# Transportation Policy - August 27, 2025 > Auto-transcribed civic record · August 27, 2025 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/6559 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/6559?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2025-08-27 - **Last revised**: February 15, 2026 - **Length**: 6,808 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed by OpenAI Whisper-1. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude Sonnet. Speaker labels and verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Transportation Policy Committee of the MPO met on August 27, 2025. The meeting's presiding officer and location were not recorded in the available materials. The committee addressed two agenda items during the session, both of which were approved: the meeting minutes and the MPO Project Boosting Scores. A total of one vote was taken during the meeting, and no public comments were heard. No presentations were noted in the available meeting data. ## Attendance The following individuals were present at the meeting held on 2025-08-27: **Present:** - Mr. Avila - Mayor Carter - Vice Mayor - Judge West - Ms. Baxter - Ms. Reynolds - Council Member Shayla Lynch - Ms. Hanna - Ms. Ramos **Absent:** None **Late:** - Mayor Carter arrived late to the meeting. No members were recorded as absent. All nine listed attendees were present, with Mayor Carter noted as having arrived after the meeting began. ## Votes and Decisions One formal vote was taken during the meeting. - **Resolution 2025-11** [timestamp: 56:06]: The body considered approval of MPO project boosting scores for the KYTC (Kentucky Transportation Cabinet) strategic highway investment formula for the TOMORROW program. The motion was made by Judge West and received a second. The resolution was approved by voice vote with no recorded individual tally of ayes or nays. No roll call was conducted, so no individual member votes are available. ## Contested Items - **East Nicholasville Bypass vs. Access Management Plan** — A heated discussion arose over the relative priority of the East Nicholasville Bypass compared to the Access Management Plan. Representatives from Nicholasville advocated for elevating the East Nicholasville Bypass as a higher priority item. The disagreement centered on which project should take precedence in planning or funding considerations. No outcome or resolution from this discussion is recorded in the available meeting data. ## Approval of Meeting Minutes [timestamp: 08:01] The committee took up the approval of meeting minutes from the June 25, 2025 meeting. During the discussion, a correction was identified on page 4 of 14 of the minutes. The minutes were approved with this correction noted. ## Approval of MPO Project Boosting Scores [timestamp: 09:01] The committee took up agenda item 2025-11, concerning the approval of MPO project boosting scores for various transportation projects under the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet (KYTC) Strategic Highway Investment Formula for Tomorrow (SHIFT) program. Key speakers during this agenda item included Mr. Avila, Judge West, Ms. Baxter, and Ms. Reynolds. The discussion centered on the boosting scores assigned to transportation projects being considered under the SHIFT program framework, which uses a formula-based approach to prioritize highway investment across the state. The committee reviewed the proposed boosting scores, which represent the MPO's input into the project prioritization process. These scores allow the metropolitan planning organization to weigh in on the relative importance of projects within its jurisdiction as part of the broader statewide transportation planning process. The item was approved by the committee. --- ## Decisions - **Resolution 2025-11** — passed (0-0): Approval of MPO project boosting scores for the KYTC strategic highway investment formula for tomorrow program. --- ## Full transcript Diolch am wylio'r fideo. Diolch am wylio'r fideo. Diolch am wylio'r fideo. All right. Good afternoon, everybody. I'm calling to order the Transportation Policy Committee of the MPO meeting for August 27, 2025. We're going to start with approval of the meeting minutes from June 25, 2025. Can I get a motion to approve? Do I have a second? Second. All right, we have a motion and a second. Any questions about the meeting minutes? Yes. Turn on your mic. For the record. On page 4 of 14, there was a thing that says from the civil office rights. Should it be the civil rights office? I just was curious. Office of Civil Rights. The civil office rights. Okay. Well, anyway. We got the order wrong. Okay. Nope. Just wondering. Okay. Well, we can make that correction. All right. Thank you for that. Any other questions or comments? All right. