# Council Planning Committee - January 20, 2009 > Auto-transcribed civic record · Council · January 20, 2009 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/729 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/729?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2009-01-20 - **Body**: Council - **Last revised**: June 17, 2026 - **Length**: 8,106 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 Planning Committee convened on January 20, 2009, at 1:03 PM, with CM Gorton presiding over the session. The meeting covered five agenda items spanning both action items and informational presentations. The committee accomplished two formal approvals during the meeting — the election of a Committee Chair and the selection of a Committee Vice Chair — with a total of four motions and votes taken overall. Three additional items were presented for informational purposes: an Electrical Inspector's Fee Schedule, the Newtown Pike Design Ordinance, and a discussion on Land Bank. No public comments were heard during the meeting. ## Attendance The following council members were recorded at the January 20, 2009 meeting: **Present (7):** - Gorton - Tom Blues - Ellinger - James - Beard - Feigel - Stinnett **Absent (3):** - Gray - Lawless - McChord No members were recorded as late. A quorum was established with seven members present. ## Votes and Decisions All four motions brought before the Council on January 20, 2009 passed unanimously. - **Planning Committee Chair** [timestamp: 32:38]: CM Ellinger moved, and CM Blues seconded, to nominate and elect CM Gorton as Planning Committee Chair. The motion passed unanimously. - **Planning Committee Vice Chair** [timestamp: 33:16]: The Council appointed CM Blues as Planning Committee Vice Chair. The motion passed unanimously. No mover or seconder was recorded for this item. - **Inter-local Agreement Process** [timestamp: 1:19:53]: CM James moved, and CM Blues seconded, to bring the inter-local agreement directly to the blue sheet process once it becomes available. The motion passed unanimously. - **Adjournment** [timestamp: 1:22:07]: CM Ellinger moved, and CM Beard seconded, to adjourn the meeting. The motion passed unanimously. No roll call votes were recorded for any of these items. No identifiers were assigned to any of the motions. ## Appointments The Council made the following appointments during the January 20, 2009 meeting: - **CM Gorton** was appointed as **Planning Committee Chair**. - **CM Blues** was appointed as **Planning Committee Vice Chair**. ## Election of Committee Chair [timestamp: 32:38] The Council took up the election of a chair for the Planning Committee. CM Ellinger nominated CM Gorton to serve as Planning Committee Chair. The nomination was seconded by CM Blues. No debate or dissenting discussion was recorded on the matter, and the motion passed without dissent. ## Selection of Committee Vice Chair [timestamp: 33:16] The committee took up the selection of a Vice Chair under Agenda Item 2. CM Gorton asked CM Blues to continue serving in the Vice Chair role. CM Blues agreed to the request, and he was subsequently appointed as Vice Chair. No debate or concerns were raised during this item, and the appointment was approved. ## Electrical Inspector's Fee Schedule [timestamp: 33:46] The Council held a discussion on the Electrical Inspector's Fee Schedule, with key participants including CM Gorton, Commissioner Mike Webb, and Dewey Crowe. The conversation centered on the current fee schedule used for electrical inspections, with comparisons drawn to fee structures in other counties and consideration of potential amendments to existing contracts related to the inspection program. The discussion was informational in nature, and no formal action or vote was taken as an outcome of the item. The agenda item appears to have been brought forward to give Council members an opportunity to review how the current fee schedule compares to those used in neighboring or similar jurisdictions, and to explore whether any adjustments or contract amendments might be warranted. No additional numerical figures, specific fee amounts, or detailed conclusions were recorded in the available summary data for this item. ## Newtown Pike Design Ordinance [timestamp: 1:02:23] Under agenda item 4, Chris King and Andrew Grunwald delivered a presentation on commercial design and property access standards related to the Newtown Pike extension. This item was informational in nature, intended to brief the Council on the proposed design ordinance framework rather than to call for a vote or formal action. The presentation focused on the standards being developed for commercial development and property access along the Newtown Pike corridor. No additional detail on specific provisions, concerns raised by Council members, or debate outcomes is available from the provided materials. The item concluded as an informational presentation with no recorded formal outcome or Council action taken. ## Land Bank [timestamp: 1:16:40] The Council held a discussion on the Land Bank under Agenda Item 5, focusing on the inter-local agreement necessary for its establishment. Key speakers in this discussion included CM James and Dave Barbarié. The conversation centered on the procedural and structural requirements for setting up the Land Bank, with particular attention to the inter-local agreement that would need to be in place before the Land Bank could move forward. No formal action was taken as a result of this discussion — the item was informational in nature, serving to brief the Council on the current status and next steps associated with the Land Bank's formation. