill Ridge Farm. Many of us have. I do think that it's worthy of serious consideration, and if there were a consensus that that was worthy of serious consideration, I'd be in support of a resolution to direct that to be considered. So, thank you, Chair. All right, thank you. Council Member Savigny. Thank you, Chair. And did you have any remarks? No, I don't have anything at this point. Thank you. So, I'm going to try to sum up a few things and then kind of end the conversation a little bit. First of all, I truly appreciate the presentation, and I do actually, I really enjoyed working with you on it. I enjoyed the back and forth dialogue that we had. It's very enjoyable to kind of talk about big problems and find ways that might be not always the norm in ways to fix them. But from time to time, we do do studies like the 2023 sewerability study that can tend to get shelved, and sometimes they get shelved for political reasons. But several years later, we end up making decisions that might be able to manage a short-term need, and have the potential of coming out different to make more sense, and we could be the best stewards of the dollars we have. So, because we've talked, and you let me know that there is a bit of slack in the schedule, not a ton, but a bit. With that in mind, I'd like to make the following motion for this body to consider. I move to have a complete site analysis and cost feasibility study of the two locations, the existing site and downstream at Bowman's Mill Road on Millridge Farm property. That includes future growth of the facility in the region per master plan for area one in the areas considered in the 2023 sewerability study. Delivered to the council at a regularly scheduled work session by March 1st, 2026. So moved. I have a motion by Council Member Savigny, a second by Council Member Curtis. I have one follow up on that, too. A clarifying statement, or? Yeah, I just wanted to know from law, if this has to, does this take it out, or is it considered an action of council? Because it sounds like we need actions of council sometime for things to be considered, and I don't know if this is considered an action of council. If the entire council voted on this, it would normally take the form of something formal like a resolution. If that's what you're asking. But it would take the entire council doing it, not just in the committee. There are some things that, some exceptions to that, but in this case, you'd probably want to go ahead and do a formal resolution. I have a question about, I mean, there's potentially costs involved in doing the other one as well. I mean, how much do you all want us to be looking at stuff like that before this March 1st? I had a conversation with the director prior to this, adding if I had to actually budget anything for this. And he said that he could get that analysis done within his, the $2 million that has been allocated. Yes, do you have a clarification on that, Director? I appreciate the aggressive schedule, because you and I did talk about that, we're running out of time. I am a little bit concerned whether or not we could get this turned around by March. That's the only concern I have. But otherwise, we're- Do you have a preferential date? I'd like to look at what you wrote and see what kind of information you're wanting them to present in this report, because that would probably have some impact. I'm going to have to procure somebody to do this. And sometimes that takes a little bit of time, but I can accelerate that. It's just a question of what level of detail that we're going to, again, like I said, I'm in a big hurry too. You know I am and stuff, and so we'll get it done as quickly as possible. But like I said, I would like to examine the deliverable a little bit closer. Council Member Savigny, just so I can clarify my understanding of your motion. You said to have this delivered to the council. Do you mean to deliver this to this committee, or do you mean to the council? I just want clarity on the motion. To the council at a work session. At a work session. Yeah, because I'd like to formally take this out of the committee, because I would like, if we're going to have to take action to allow it to be outside the urban service boundary, it would all take place at the same time. Okay, so we have a motion and a second, and we have several people signed in to speak to that motion. Okay, Council Member Brown. Thank you, Chair. And just for clarity, and I guess based off of the question that Council Member Savigny asked, and Dave from Law tried to, the Commissioner of Law tried to clarify. So this motion, in essence, is to present a draft resolution to the council. Stating what Council Member Savigny has asked of the Division of Water Quality is to potentially look at other sites downstream for this improvement of the Mint Lane Pump Station. Then also include a schedule, a time schedule, and a budget schedule on how much it would cost. So that's what I think we're voting on. We're voting on a resolution to come forward to council to address what he has asked to be delivered in a time frame and a budget schedule for us to consider approving going forward. Before we get to whether or not the decision to approve this infrastructure outside of the urban service boundary. Right, I mean, that's pretty much it. Yeah, it sounds reasonable. I just want to make sure whichever body acts on it, it actually takes place. And I don't know if having this body act on it, this committee or council is the appropriate one. I think the action of this committee is voting that to the full council to consider. And so it may come to the full council in the form of a resolution with additional information. I see the Department of Law coming this way. Would you like to clarify, Commissioner? I think that Council Member Brown summarizes appropriately what we would be expecting out of this is we would take an action that would go to the full council to vote on and that would be for the division to go ahead and consider alternative sites with a timeline to present to you all by that timeline. And then you would make a final decision on whether to