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? All right. That motion passes. Next up is resolution 2025-11. Approval of MPO project boosting scores for the KYTC strategic highway investment formula for tomorrow program. That's a really long title. Shift. So, Mr. Avila, take it away. All right. Yes, we want to get your money's worth here. So, shift is a process that KYTC uses to guide how or the recommendations that they're going to use for project selection within the state highway plan. So, if you remember, there is a data-driven process that guides the scoring of projects. After that process, the Transportation Cabinet puts together a draft of that state highway plan, which they forward to the state legislature, and then it's up to the state legislature to actually adopt the formal plan. The shift process evaluates each project that was earlier sponsored by somebody. And for Fayette and Josephine County, we, in combination with District 7, had 36 projects that were sponsored. And there were six criteria that those were evaluated under, and I'll cover those in a second here. But the process that we have today is to identify those projects that, for our region, we feel are especially important and need special consideration by the Cabinet and by the state legislature in order to move forward in the next two-year biennium. The six attributes that KYTC uses, the first one is safety, which also includes the bike-ped component to this. That's worth 20 points. Congestion and travel time reliability is the next piece of that. That's worth 15 points. Asset management, this is kind of roadway condition. That's worth 20 points. Economic growth, how is this supporting job creation, wealth creation for the state? That's another 15 points. Benefit cost is another 20 points. And, Vice Mayor, you are relieved. And please let the record note that Mayor Carter has arrived. Okay. Yeah, if there were only some organization that could do something about that, huh? And then the final criteria is resiliency, making sure that we can recover from unexpected circumstances. So before we get into project scores and consideration of boosting scores, we do want to talk about statewide priorities. These are projects that the Translation Cabinet has identified as being so important that they're automatically included in the plan that they're going to present to the legislature. That's important for us because we don't have to worry about trying to apply one of our boosting scores to that particular project. For us, we do have a project on the Interstate Common Route to widen the section north of Newtown Pike up to the northern split. And that's, I believe, a $25 million construction phase. Note that there's already construction going on between Newtown Pike and Paris Pike. And so the third phase is going to be south of Paris Pike down to the southern split. But that one, I think, KYTC is still working on. Casey, you're still working on that, right? Going down to the southern split? Correct. Yeah, so that's currently under construction. Right now, you'll notice that between Newtown Pike going all the way pretty much down to the southern split is still after construction. Where we anticipate that we'll have that completed sometime actually next year, probably towards the end of the year. One section between Newtown and Paris Pike, that was let earlier. But since we already have another section awarded, we thought that we'll just do all the final surfacing done at one time such that it'll actually help with the progression of that project. So this phase that we're talking about here would effectively complete the widening between the two splits? Yes, that is correct, yeah. Okay. In case you're curious, the other statewide priorities that are being recommended, there's the reconstruction of a section of I-65 south of Louisville. There is the section of I-71-75 common route south of the Brent Spence Bridge, really all the way down to the 275 Beltway. Reconstruction of that, as well as the interchange with I-275. And as you can imagine, these are three very expensive projects for the region. The other thing to keep in mind is that we have three other very significant projects that are going on right now. And because of cash flow, they're going to be using up resources over the next several years. That's the Brent Spence Bridge itself at Cincinnati. There's the widening of the Mountain Parkway that I think just went to construction. And then there's the I-69 bridge over the Ohio River at Evansville. And so all of these are going to have an impact on resources that are available for this next iteration of the state highway plan. And so that's something we want you to keep in the back of your mind here as we go through priorities. So some of the considerations we used, in addition to understanding the bigger picture of statewide resources, we wanted to coordinate our boosting scores with District 7 to the extent that we could. Because that results in a pretty significant boost in that project's score of 20 points. And right now what we're presenting to you, or recommending to you, that's the case for eight of the ten boosts that we have the ability to move forward with. We also want to keep projects that we've already done some work on moving through the process. And so nine of the ten recommendations we have already have some phase of work that's either been completed or is currently underway right now. It might be a design phase, it might be acquiring right-of-way or utility relocation. But we want to keep those projects progressing forward. And then finally, we unfortunately had three projects that fell