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Nominate and elect CM Gorton as Planning Committee Chair - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Appoint CM Blues as Planning Committee Vice Chair - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Bring the inter-local agreement directly to the blue sheet process once it’s available - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Motion to adjourn --- ## Full transcript ... point. If not, uh, by force could we vote on, uh, the nomination. All in favor say A. A. Um, A, aye. Or aye or aye or whatever. All opposed, nay. Looks like congratulations, Ms. Thornton. Thank you, Jerry. A or nay. Good or bad. Thank you very much. And I appreciate the confidence the committee has in me to be your chair. We do have a quorum, and so our second item of business is that I would like to ask, uh, Council Member Blues to continue as the vice-chair of the committee. Would you be willing to do that? I'd be honored to serve Madam Chair. Okay. Thank you very much. We will then get on with our business this January the 20th. And our first item of business is the electrical inspector fee, which is actually coming back to us for review of the information, uh, that we have. And sh- uh, Council Member McCord put this into committee, and he is actually not here, so I'll call on, I seek, uh, Acting Commissioner Mike Webb, and I know that, um, uh, Building Inspection Director Dewey Crow is here and, and Steve Vicroy's here, so I welcome you. Just to kind of share an overall of what we did. Uh, o- the- one of the first things we tried to do was meet with, uh, our contractor, had a discussion with them concerning their proposal and requested some additional information from the contractor, uh, which would involve increase in expenses over time since they had this contract. I believe the first award of this contract was in 2001. And we requested that information as a- as just a support information to help evaluate the, the, the inspection fees that were going out thi- that were going out to the customers. Uh, another thing that we did is we took a look at the new construction information that we have really good data on and created a small study, if you will, of how our inspection fees for that work compares to, uh, our neighbors that are surrounding us, uh, as a comparison tool for where we are today. And then we met with purchasing and, uh, our legal department as to what we could do with the existing contract, what might be appropriate. Uh, all of those activities have taken place. The information we did request from our contractor, you won't see it included in what we have to share with you today. Uh, however, we, we became... But it has not been raised, and they have taken more than one opportunity to try to request it. Uh, within the history, building inspection has moved and has changed commissioners, uh, a number of times, and that may have been part of the problem is that the new guy coming in, or lady, uh, may not had time to deal with it or whatever, but it continued to be bid and awarded based on that existing price. Then whenever we took the information that we had about fees in surrounding communities, and just did a quick look on that new section, the new commercial and new residential, it does not show them, if I could use the term, out of the ballpark. Right. It's, uh, very similar to quite a few of our neighbors. So, and actually, I, I think that's... Whenever you evaluate that fee, you also have to take into account how much activity there is within that fee. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Which we tried to do that, tried to make it apples to apples as closely as we could. If we want to move forward with the fee, basically, we're not recommending that we do it during the contract. ... that there is some notice given to end the contract. We would engage a much broader study- Hmm. ... to take a look at the fees and make a recommendation for an ordinance change, and then bid that out again, do a new RFP, bid it out based on that new fee. So based on that, um, if we, if we agree to that, what would be the ending date of the contract? That would be determined by, uh, our contractor. Okay. They have to give us notice. Eh, I believe the way the contract's written now, it would end, based on the start date, it would run through this calendar year. Okay. Could we, if, if the conversation, or will was there, could we make an adjustment to, um, item one of this agreement and do an amendment of the terms, so that it's not a renewable... So that way, if we're, if we're saying we're changing something, um, substantive of this agreement, that maybe we should look at not making this a renewable thing, so that we're able to then put that back out for RFP. Or, do we have the power to end an agreement, the same as the contractor does? You would, you would simply exercise your right to, um, to terminate the agreement. Okay. If that's what you wanted to do. And the complication on all this is we don't do this in-house, so we have to have somebody outside do it. So you want to make sure you've set yourself up so that there's no lag in having the service performed. So if you, if you all were desirous of that, we would want to work with the contractor and have both sides have as much advanced notice of that process as possible so that, you know, Mr. Marcum's shop has the opportunity to get together with the appropriate people and make sure that the right terms are in the RFP. Yeah. What we're trying to do is avoid having to go through that process this time, is what we're trying to do- Mm-hmm. ... by coming up with this, this other way of hopefully appeasing them that we think is defensible at this point in time, so that you all could go ahead and, and use this one for the remainder. Either do it on a year-by-year basis like we're doing now for the, for the next number of renewable years, or just assume that it's going to be done for the next, what is it, four years? The next four years, and then four years from now, you all have to look at the big picture, which is are you going to continue to bid this out, period? Are you gonna do it in-house? If you're gonna bid it out, how do we need to change the RFP at that point in time to make sure that we, we get as much interest as possible, and it's as fair as possible to the people that are doing it? So. Okay, thank you. That's all I have. Thank you. David. Uh, David. Um, and, and so included in that is you