keep it at the current proposed spot or at a new spot. Okay, well I'll just, so I appreciate you confirming that. So with that, I'll support the motion because I think from the comments that we heard today that we just want to do what's best and looking in regards to infrastructure, whether it's inside or outside of the urban service boundary. So thank you. Urban service area. Thank you. Colleagues, if I could ask for one more point of clarification before other questions are asked. So are you talking about two different sites? because I thought it was a site analysis and cost feasibility study for comparing the two sites, is that correct? For two locations. People have been speaking about it differently. Okay, two locations. Two locations, the existing site and the site adjacent to Bowman's Mill Road downstream. Okay, thank you. Vice Mayor? Thank you, Chair. Director, you spoke about how getting the feasibility study done by March was going to be potentially challenging. But I also want to know how this timeline lines up with the time constraints given to us by the consent decree, can you speak a little bit to that? I'm not overly concerned about it, because as I said, I was concerned about having a hard deadline this so soon. But obviously we would move post haste to get that done, and if I can get the consultant hired and they can agree to do that, then I'd rather have it for you by February. Because, as I said, I'd like to be able to answer the question about are we going to site A or we going to site B so we can go into full-blown design. With two other storage tanks to build elsewhere in the community before that 2030 deadline, I want to try to get this one behind us as much as we can. Okay, so the addition of this study does not negatively impact the timeline to fulfill our obligations? I don't anticipate that it will. And as Council Member Savigny noted, with the $2 million that's in the budget right now for Mint Lane Pump Station design, this I guess is just part of design plus one. Okay, and then one more piece of clarification in terms of the locations that Council Member Savigny is talking about comparing is, one is the proposed Mill Ridge location. When you say existing, are you talking about the one that's being proposed right now, not where it currently sits, correct? Like that's a little bit different. Where it currently sits, like it's adjacent to where it currently sits, and it's not necessarily our property, but it's within the urban service boundary, so it's what he's proposed. Okay. My understanding is it's what I showed on that slide of the storage tank as opposed to what was in the sewerability study. There's also been no geotech or anything done yet, you said, on that site. Okay, got it. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Council Member Lynch. Thank you, Chair. And I just want to clarify, because Council Member Savigny's motion was different from the summary that Council Member Brown gave us. So I would like to make sure that the committee knows what they're voting on. Not necessarily what Council Member Brown said, unless you plan to amend Council Member Savigny's motion. But Council Member Savigny's motion was different from your summary. So I don't know, Council Member Savigny, if you don't mind to restate your motion. Chair, I just wanted to make sure that's okay, because I just want to make sure everybody's clear on what they're voting on, because Council Member Brown's summary was different than what Council Member Savigny said. And I guess I'll just say, if it's all right, Chair, I really wasn't trying to be exact about his details. What I was trying to illustrate is how it's going to come back to the council. And it probably would be in the form of a resolution with time frames and potential budget amounts. So. Thank you. Council Member Lynch, your clarification is welcome. If you could restate the motion clearly and directly, that would be welcome. Okay, I move to have a complete site analysis and cross-feasibility study of the two locations, the existing site and the downstream site adjacent to Bowman's Mill. That include future growth of the facility in the region per the master plan for area one, delivered to council at a regularly scheduled work session by March 1st, 2026. And I believe what will end up happening is if we approve that, I actually think we'll end up making a resolution on the council floor that is similar, that we kind of work out some details on. Is that what you were saying, James? because I think that's what you were saying. Yeah, I think, yeah, so yeah, what I would think would happen is law would, that's what would be presented to us as our resolution doing just what you said. Okay, thank you. Colleagues, is anybody else wishing to speak about the motion? I'll say something, and Council Member Savigny, if you could just clarify. So, in a way, you're voting for, you want the items that you shared to be reported out to all of council. Are you planning to leave this item in committee? We don't have to decide that now, but I'm just trying to think about, will this be coming back? Yeah, I didn't want to actually leave it in committee, because I do think we have a time frame that's tougher, and we don't have that many meetings that we could get it into. So, that's why I wanted to report it out to work session. Okay, thank you. I would prefer if we dealt with this in committee first, but I understand your timeline constraints, so I'm not going to vote in favor of this, because I would like to deal with it in committee instead of with all of council first. But I appreciate my colleagues and their preferences, so if nobody has anything else to say, then we'll go ahead and move forward with our vote. So, all in favor of Council Member Savigny's motion, please signify by saying aye. Aye. Okay, any opposed? Nay. So, that motion moves forward as stated. Thank you, Council Member Savigny. Thank you, Director Martin. And we still have one more item. We have an overview of our Street Art for Lexington initiative, and Hannah Kreps, here as a principal planner in the Outreach and Strategic Planning Division, will