behind schedule over this last two-year period. We were hoping that those would be either under construction now or moving towards construction this fiscal year. Unfortunately, it does not appear that that's going to be the case. And so that's affecting the number of boosts we have available for other priorities. So let's go through what we're recommending. And keep in mind, we have ten projects we can boost. We're not allowed to apply multiple boosts to a particular project. And then we're not allowed to do anything more than ten. And so what we have here is our ten recommendations. And this is coming to us from the TTCC Technical Committee. And we have the boosted score in the second column from the right. And we've got a couple of adjustments from the packet that we sent to you. One was an error and then the other was some new information from District 7 for Citation Boulevard. They chose to go ahead and apply one of their boosts to that project after this went to the Technical Committee. And so we'll just run through these really quick. The first one is the one new project that we're recommending moving forward on. And that is the intersection of Nicholasville Road at New Circle. This is coming out of the recommendations from the U.S. 27 feasibility study that was presented to you this past June. This is just a design phase here basically to begin the work on that. And while we do have a concept that came from the feasibility study, part of this effort is to really get down in the weeds, look at the constraints of that interchange, and see if that really is the best design option. There is a public process that would be associated with that as well. So we want to make sure that that's understood. But it scored very highly on a statewide basis. And then when we apply our double boost, it's one of the highest scoring projects in the state. The next one is the New Circle Safe Streets project. This is the section from Boardwalk down to Bryan Station. The design for that is actually nearing completion as we speak. And we're hoping to have a grant agreement with the Federal Highway Administration soon. We're still working on that. But there is quite a bit of state dollars attached to this particular project, partly for local match, partly for additional commitment. And so we need to include this project as a boosting priority in order to keep that moving forward. Unfortunately, one of the things that we have to also consider here is that the Cabinet and the representatives in the state legislature are going to look at which projects we did apply a boost to to determine which ones they think we feel are an important priority. And if there's not a boost applied to it, it sends the unfortunate message that maybe it's not a priority for our region, which is incorrect. I mean, everything that we sponsored was important. But that's something that we also have to acknowledge through this process. And unfortunately, there's not just the automatic forwarding of funding from one state highway plan to the other. The third project, scoring 80.54 points, is what we refer to as the Access Management Project, or this is actually a subset of the larger project for U.S. 27. This goes from Manowar Boulevard down to Coles Drive, which is a little bit south of Brandon Crossing. And this is basically a reconstruction of that section of U.S. 27 to address access concerns that the Transportation Cabinet has. And this is still in design phase right now. There's still a lot of work with the City of Nicholasville on what that design ultimately will look like. But we'd like to try to get this to the right-of-way utility work or phase within the next biennium. The next project, a section of Georgetown Road, Section 1. This is the southern portion of that work. And the hope is that this project can get into construction within the next two years. The other section of Georgetown Road is down towards the bottom of this particular list. We were kind of hoping that that would already be moving towards a construction phase already. However, it is one of those that's not ready yet for that. So it will be fiscal year 27 before that is moving forward to a construction phase. The map number 6, New Circle Road, Trade Center Drive to Woodhill Drive. This is one that is completing the design phase right now. Maybe a little aggressive to get to construction in the next two years. But certainly we'd like to see the right-of-way and utility phases on that moving forward in the biennium. Citation Boulevard, this is another one of those that we were kind of hoping was already under construction. There have been right-of-way delays on this. Doug Burden could wax eloquently on that. But we are going to need the money that was previously dedicated out of the state highway plan for that. In order to make sure that the construction costs are whole, that we can fully fund those. Winchester Road, this is Puddle Club to Haley. We're still a little ways from being ready for construction, but the hope is that right-of-way and utility phases are ready to move forward. Which then brings us to Versailles Road. You may recall the design phase was combined into one project. That is still the case, and