would exer-... Would you be working to exercise 9.2 to change the number of inspectors required? Can... Is that what you're... Yeah, what, what's- Just to clarify as we go forward. ... what's happened at this point in time is we had an internal conversation where the recommendation was not to increase the fees at this point in time, but to look for an alternative means of, of trying to get the contractor to stay with us for the next number of years through the term of the agreement. And that was centered on the, the number of people that they have to employ as a minimum, as well as I think there's some tie-in possibly to the vehicles as well in the RFP. In other words, if they only need three people to get the work done, they'd only need to have the corresponding number of vehicles as well. Um, and they have proposed some language that I've looked at with them. We're still in the internal review process on that. If we were comfortable with that as a group, and you all were comfortable with the recommendation, our next step would be to make sure we had buy-in from the contractor, because they are a party to the agreement. The contractor may come back to us and say, "We'd rather have you just bid the agreement out again and, and have add- you know, increased fees." But if we can work with them on that language, what, what would happen is, at some point in time there would be a blue sheet that would go to you all for approval, where there would be an amendment to this agreement that would, uh, that would accomplish that result, so. Councilmember Feigl? Um, thank you, ma'am. This is just for my own clarification. So in the contract... Is that me? In the contract, that they actually, um... In the contract agreement, are they paid, uh, by the inspection, or are they paid a fixed amount total contract? I, I believe it's set... Here's something, here's something on the way, yeah. Uh, it's... We, we set all of the fees via ordinance, and I believe it, I believe they're... Unless Dewey... Dewey can correct me, but I believe they're all pretty much based upon this is the fee you get for this type of inspection. So you're basically paid on a per-fee basis. Per-fee basis, but- I mean, I'm sorry. Per, per-permit basis. I mean, per- They, uh... Their fee is based upon, in commercial, it's a percent of the cost of the job, of the electrical work. They collect, they collect that, they keep it all as part of their service. On the residential side, it breaks out into, uh, rough-in inspections, final inspections, re-inspections. They charge based on that, as well as a pers-... There's some per-circuit charges in there as well. And again, they, it's based on each, whatever a house is, how it's sized, how many circuits it may have. They charge the base fee plus the circuit charges, and that's spelled out in the fee, and again, they retain all that. They bill the, the electrical contractor for those, for the inspections. They collect it, they keep the f- they keep all those fees. Oh, okay. Thank you very much. Are there other questions? I have one quick one. Uh, when you look at the number of, um, inspectors required, are you going to be looking at a ratio? Have you discussed that -- I mean, it seems to me this five is based on something, so if the ratio- The rough, the rough has it based upon permitting levels and their percentage reduction. W- we try to u- we, we, a- tentatively, the draft right now has a permitting level, um, and if it goes below the original permitting level by 20%, which, you know, f- 100% divided by five is 20%, so if it goes below 20%, that would be justification for them to come to building inspection and seek approval to reduce, uh, by, by one for each 20% the number of inspectors they would have to leave on board. So we're trying to tie it to a measurable point, and that may be one of the things we would have to go back and forth with them on. What is a fair, measurable point? We probably would need to retain, ultimately, because of the way the thing was originally drafted, we would need to be able to approve them doing it before they did it. And then, as Mr. Beard pointed out earlier, we would want to have a mechanism in place so that it was clear that if they started going back the other way, that they would bring the appropriate number of people on board automatically to go ahead and take care of that. Okay. Thank you. So, um, Mr. Webb. Yes, ma'am? If I understand correctly, what you're asking from the planning committee is to go back and have internal discussions on how to move forward and then go to the contractor with any, you don't want to rebid right now- That's correct. ... or change rates right now. That would not be our recommendation. Okay. Um, we did just receive a letter from Steve Vickroy, and it, you- Yes. Ah- And th- that's some information that- Mm-hmm. ... that I thought would be important for you all to take a look at. Uh, at the meeting we had November 4th, I believe, that's, eh, I think that was the majority of that was generated based on that meeting. I think they had become aware that there had been some information had changed on, on, uh, permit fees in other locales, uh, which they included in that information. If, if you take a look at their proposals, uh, what their proposed fee change is, there are also some adjustments from what you all first saw, and that's what we received January, I believe it's 12th. Mm-hmm. Uh, it was stamped 21, but it, it was- 12th. ... changed it to 12. Uh-huh. Um, also, uh, I think another, uh, important piece of information is if you go maybe three pages from the back, one of the items that I requested from them is their increases that they had seen in their expenses, uh, since 2001. Uh, I'm not sure how the contractor operates this business, but their, their expenses have gone up a great deal compared to what they were. However, it's still not a large amount of money when you consider the volume of inspection work that they do, and I think that's one of the things that you, that we can take into consideration whenever you take a look