provide this presentation. And Council Member Sheehan, this is your item. So, any contextualized remarks or introduction you'd like to provide is welcome. I will be very brief. But last year, I attended a presentation about quick builds and asphalt art at the Kentucky Bike Walk Summit. These types of programs have been discussed, sometimes under different names like tactical urbanism, as part of a larger complete streets policy work and transportation network safety. And we have had lots of discussion here about complete streets policy. These programs have also been successfully implemented in other municipalities. And since the summit, Council Member LaGree and I have been working with Ms. Kreps on developing a street art program here. So, we will hear a presentation today on the basics and the definitions of what street art encompasses, and how we think this might proceed in Lexington. The quick builds portion of this discussion, we can have at another time. While street art can be part of a quick build, it's not the entirety of what quick builds can look like. So, that will be another presentation at a later date. So, I'm going to turn it over. Thank you for your work. Wonderful. Thanks for that warm welcome. Okay, so today, I'm going to speak about street art, what it is, and different ways that it can be applied. And then I do want to introduce you to a pilot project, a partnership between the Division of Planning and District 1 that is just getting underway. So, street art, sometimes referred to as asphalt art or street murals, is a way to creatively activate a city's largest public asset, its streets and roads. It has two purposes, traffic calming and placemaking. To set the tone, I'd like to share two quotes with you. So, from Cincinnati's Paint the Streets Program Guide, street murals take advantage of our most extensive public spaces, our streets, to bring more art into daily life, fostering inclusive and vibrant communities. And then, from David Anderson, who is part of Bloomberg Philanthropies Arts Team, street murals are creative designs that promote traffic calming by contributing to a sense of place. Adding color to the asphalt makes it extremely clear that this is a space for the pedestrian. But also, art makes the space feel used, loved, and cared for. It signals to drivers that the street is not designed just for cars, but for people. I want to be clear about what street art is not. It is not a one-stop solution. It is one tool out of many that we can deploy as a city, and it should be done with considerable collaboration and dialogue across city departments and within the community. So broadly speaking, street art is highly context specific. Local conditions will determine if a street art installation is more of a traffic calming project or more of a placemaking project. So street art can be applied inside intersections. It can be installed as a curb extension, what we call bulb outs. It can also be applied in crosswalks, other pedestrian spaces. Sometimes it even goes in the middle of the street, mid-block. In a traffic calming transportation sense, street art is a relative quick build compared to traditional timelines. It can take months or a year, maybe a little more, to go from an initial idea to installation. Versus multiple years of planning and design. So the durability of street art depends on the materials that are used, what type of intervention is applied, and where. Also, whether there is a maintenance agreement. So street art projects are by nature temporary. We're not talking about concrete and 50 year timelines. So we need to be very up front and we need to have honest communication about that temporary nature. Here are just a few visual examples of placements in Huntington, West Virginia and Kansas City, Missouri. All right, when conducted well, it is self evident that street art enhances the look of a place and that it can showcase the importance of our roadways as our most extensive tangible public good. But there is emerging data that supports street arts power to improve safety as well. So according to Bloomberg Philanthropies, they are a leading funder and researcher of street art around this country, but also the globe. It is proven to contribute to increased driver awareness, greater perceived, so like felt, and then actual safety for people walking and cyclists, and also better behavior across all modes. So a few numbers from their safety study, they saw about a 50% reduction in vulnerable user crash rates, so that's people biking and walking. About a 36% reduction in injury crash rates, and then about a 61% reduction in crash potential, so that's near miss rates. And I think that that has to do with raising attention and awareness for people moving through intersections and streets. So street art can contribute to immediate physical safety improvements for comparatively way less money and within a relatively shorter timeline. But I want to point out, street art also has a tremendous qualitative power because it gives people an embodied experience of a redesigned intersection or street. So that's in contrast to our conventional approach of showing diagrams and using words. Street art has the power to rally support more easily for concepts like complete streets, because it lifts the issue off the page and into the real world. Okay, I just wanted to provide another visual example. In this before image, the vehicle is top dog. Even with crosswalks and bike facilities. However, in the after image, there is plenty of creatively defined space where folks outside a car can be more visible. The art changes the shape of the intersection, and it helps right size it for all modes. It is always good to explore and learn from others. So here is a snapshot of some of the cities with street art that we have been exploring. As you can see, there is a wide spectrum of street art possibilities. Projects are sometimes city driven, city led. Sometimes they're community led through a city approval process. And then other times, they're initiated and led by an external agency, but sanctioned by the city. Municipalities choose to connect their