it's still moving forward as one project. However, in the state's program, it is still divided into four separate projects for all the subsequent phases of work. Right-of-way, utilities, and construction. That poses a bit of a challenge for us, being that we only have 10 projects that we can boost. If we were going to boost all four of those, that means that there are far fewer projects that we would be able to boost. But we feel that we need to identify at least one of those projects to move forward with. The highest scoring project, and the one that probably makes the most sense if we were going to only do one of those for the next two years, is that section from Oxford Circle to Red Mile Road. This is a right-of-way and utility phase. The construction phase would be sometime later. Note, however, that we only have an MPO boost on this. I've already mentioned about section 2 of Georgetown Road. I'm hoping that that will move to construction in the next two years. Then we have, rounding off the top 10 list here, the North Broadway RJ Corman Bridge replacement. We do have a federal grant, discretionary grant applied to it, but there will need to be additional dollars applied to it. The grant was not sufficient for what the cabinet needs. By including the construction phase in this effort, hopefully that will make that project whole in terms of moving forward. There is one other project here that District 7 did apply one of their boosts to that MPO, or at least the TTCC and staff did not apply or is not recommending a boost to it, simply because we're out of boosts that we can apply. A little bit of background on this. It is still one big, huge project in the state system. Our ask with this last process was to split this into two sections so that the first part would at least get the roadway all the way up to US 27. Then the next part, which is the most expensive part, we can try to work on later to try to get funding for that. Right now it's a $93 million project. Considering all the constraints the state has for funding because of some of the priorities I mentioned earlier, but if we were able to split this into two sections, the most important section would be a $30 million project or thereabouts and that's much more doable. We were hoping that we would be in that situation. The other challenge here is that the next phase of work actually would be the right-of-way phase in terms of moving forward. The word we received from District 7 is that that phase of work is going to be somewhat complicated. Casey, correct me if I get this wrong, but I believe there are five parcels you're going to have to acquire. At least one of them you're going to have to do an appraisal on. Those are taking a considerable amount of time right now to get through. They're not going to be ready to start acquiring right-of-way for another two years at least. We'll obviously be in the right-of-way phase of that project once we have all the parcels and get the appraisals worked on. The appraisals, for some reason, does take a lot of time, up to two years as Chris was saying. We do have funding in the highway plan for construction for East Nicholasville Bypass, but the likelihood of us getting to the construction phase with five parcels to clear plus some additional utilities in order to do the first section there, it's very unlikely that we'll be able to get to construction prior to the enactment of the next highway plan. We are very supportive of the bypass project completing it since we are so far along. We've made a lot of investments on that project already, so it makes sense to complete that bypass. Thus, that's the reason why District 7 has applied their boost onto this project. Judge, if you could turn on your microphone. I believe that is just to get it over to 27. There was a little bit of design revision in order to do the first segment. Essentially, we wanted to set it up where we wouldn't have to do much work in order to put in the new interchange for the ultimate project. It did require a few right-of-way revisions, and thus more parcels were added to the project. To put it in the layman's terms for anybody that may not know, US 27's here, the third phase of the eastern bypass was going to go across that, across the railroad bridge to the other side. We really, and Mayor and I, I think are on the same page, just needed to get to 27 because now it's two-thirds of bypass with no northern connection. No. Just to echo Judge Mill's comments, you know, I remember it estimated we would have to do a lot more work than we did. Yeah, the mic's getting set up. Maybe we'll try another one. The vice mayor says we're okay. Just to echo Judge West, what he was saying, the eastern bypass is a priority for Nicholasville. As a member of this committee, we are a small part of the NPO with Lexington. The access management plan is a priority for District 7 and the NPO as well. But as a representative of our city, I would be doing our people a disservice if I didn't say that the priority was the third phase of the bypass. We have two completed sections of the bypass going from the south junction all the way to 169. So those two phases are essentially not usable until we connect