at what's the appropriate thing to do here and the contract, you know, proposed additional increases and then rebid it, uh, try to work with the contractor on how they can control their expenditures, uh, and that, I believe what we are proposing at this point makes sense. Are there any other questions from council members? When would you expect to be coming back to the committee? What would you like us to come back with? Our recommendation for, uh, a change in that- Well- ... Section B? ... I think, I guess I would ask if, first of all, if Mr. Vickroy has any further comment before we go to that, since you did give, write this letter. Thank you. Um, my name's Steve Vickroy, I'm an attorney here in town. I represent Commonwealth Inspection. Thank you for allowing me to, to comment. Um, a couple of things I want to address, um, have come up in today's discussion. Uh, first and foremost, this issue about, uh, if you enact a new ordinance, which it sounds like may not happen here, but, uh, which I still wish to, uh, request on behalf of my client, you do not need to rebid this contract. This contract was, uh, and the RFP only sought criteria, as Brian listed. Um, do you have the ability to staff this? Do you have the ability to, uh, maintain the office? Do you have the ability to bond? Do you have the insurance requirements? This was not based on what the fee structure was under the ordinance. And in fact, in 2001, when this ordinance was changed, uh, the last time to increase the fees, there was not a rebid of the RFP. The contract was in place and was not needed to be amended in any way. So this body and the council itself does have the legal ability to change the ordinance without reletting a new RFP for this contract. They are totally separate items. And with that, that's what we would request, that the court, uh, or that the, uh, council consider, uh, an amendment to the ordinance, as opposed to looking back and, and making some retroactive changes to a contract. And, and the reason why are some of the things that, uh, Council Member Beard addressed. Um, we never know when we're gonna have something like an ice storm, that which we would need all of the required inspectors. Secondly, uh, we don't know when there's gonna be a turn for the better in the economy and be ready to have these inspectors. And in fact, the, uh, I believe there's a provision in the contract itself that gives us six months to replace a contractor because it is so difficult. Um, you know, we were able to find temporary, uh, folks during the ice storm, but to actually replace one, if we laid one off and then had to rehire one, sometimes it could even take longer than six months because inspectors go out and become contractors themselves and either take jobs or form their own businesses in which they cannot just drop that and come back to work for us. So we would ask this committee to, to actually look at that a little bit closer than just saying that's truly an option for us because that is difficult for us to do. And with regard to our fee structure itself and the comparison, I know that, uh, first page of, of what Mr. Crow and, and, uh, Commissioner Webb put forward for you is definitely hard to read. I'll try and just generalize it. Our fee structure right now kind of falls in the middle, and if you look in those revenue projections that they had, um, that Mr. Crow had actually put up on the board, there were some in which the fees in those other counties were exactly the same as ours. So it, it, we actually kind of fall in the middle with regard to all these municipalities. But the difference that, that we have with those other municipalities are, one, those that have the in-house, uh, electrical inspection, they're actually hired by the government, they don't have the overhead costs, they don't have the bonding requirements, they don't have the insurance and the motor pool requirements that we do because those things are all provided for in an total governmental provision. Their offices are provided for in the governmental office. Their, um, motor pool is provided by the government. So with that, I don't think we can actually compare our rates with theirs and say they're equal because of the additional overhead that my client has. And in that letter you, uh, that I presented, uh, to Commissioner Webb, Mr. Crow, and Mr. Markham, you'll see since 2001, since this ordinance was last amended, our fees have, or our expenses have gone up almost 100%. Uh, from 21,000 and change to 41,000 and change in the past seven years. And even if we cut an inspector and we cut a, a vehicle, that's gonna make only a small difference in that $41,000 a month expense that we've got that cannot be made up with the current fee schedule that we've got. So I, I, I don't think that just amending our contract to lower our expenses by looking retroactively is gonna get the job done. I think we need to look forward not only for an upturn in the economy, but also for emergencies that come along and either come up with something that will allow us to have a fee increase or some type of combination of both, either a, a slight fee increase and a, and a reduction in, in our contract requirements, but just a reduction in the contract requirements alone, especially with the, the minor expense of one employee, one vehicle, and the necessary fuel and insurance savings that you have, and that is gonna be enough to address the, uh, the problem that my client's facing. And no, none of the other counties that have, uh, contractual electrical inspections have all of the requirements that we have. You know, this body, when it first came up with this idea in, in the late 1990s, uh, the contract requirements were obviously safety oriented. And, and all of those requirements had a need for safety, e- both for, uh, the government to ensure that these inspections were done and, and obviously for our citizens to do that. And I know that asking for fee increases is not something that, that, uh, legislators like yourself, uh, are endeared to, uh, address. It's