street art projects to a range of policies and plans like Vision Zero, Complete Streets, localized traffic calming initiatives, public art master plans, tourism, etc. Funding comes from a range of sources like outside agency grants, transportation related revenue streams, public art funds, allocations of city budgets. Planning will continue researching. Bloomberg's database is a deep well to plumb, but we have had some fruitful conversations with practitioners elsewhere, like in Savannah, Georgia and Norfolk, I'm sorry, Savannah, Georgia and Norfolk, Virginia. And we will be visiting Cincinnati soon to learn from them. I wanted to provide you with a few reference points from our existing plans and policies here in Lexington. It's clear that public art, placemaking and traffic calming have all been consistent elements in our guiding documents. I won't read everything, but you can see here our comprehensive plan identifies the need for placemaking and street retrofit traffic calming projects. The complete streets policy talks about using other strategies, demonstration projects to educate the public. And then a number of the Lexington area NPO's transportation documents have also called out the need to make room for public art in the right of way. I also wanted to point out that there is precedent, and I have Roger Mulvaney to thank for pointing these things out to me. These two programs are both managed outside planning, so I'm not the most knowledgeable about them. But I did want to show that there is an existing framework for tapping into and creatively expressing community vision in our public realm. Okay, so we're not just looking at how street art happens in other cities, as Council Member Sheehan mentioned. We've had some preliminary conversations with traffic engineering and some steps for a potential program process are sort of taking shape. There is still a lot to kind of be worked through and determined. But this is kind of a high level breakdown of what those steps could look like. At this point, we're sort of roughly estimating projects costing about 20,000, but I do think more is better. And that can definitely sort of change and will depend on circumstances. But we would, of course, need to determine a funding source. We would need to be facilitating a connection between the community directly around the site and the artist to help the artist develop a site-based mural. We would definitely be continuing to coordinate between the Division of Planning and Traffic Engineering just to make sure that we're adhering to their standards. And then we would need approval from the Public Arts Commission, especially if we want to use their funding. And then installation as a whole, sort of kit and caboodle thing, that will require permitting and site prep and a number of other steps. And then we also would love to be collecting data, qualitative and quantitative, ideally before and after. So in these early days of thinking about how we might bring street art to Lexington, we are taking advantage of an exciting pilot opportunity. So back in May, the city held the fourth, I believe, annual street fest. So the Division of Planning has been working with Council Member Morton to continue the temporary chalk art demonstration that happened at that event, which was located on Shropshire Avenue in May, I think a number of you were there. This is what we're sort of imagining this project will look like. It's definitely a learn as we go, and we're seeing this as kind of an opportunity to kind of test and experiment and shape what a potential future process could look like. We're connecting with local artists, we'll be inviting them to submit letters of interest. And then based on the sort of decision making of our selection committee, we will invite them to submit full proposals, that committee will then, of course, choose an artist that they want to work with. And we'll sort of be facilitating a dialogue between that group, the wider community, and the artist to kind of facilitate a design. And then when it comes to actually installing, we want to make sure that the design is compliant with traffic engineering standards. So I think that's it for me, and good time. So happy to engage thoughts, questions from any of you. Excellent, we already have someone signed in, so Council Member Morton. Thank you, and thank you, Hana, for the presentation. So I'd like to give flowers to folks when flowers are due. And Hana has been intentional in her approach, innovative in her ideas, and sensitive to the needs of the community. Exactly the combination we need in our planning department, but then also exactly the combination we need in all of the city government within staff. So thank you to Hana and staff in the outreach office for putting this forward within planning. So let's talk a little bit about just kind of what she had already mentioned. I'm thrilled to pilot the program in the first district. The community is excited about it, and I'm eager to see the final project. I want to talk about the collaboration that has happened between Hana's office, our office, and the community. I appreciate the beginning steps of bringing temporary art to the neighborhood during Street Fest earlier this year in the East End on Shropshire. It was a great day and sparked imagination and interest of project. But then also, it started to build those relationships already with the kiddos and the folks in that community when it comes to that street art project. Though our office has pulled together youth, their families, leaders, and business owners from the East End, as well as connecting Hana to a couple of East End artists and venues for meetings, Hana has truly done the heaven lifting in conceptualizing this project and organizing the different and multiple pieces tied to it. So we are at the beginning stages and have a meeting in September with the Art Selection Review Committee. Their first task is to imagine what is possible and begin creating words around their desires for future art. Hana will take those words and create a request for proposed artists with connections to the East End. Once the