to 27. In case you're not well aware of this, I'm just trying to educate the other members of this committee. For our perspective of Nicholasville and the Jessamine County Fiscal Court, this is a priority. The access management plan is important, and the bypass would be 1A and 1B would be the access management plan in our opinion. Like I said, we're just a small part of the NPO. As a member of this committee, I would challenge this committee to consider that, and we would definitely be appreciative of it. Before we begin the horse trading, we do have the list of projects up on the screen here that were sponsored, but are not part of the boosting recommendation that came from the TTCC. In any one of these projects, if you want to apply a boost to, you may. We can't apply to something that's not on this list, but because we only have 10 boosts we can apply, we would then have to remove something from the recommended list. That's part of the process that we have here. Mayor, I believe we do have questions coming in, so I will let you field those. Okay. Questions from the committee? Yes, Ms. Baxter. Thank you. Thank you, Chris, for your work on this and everybody else. A few questions. What happens if we boost a project, we get into it? I'm going to use the Nicholasville Road New Circle Interchange project. We get into it, and we realize that we have to expand to make it reasonable. We have to expand the parameters of the project. Do we then abandon that project due to lack of funding, or do we then borrow from other projects to make it work? The next phase we have to work on is design, and that's going to determine, one, what scope is appropriate, what's the appropriate project limits, and most importantly, how much is this thing going to cost. That's going to inform the future state highway plans about the ability to move forward on those phases. For that particular project, it's probably a little bit jumping ahead for that. But let's say that we have a construction phase. Let's say Georgetown Road, which I think Council Member Lynch is going to ask a question about. I don't have the cost up here, but let's just say it's somewhere in the range of $20 million, and the bids come back that, no, we really need $40 million, which is a nightmare scenario for me. So that's a situation where if there wasn't another source of money readily available, then that probably gets delayed until the next state highway plan, where then we can have a conversation about additional dollars for that particular project. Okay, thank you. Next question is about the North Broadway project, actually. I know that we have the federal grant. Remind me what the grant was, the amount. I think it was $8 million. Okay. Is there any trepidation that we may lose that, or is there a sunset on that grant? Are we scared we're going to lose the money? Right. So right now I don't think we're in any danger of that. So this was out of the RAISE program, which now is called BUILD, and it doesn't have the same time constraint. It has a time constraint, but it's not the same as what we have with the Safe Streets program, where it has to be open to traffic within five years of the grant agreement. I think for the RAISE slash BUILD program, it's five years after construction begins. After construction, okay. Right. Okay. And then finally, Mayor and Judge, I will be a part of the Eastern Bypass team because I would use it. Chris, I guess my question is that if we decide to apply a boost to that, are we looking at a 10-point boost? What is the amount that we would have to work with? Well, no. Or would we be switching it out with something? We'd have to switch it out with something, and it's either yes or no with a boost. Yes, you get 10 points. No, you get nothing. So if I'm hearing the representatives from Jesmond County correctly, their priority would be the Nicholasville Bypass over the access management plan. So could we trade those out? That is a possibility. All right. Casey, before we get to that particular question, I'd like to just get a kind of definitive answer. Over the next two years, this project is still going to be moving forward. There is still going to be work that the Cabinet is going to be doing on that, and including this in the state highway plan doesn't necessarily move this forward faster. Yeah, so we've concluded with the preliminary design for the access management project. However, that preliminary design is getting rather dated, and so we have new information that we're going to be looking at as far as, like, traffic numbers, traffic forecasts, to see if we need to make some modifications through that preliminary design phase. So there's still going to be some work that's going to be happening. There's still going to be some coordination as far as the developments that are happening there on US 27. However, if we don't support this and we don't see right-of-way funds within the biennium of this next highway plan, that's where it could start slowing things down, is that we'll have to get to a stopping point in design and then try to see right-of-way and utility funds into a future highway plan, say, 2028. Okay, that's helpful. So when you say if we receive right-of-way