obviously a, a difficult situation, but in, in the electrical inspection fee area, this is one that your constituents will feel obviously some effect on, but in their day-to-day lives, probably not more than two or three out of 100 citizens would actually do their own, um, improvements and would actually see it then. And the increases that would affect them, say for a, I think Mr. Crow mentioned a room addition on a, say a three-bedroom house, um, those that would do that themselves, we're talking about maybe $10, uh, a $10 increase in the cost of those inspections for rough-in and, and final. So we're not talking a, a, a great deal of money in the overall cost of, of some type of project. And in, uh, taking a look at, uh, the, the proposal to, um, that at least the, the, uh, administration has put forward to you, we believe that the, um, contractual, um, amendment provision, um, would not address everything that, that my client is facing, uh, not only from the, uh, difficulty in finding new inspectors, uh, when it has to, but also just looking forward in a, uh- ... at the economic impact that it would have on the community. And further, um, rebidding this contract, I think is going to, unfortunately, raise the specter that the folks that have challenged it every time it's come up for rebid would challenge it again in court. Uh, that's, uh, unfortunately, something that my clients had to deal with. We've had to litigate every single time that this contract has been awarded, because, uh, these folks have claimed, or cried foul because they did not get the, the award of the contract. And I can guarantee you that, that if, uh, this, um, if a new RFP is done, and evaluated, and Commonwealth is awarded the contract again based on its bid, then, uh, Mr. Rice and Mr. Fortney, who were the, the folks that, uh- Mm-hmm. ... challenged it each and every time before will challenge it again. So we're actually possibly buying another lawsuit four years or, or, um, you know, any additional years on the contract, uh, that, that might, uh, take place. Uh, you know, four years down the road, we can put that lawsuit off. Um- It's- Thank you very much. We- Okay. I did want to hear your, uh, remarks and response. I have, uh, s- another question from Council Member Beard. Thank you, Mr. Vicroy. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Thank you, Madam Chairman, for allowing me to be busy today. . Um, I, I guess this whole situation about the elasticity of demand and, um, a- asking the contractor today to staff for something that maybe is not required or needed, uh, and the other side of the coin would be not to be, have somebody there, and have, um, the public and or general contractors sitting around waiting on something to get expa- inspected. Nei- neither are acceptable as far as I'm concerned. So, is there any way that there could be a baseline written into this contract or any contract and then allow you to go and subcontract to approved sum- subcontractors for, to, to meet unforeseen, uh, volume increases one way or the other? Well, uh, with that provision, uh, in section 9.2 of the contract, yes, I think that would be possible. Um, that baseline would probably have to have some, uh, at least from the governmental standpoint, uh, some research behind it- Sure. ... and what's absolutely necessary. But, uh, you know, I think anything's possible if the contract has that provision in it that it can be amended to meet, uh, the needs of the- Now, I, I'm thinking going from five to three is a fairly significant, uh, leap. Or, or going from three back to five is a pretty significant leap also, uh- I, I could tell you just from the availability of personnel, yes, that's- Okay. ... absolutely correct. Uh, but with regar- regard to the overall cost that my client incurs under the contract, um- Hmm. ... our, our labor costs are approximately 41% of our monthly budget. Mm-hmm. And two staff members then would probably be, uh, about a 16 or so percent reduction in our cost. Um, so that's not insignificant, uh, there's no question about that, but, uh, in looking at the changes since 2001 and the number of inspections, uh, our overall cost even after that reduction are significant. Uh, you know, it's got, it's got to make sense, obviously, for us and for the citizens, but it also has to make sense for, for Commonwealth too, for them to continue to, to be involved in bidding. And, and I also think we need to look forward. Uh, there are gonna be cost increases in every aspect of what my client does. Uh, not just the fact that, uh, he has to have a certain number of employees, certain number of vehicles. There are gonna be costs across the board in all of those areas that you saw in my client's, uh, monthly expense schedule. Yep. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Vicroy. Thank you, Madam Chair. Council members, how do you wish to proceed? Well, I... Council Member Ellinger. Thank you, Chair. Okay. When will you all be able to come back with some information for us? You, you talked about a couple of things that we wanted to look at, and not increasing the fees, but there were some things we can look at the contract. When, when would you be able to be ready to come back with that? Are you speaking about the amendment for- Right. ... being able to adjust? Because that's the only thing we're recommending. Right, exactly. Depends on whether you want a final one or not. I mean... I believe that we could have whatever wording available. That, that's difficult to answer only in the sense that we, we have some current wording that we're probably fairly comfortable with, but on any contractual amendment, you have to have buy-in from the other party. And I don't know how long that process might take to, to work out that accommodation, so. Well, can you- But, I mean, we can, we can shoot for the next meeting, and, and- Can we put this forward to the next meeting and see if we can- ... I don't know, but you all want... If you all, if you all make that decision, do you want it coming back before you all, or do you