proposal are received, the decision for the final installation will be the final task for the selection committee. And just to reiterate, that selection committee is community based, so they get to decide what's being brought to their community. And that can be, and as we're talking about it, it's so many different angles that we come. We talk about preserving cultures of communities, we talk about the history of communities, or we just talk about what the youth may want to see or what their desires might be. So with that being said, as a community, we know that this is intended to be a collaborative process between planning, the council office, and the community. You and planning are not just doing this in a vacuum, and that's important. We do it as a community all together. And I'm thankful that you have a vision of installing community-sensitive public art and a dedication to collaborative communication. So please know that my office is at your disposal. And again, thank you again for your work on this, and thank you to the community outreach office. I see Kenzie in the back, so she's doing some other great work with another item I have, which I look forward to talking about very soon. And I know that that office is going to be very impactful and powerful to the city, so thank you. Thank you, Council Member Curtis. Thank you, Chair. I just wanted to say thank you so much to Hana, to Council Member Sheehan, and to you, Council Member McGree, because I know you all have put a lot of work into this. My biggest policy priority in this legislative body is the implementation of innovative multimodal intersection design that works for everyone. So I'm very, very excited to see where this goes and to support it however I can. Thank you so much. Thank you. Council Member Savigny. Thank you, Chair, and thank you, Hana, for this, because this is, I know, one thing that we've been talking about in our street safety stuff, and I look forward to where this can go. And I know the traffic guys can be a little persnickety about painting in the streets and playing in the streets. But I do think there's some really cool stuff that can be done that can actually have a great impact. Appreciate all the work and your work on this too, Council Member. Thank you. Council Member Reynolds. Thank you, Chair. Thank you for recognizing me again. And thank you, Council Member Sheehan, for bringing this forward. It's really exciting. I remember several years back, I talked about trying to do some of these things, and we were told that we were not allowed to do them, and that some of the ones that already existed might get taken away. So this is really, really a great thing, and I love that you're on board, and thank you, Ms. Crepes, for helping with this so much and trying to champion it. And I'm open to putting art anywhere, especially if it helps slow down traffic, because we know that is needed, so I just wanted to say that. Thank you. Thank you, and before Council Member Sheehan rounds out our conversation, I just want to say thank you so much. I know there have been a lot of really smart people working together behind the scenes to imagine what this could look like. And I love the preview that you've shared about the process and about the possibilities. I think you all are doing a wonderful job, and you're bringing function, safety, and creativity together for the benefit of our community. And to help highlight some of our artists and our narratives at the same time. So thank you for that, and thank you, Council Member Sheehan. I look forward to your remarks. Thank you, Council Member LaGrie, because of the smart people you mentioned working on this, you are one of those. And I certainly want to point out Ms. Gleason in the back as well, because she's been a part of these conversations with me and Ms. Crepes, and Mr. Mulholland from planning as well. And I just want to give you all some framework, Council Members, for this conversation. We are starting this very slow, because it is a complicated process with all of the components. So like was mentioned, we're starting with this pilot project. But the idea is that this would be something that would end up as a conversation in all of the districts. With the Public Arts Commission, they have particular locations that they focus on. So any project that kind of goes before them for approval and funding, they do have a master plan where they have prioritized particular areas within the city that they, in the county that they would like to see more public art based on what already exists. So some, they have priorities for certain areas. So you might see some, when we're talking about locations or where to go next, that some of that goes into the conversation. But again, starting slow and kind of working out the kinks before we roll this out as a wider program. So there's nothing for us to vote on today, but I do want to let you know that this is happening as you hear about it and as you get questions from community members, so that you have the information to know that this is a growing program. Ideally, this would kind of form into something where this is community driven rather than LFUCG driven. So then the community members would be able to come and propose particular areas and kind of drive the whole thing in that regard. So I'm looking forward to what the future of this looks like, and I really appreciate you presenting to us today to give us kind of the background and starting place. Definitely, absolutely. I was happy to be here. I just, I will add, hearing your comments, what's interesting about street art is there is this sort of logistical installation piece and the sort of site selection and sort of all the criteria you need to consider. But there is also the coordinating of the artistic community and an artist and community engagement. And they're two very different endeavors, both quite time intensive. So I think it's important to kind of hold that in your mind, thinking about street art. Thanks so much. Absolutely, thank you. And colleagues, that brings us to the end of our agenda. Unless there's any objection, we stand adjourned.