funds, are the right-of-way funds dedicated per project? Is that how they're allocated? Correct. It'll be for that item project number, yeah. Okay, that's all I have right now. Thank you. Okay, thank you, Ms. Baxter. Any other members of the, Ms. Reynolds? Oh, okay. Yeah, I believe Council Member Lynch was. Yes, sorry. Yes, ma'am. Hello, colleagues. I'm Council Member Shayla Lynch. This is my first meeting. So I'm glad to be here and represent Districts 1, 2, and 6. And so, yes, I am advocating for Map Number Project 7, 3, 4, 2, and 10. But my question is about the scores. So do the scores, the boosted score, the base score, really play a part in the, I guess, the prioritization of the ones that we're ranking? So, like, if we take the East Nicholasville Bypass Project and boost it by 10 points, which takes it up to 41.54, it's still lower than the ones that are in that box up top? So does the score even matter, or does it? So the Transformation Cabinet tells us that the score is important, but it's not the end all. And so there are other considerations that are used. So, for instance, looking at the statewide perspective, funding availability, but also trying to see is this an important project relative to other facilities within the state and from a statewide perspective, which is really hard to quantify with a score. And so there are some squidgy things out there that the Cabinet is trying to take into account. And Casey can probably more eloquently explain that than I can. That's actually a pretty loaded question. It really is. We're first meeting Adam. I know. The thing about boosting, so the shift process, the process of prioritizing these projects is very data-driven based on numbers, statistics, you know, all that information. What the boosting does is really to gather the local influence, the local input on what is actually important for this area. And so, you know, when we do boost, you know, the district office, they apply boost on projects, and then also the MPOs will apply a boost. And if we both boost the same project, it tells our leadership in Frankfurt with the Transformation Cabinet, and it also tells our legislators that, well, we got the similar goals and we got, you know, and priorities, and so therefore, okay, this might be a slam dunk type of project. So I wouldn't put too much focus onto the actual 10-point number. It's really, this is what, these are the projects that we're supporting, and we're trying to reflect that importance into a score. See, because we're a Cabinet that's run by engineers, and so numbers is how we operate, you know, so this is our way of trying to show that. But really what we're looking for is, you know, what's important to the area, and that's why we have that boost in part into this process. Okay, that's helpful. Thank you. Thanks, Casey. Good question. Welcome. Okay, so next up is Hannah. I don't know if you can see me over here. So if we are looking at, say, the Nicholasville road one that you were talking about maybe taking our top priority away there, it's still one of your all's top priorities. So it would still kind of still be up there, and we could move it to completing the bypass as long as it doesn't go to Old Richmond Road. No, the bypass, let me see if I can make this pointer work here. I just meant, like, if we took that one away, they still had a boost from them. Yes. So this 23 here, which you probably, I can't read it, so I know you can't, but this kind of little red line here, that is the project in question. And actually it would extend across 27 back up into the western side of Nicholasville at some point. And so the access management project that we're talking about here is this green one that goes from Manowar Boulevard in Fayette County southward past Brandon Crossing to Coles Drive, which is approximately splitting the difference between the county line and where the western bypass picks up in Nicholasville. But I understand. Thank you, Ms. Hanna. Okay. Ms. Reynolds, next. I don't think my mic works. Here. Let me see. Okay. Thank you. I know y'all, I don't need a mic, but that's all right. We'll do this anyway. Okay. So I have a lot of thoughts and feelings. You all know what I'm going to say, because I've been saying it for seven years. So First Sales Road is obviously a priority, not just to myself, but my predecessor and a lot of people. And it still has not been moved to the top as a priority for the state, except for when I've been able to convince our state reps and senators, which has happened in the past. And now we know that we have money for the design from Mason-Heatley through the rest of that section just before the bridge. It actually goes from Viley Road just before the New Circle Interchange, all the way east to Oliver Lewis. Right. But we've already done a big portion of that, so we're going to focus on the part that hasn't been done, right? So my question is, the only one that is in the top list is from Oxford Circle to Red Mile. And that was not boosted by the state, which I'm sure we'll have to talk about that. But when I've asked, why isn't this rising to the top? Because when I look at what it needs, the attributes, it has all these attributes. It's