just want a blue sheet as just something to go to the council as part of the blue sheet process? Why don't you bring it back here, if you could, for next meeting- Sure. ... try to see if we could work with the parties and come back with us? That, that makes good sense. Do you wanna- I don't think we... Do I need, do I need a motion for that, or I think we just keep it on the docket and just bring it back? Just keep it on the docket, and then- That'd be great. Thank you. And then if you cannot bring it back by the February meeting, will you let me or Paul Schoniger know? We can an -- Yes, we can, and we'll certainly be back to report on why we can't bring it. That would be lovely. Thank you- Okay? ... very much. Thank you very much. Uh, we have two more items on our agenda, and I'm not sure, Chris, how long yours will take, but let's go ahead and get started. I think this is just for information. We've lost our quorum. We're okay for another couple minutes. We only have- As long as we don't make a motion. Yeah. So we can't have motions. So we ha- we are one short of a quorum, but you could go ahead and give your presentation. I think that will work fine for us, and I will try to move this along quicker than anticipated. I didn't realize you had such a loaded item earlier on the docket. I do have a PowerPoint presentation, and, uh, before I get too deep into this, I probably ought to give you just a little bit of background. This will be a joint presentation of me from the Division of Planning and also Andrew Grunwald from Engineering, because we are coming to you proposing a piece of legislation that will do two things, uh, that are very different but are very important, we feel, to the future of the Newtown Pike Extension Project and the redevelopment associated with it. What we are going to come to you to talk about is an ordinance that has both, um, will do some controlling of redevelopment along the corridor and also control access to the road. Um, a couple of years ago, we did a study as a part of the Newtown Pike Extension Project that looked at a lot of these things and where we engaged a lot of folks, and we have come now with this idea as the best way to implement the, the recommendations of that study, and I will hit some of the details. There has been a concern all along that if we build a new urban highway, as we are talking about with the Newtown Pike Extension, that we wouldn't want it to take an overly suburban character as redevelopment occurs. Um, and, uh, with that in mind, we talked about what kinds of standards could be developed that could be applied very readily, not too onerously, uh, that would help us maintain that kind of character. So, uh, we knew that we're talking primarily about commercial development, and we did a plan to do that. Um, and, and again, then, what we're here to talk about is how we would implement that. The other thing is that we are making a tremendous investment in the public dollars into a road designed to have a carrying capacity of traffic and to move that traffic around our downtown area rather than through our downtown area. We also intend to have a pedestrian corridor, and we intend to balance, uh, maintaining the, uh, carrying capacity of that road, and we know that uncontrolled and well, and poorly planned access will compromise that public investment very dramatically over time, so that was another thing that we studied. The study area that we looked at was basically the, the primary corridor of the Newtown Pike Extension from north of Main Street all the way along both the corridors and the Scott Street, um, branch of that as well, all the way to the university, and the, uh, study was conducted. Our, our consultants were American Consulting Engineers, who's been our prime on this project, and also for the commercial development standards, CMW was our consultant. In 2007, we had engaged all the property owners along this corridor because we didn't want to blindside anybody with these ideas, and we wanted to have them engaged in this process as well. So we had numerous evening meetings down at the Carver Center, uh, contacted the property owners, uh, and the neighborhood association, and the folks working from the neighborhood, uh, religiously, and in May 2007, uh, this study was completed. I want to just hit a few of the highlights from the study of the kinds of things that we were talking about. We're talking about things like orienting building to the street and parking to the rear rather than having parking lots in the front. We're talking about, um, trying to keep the building facades at the property line to create more of an urban, uh, feel, rather than having big set bla- backs. And we're also talking about, as buildings go higher, pulling them back away from the, uh, initial facade of the building to make a more pedestrian-scale environment. We have, uh, recommended, were for, except for single family or duplexes, that all buildings be two-story. We wanted to the extent possible that, um, that, uh, the parking lots would either be behind the buildings, or if they did have to be along the front, they would be screened with a hard type of landscaping, not the usual soft landscaping of bushes and things like that, but again, something to give a very visual and, and rigid separation visually between the parking areas and the, um, the parking lots and the, and the road and the pedestrian areas, and also keep them away from key intersections. We also said if there was any parking structures, that they would be required not to have the parking structures fronting along the road, but they would be required to have commercial frontage in buildings so that we had an interesting, um, street environment. The draft ordinance that we have put before you to, to suggest as a way to implement this is that all development, except for any single family or two family residential, would be required to have a development plan considered and approved by the Planning Commission, whether any other ordinances currently in effect had that requirement or not. And that's the way that these design... ... uh, standards that are contained in that study would be applied. The commission would be required to study those, and in each development can- case, um, it'd apply those studies so that we then with a development plan the- and the following construction would comply with that. And again, this would be additive to the, uh, current requirements of the ordinance. I'm going to turn the podium now over to Andrew for just the next few slides where we turn, uh, away from the nature of the- the development along the- the road corridor and over to the- the control of the access, which is much more of an engineering type of function. So we'll hear from Andrew Grunwald. Welcome. Yes, ma'am, thank you very much. Um, I'm gonna have passed out this map. It's exhibit A. Um, and it's an 11 by 17, and it might make it a little bit easier to read. Um, the, um, first thing I'd like to- to, uh, to discuss is, uh, primarily the access, um, ordinance. Slide. Oh, yes. Um, it's primarily broken into two parts. Um, there's what we called a fully-controlled portion, and then a portion that will be by permit. And I'll kinda get to that in a little bit. Um, first of all, what I'd like to do is I'd like to d- describe to you the intent of the access ordinance is to ensure that there are no median breaks, that we don't have any, um, surprises when we actually construct the road, things that we'll have to add in at a later date. We have selected, um, what we call fully signalized intersections. And essentially that's the Newtown Pike and Main Street, Newtown Pike, Manchester, the Newtown Pike, Versailles Road, Newtown Pike, Patterson Street, Newtown Pike and Broadway, and then the Scott Street connector with Limestone Street. On the plan that you just have, those are the intersections that are circled in yellow. They would be fully signalized and, um, essentially there would be a median break. Next we have non-signalized intersections. Now these, um, essentially would be right-in/right-outs. Um, you have the Scott Street connector. Now this would go back up to the Norfolk Southern Railroad. Um, they're already an existing or- operation. We would have to provide them access. Also, you have o- on the Scott Street connector and Magazine Street. Um, this would be in, I guess, kind of on the other side opposite of the Norfolk Southern Railroad yard. Also, the Scott Street connector, we would connect Chair Street into Daruti Street, where they currently exist. Um, we also, um, have some right-in/right-outs at Moreno Street, Spring Street, and Daruti Street on Scott Street. Um, these would not be median breaks, and they are designated, I believe, with, I want to say blue triangles. I can't remember exactly. Yes, blue triangles. Um, we also have one additional right-in/right-out. Um, this would be on the Newtown Pike extension, and it would access, uh, what is the PDQ Market currently. Um, there is one other, um, s- some other points I'd like to make, um, at least on the access. When I say controlled access, um, that means there would be no opportunity for permit. Um, for instance, once this ordinance goes into place, a developer could not present a development plan to the City of Lexington and the City of Lexington could not accept a street cut onto the Newtown Pike Extension Boulevard. Um, this would carry all the way over from Main Street to Broadway, and then it would be on the Scott Street connection to the bridge over Broadway. From Broadway to Limestone, access would be given by permit. Um, so you could actually ask for access to be given. Um, and that pretty much... it's pretty straightforward and understandable. I will turn it over to Mr. King to finish up the presentation. This type of ordinance is not completely unprecedented in Lexington. This, we patterned this off the Richmond Road Access Movement Safety Ordinance from the late '70s, early 1980s as we drafted this as a way to approach, as there were so many different ways and- and to try to implement this. And we thought the- the simplest way might be to approach it in this type of fashion, rather than coming with overlay zoning or- or some other kind of- of- of tool like that. So, what we wanted to do now was, again, before we go back to the property owners and talk to them, we wanted to just get, uh, expose this to the council and to the planning committee, get a little feedback from you, because we do think it's very important to continue the- the public communication that we've had on all issues related to the Newtown Pike Extension extend to this ordinance. As I said, we had tremendous participation, and we had a lot of concurrence on this when we were out there two years ago. But given the amount of time that it's been since the study was done in 2007- ... um, before we ask you to actually adopt this ordinance, what we want to do is have one more round out there with the neighborhoods and with the property owners. And we wanted that with the comfort level that you all were generally comfortable with this approach, so that we could speak to them with assurance that when we come back to you hopefully, um, fairly quickly later this spring, um, that, uh, we will have an ordinance that even though people may have an issue with this or that, uh, about it, we w- we will generally have a concurrence on it, and hopefully can have it adopted, uh, hopefully before you go on break this summer. I'm always optimistic. So, uh, that'll just wrap it up for me. I'd be glad to answer any questions that you might have at this time. Council Member Blues has a question. Just a quick question, Chris. Um, will this go back to, uh, for example, Woodward Heights? Yes. We'll, we'll contact all of the property owners along the area and all the neighborhood associations who were involved before. We had quite an extensive list, and I'm sure we'll try to use the Carver Center so we can have an evening meeting- Right. ... in the neighborhood where it's easy for folks to get to. So, so Irish Town, Woodward Heights- Woodward Heights, the South End