had all these attributes for almost 30 years that it hasn't been done. People cannot walk safely. People cannot ride their bikes safely. It is very unpleasant to look at. So help me understand, when we have the money for the design, why the construction money wouldn't rise to the top on this project. And then I'm going to want to look at other projects in order to boost another section because this is, in my opinion, urgent. And I know some other folks that have served on here that aren't even from my district agree with me. Right. So first, we're just looking at the right-of-way and utility phases for right now. The message that we've received is that's probably what can be accomplished in the next two-year biennium. So construction, since these things take a certain amount of time to actually accomplish, the construction wouldn't be ready to go for another two years. And I think that is true for all four phases of work. And I think MPO staff would agree with you on the priority of this, but we are limited in how many boosts we can provide. And so the question we have is, do we apply boosts for Versailles Road, or do we apply them to other projects that have archived in a similar situation where we've had work done on them, they are progressing, do I continue working on those? And I don't necessarily think we have a great answer to this other than this is not our process. But as far as the Transportation Cabinet's priorities, we have a little bit different perspective on Versailles Road. I think it's important to us, Transportation Cabinet, when they're looking at the total scope of all of their priorities across all their counties, it's not unimportant, but it just doesn't rise to the same level as other priorities within places like Scott and Clark County or Woodford County that they also have responsibility for. Thank you for that. I think what I want to communicate to my peers here is that I have been told that one of the reasons why this project never kind of rises to the top is that it's too big of a lift. And that's really concerning to me that we're putting something off that needs to be done just because we're saying it's too hard, it's too expensive. So I would encourage us to continue to bite off pieces like the city is doing with the design, like at least there's one portion here, and then maybe bite off the second portion. But I might come back to ask more questions or to talk about that. But my next thing, and I won't say anything afterwards, but if you could just go into a little more detail on the Citation Boulevard project. Okay. Well, I may refer that to Doug Burden, who is heavy in the design right-of-way process here and would probably be better able to address those questions. Do you have a specific question? Just a brief overview, in your opinion, how urgent it is. So this is for the Citation Extension to Russell Cave. So a lot of people know the history, but just a quick background. Citation Windburn and the Citation Russell Cave project has been planned for 30 years, never had funding. Now we have funding for most of it. The biggest challenge with Citation Windburn has been right-of-way. That's been in the works for almost eight years now. We've got a state agency and a federal agency we're dealing with. The good news is we're getting there. So that's an update on that. We're shooting to go to construction potentially late next year. We were hoping before that, but right-of-way process has taken much longer. Again, we had condemnation on one property. Another property requires both state and federal approval. This next phase, knock on all the wood I can knock on, is the easier lift in that we still have property owners in the right-of-way phase to deal with. Two of those property owners we've bought from in the past and have been amicable. One of those property owners is UK, who's also been amicable. They supported the small area plan that showed this roadway being built. We've talked to them multiple times, met with their – they have an aviary, a bird doctor who's there doing studies on that facility, and we worked with him and the facilities manager there to create an alignment that was least impactful to them. So this is the – of the two lifts, which is still not easy lift, this is the much easier lift for that, so. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Burton. Any other questions from the committee for the staff? Yes, sir. Thank you, Chair. And Chris, thank you. I would like to echo what Council Member Reynolds said about Versailles Road, because at Lake Street we see a tremendous amount of ridership along Versailles Road. Between that and Nicholasville Road, those are two most highly used corridors. And for Versailles Road, particularly the 18, 19, and 20, that's where we would see the most impact. So if we are to continue the conversations around Versailles, those would be the three that I am most keyed in on. Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions from the committee? Any other members? Okay. Mr. Aviglia. So before we move on for additional discussion, we do need to open a public comment opportunity for public comment. Okay. Great. At this time, we will open the public hearing. Do we have any members of the public wishing to address the committee? Seeing none, public hearing is now closed. Next up, we'll have any other consideration or action on Resolution 2025-11, Approval of the NPO Project Boosting Scores. Any comment? Mayor, I suppose is this the correct time to suggest a change to the bypass? Yes. I would, Judge West, on your recommendation, we would, and as a Nicholsville representative, we would like to switch, if that would be acceptable to the committee, the boosting of the eastern bypass instead of the access management plan. I'd make that in the form of a motion. Okay. We have a motion. Do we have a second? I second. I have a second. All in favor, signify by raising your right hand. All opposed? And that's just for that one change, correct? Yes. Okay. Yes. Is that correct? Okay. So, it's basically in the form of an amendment, so we can consider other changes. Okay. Great. At this time, do we have any general public comment from the audience? Seeing none, any other questions, comments? Questions, comments, or new business from the committee members? Ms. Hanna? So, if you make that change, then the base score is $16B, is that correct? So, for the access management project, so that's $16B, that score will be reduced to 70.54 points, and then the East Nicholasville bypass would increase by another 10 points to 51.54. No, 16B. 16, if we switched it, doesn't that make 16, oh, wait a minute, am I going backwards here? Yeah, they're actually. Yeah, the second one on the bottom part, 16A. 23. Yeah, 23. 23. Gotcha. Yeah. So, it was 31.54, so it's 41.54. Well, that's a B7 boosted that, so that brought it up to 41.54. With us boosting it, it's going to bring it up another 10 points. So, it would be 51.54. That's correct. Okay, thanks. Okay. Gotcha. Any other comments or questions from the committee? Ms. Ramos? I have a question. Okay, so, remind me, if we were to boost something that's already in the recommended boosting list, if it doesn't have a boost by KYTC, and it's just us adding an extra boost to our boost, that. Which we're not allowed to do. If we can boost it once. But we can't add another one to it. So, it's only, if we're boosting, it can only be one that's not already on that list. Right, but then you have to make the decision, which of these projects are you removing, because we're limited to 10. Right. Okay, thank you. Yeah. Thank you, Ms. Reynolds. Okay, any other comments or questions? Ms. Baxter? I guess I just want to make sure that I understand about the Eason-Nicholasville bypass. So, you're saying now, essentially, the new score would be 51.54. That's correct. And I want to make sure that our Nicholasville representatives are okay with that, considering that it won't make the list, essentially, still. I think what Casey was telling us is it does send a message to the cabinet and to the legislature that this is a really high priority for our region. And so, that may actually be important when they're actually playing together the state highway plan. I mean, it may still be a challenge. You know, I don't think they're going to come up with $93 million, but depending on what kind of horse training takes place in Frankfurt, that may be influential. So, 16B will now be 70.54. That would be that score? That's correct. And it would only have a boost from District 7. That's correct. Okay, thank you. Okay, thank you. Any other questions or comments? Okay, seeing none. Our next meeting date will be Wednesday. We have to have a vote on the totality of the recommendations. Oh, okay, okay. I have the amendment. Okay, we'll open up for a motion for the amendment. I think the amendment was approved. Okay. So, now we have to approve the entire list. Oh, okay, okay. So, we didn't approve the entire list, okay. All right, so table is open for a motion for the entire list. I have a motion and a second. All in favor signify by raising your right hand. All opposed? Motion carries. Okay. Next meeting date will be Wednesday, October 22nd, 1.30, LFUCG Council Chambers. Any other things from comments from the NPO staff? Normally, we would have an opening for general public comment, but I don't see anyone from the general public here. But I believe we do have a question. Thank you. I guess just for clarification's sake, why are we bouncing back and forth between Phoenix and the Chamber? It's dependent on room availability when we make the schedule. And if you remember in October, that was originally supposed to be a virtual meeting. And then we made a swap because I was going to be out of town in June. And so we felt, well, we need to make that in person, change that to in person. This room was not available, so we had to move it to the Council Chambers. For the next meeting? For the next meeting. Okay. Yes. Just for the record, my preference is this room. Okay. Okay. And actually, that's important because in October, one of the agenda items is to approve the calendar of meetings for the next year. Okay. Great. Any other comments, questions? Okay. Open the table for motion for adjournment. Motion second. I'll signify by raising your right hand. All opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. Thank you.