Park Neighborhood. South End Park. Yep. Yeah. Right. South Hill, all of those folks that are all along that corridor that have been a part of this process. Okay. We want to be very inclusive. Yeah. I think they'll want to be- ... cognizant of this. We'd be certainly glad to have you vet our list, if you wouldn't mind, sir. All right. Thank you very much. Thank you, Madam Chair. Uh, Chris, when do you think you might have done these next steps? Working with property owners and tweaking the ordinance language and- Well, again- ... when do you think you might come back? Our hope, um, would be that we would be able to do this, as you know, we'll have to do some staffing shuffling. We've lost the person who was our, uh, main person on this project, uh, right at the end of the year somewhat unexpectedly. Um, but I don't think it's unreasonable that we could certainly do this over the next month or two and perhaps come back to you March, April. We will keep you informed. Um, part of these kinds of things just need to take the time that if folks have concerns that we respond to those concerns. Um, our concern is certainly to get it right more, uh, importantly than to get it done by any certain date. We're talking about something that will have a long life through the life of the project. We wanted to get it early, before we got into a lot of construction, but we needed to wait until after the record of decision. So, you know, we do have some flexibility on time, but again, if, with any bit of luck, we will hopefully have you adopt this ordinance before you go on break this summer. That would be our plan. So, okay. So, we'll be in touch- Yeah. ... about whether you're ready to come back to the committee in March- Yes. ... or April with- That satisfactory to the committee- Okay. ... I will communicate with you, Madam Chair, when we would request, uh, to come back to you. Okay. Does that suit the company? Thank you very much. Thank you. Appreciated. Thanks for all the hard work all of you've done on this. Thank you. Our final item is the land bank which Council Member James put into committee, and, um, uh, Council Member James- Yeah. ... do you want to just say a word about this before we break for work session, um, to maybe say where you are- Sure. ... and what we'll be bringing forward? Sure. Um, you may remember, and for those of you that weren't here before, um, Council Member Feigl, the last meeting we had on this was maybe November, December, I can't remember. And Harold Tate, um, who's been working on gathering the data for the land bank, let us know that they were working on the inter-local agreement, um, which is, um, between school system, Fayette County, um, Urban County government, and the state. And I believe David Barbary can give us the progress of the inter-local agreement. And what I'm thinking he's gonna be asking us is whether, um, once that inter-local is, um, down pat, if he can bring that forward as a blue sheet, or if he needs to come back, back to committee on that. Um, so I will just yield to David Barbary from law. That's- that's great. If you could give us a report. Thank you. We, we have reviewed and they did not get out of our office until the last week or so- Sure. ... but we have reviewed three documents that are related to this. There's an inter-local agreement that will ultimately get approved by the Attorney General's office as well, and essentially what you do is you create a not-for-profit corporation, so we've reviewed the articles of incorporation and the suggested bylaws. We have sent those back out to the other two parties for review. So, as soon as we get those back and have them finalized, either we can have it presented back to the committee or it would be blue sheeted as, as Ms. James suggested, so. Um, so will you let me know when you have something? Sure. And, and if, if you all want to see them before they get blue sheeted that's fine, and that's what we'll plan on doing it if you want to make that decision today. Or if you all feel like you don't need to see it independently, that's- I see. Okay. I'm seeing heads shake yes. Okay. Could you be the very first on our February meeting? If we have the agreements- If you have it back. Well, I would not intend to bring them to you all until they're fi- basically ready to be signed. Okay. Which requires the other input of the parties, so, um, if- Well- ... if it, if that's in time for February, that's when it will be. If it's not, we'll let you know and, and kind of give you an idea of where, what the issues are. I sort of hate to delay it- Sure. ... a lot, so would the committee be willing to get a written, once you get the inter-local agreement in, maybe we could, you could get us copies and then, um, this is really the first step that we have to have. Th- and then we could just blue sheet it. I, I hate to delay it a couple of months. Sure. Well, and, madam chair. Yes, Council Member James. To add to that, in, in our work session agenda today, you'll see an item, um- ... of new business, which relates to the Neighborhood Stabilization Program- Yes. ... and I believe this might -- I believe we may need our Land Bank Program in place to receive that funding. And it's a potential of $3 million that, um, I'm sure that has deadlines attached to that. Um, that's something that our Community Development Department is working on, so I would ask that if there was a way to get the information to us, um, by, in writing prior to. If it's necessary to have the meeting, that's great, but that's my- Do you want to make a motion just to bring the Interlocal Agreement straight to blue sheet? I do, I make a- Once that's finished. ... I make a motion, um, that the -- would it be the Law Department bringing that forward to them? That the Law Department bring the Interlocal Agreement, um, straight through the blue sheet process, uh, related to Land Bank. Second. Thank you. So we, we have a motion on the floor to bring the Interlocal Agreement, once it's complete, straight to the blue sheet so that the council can... I c- I c- I can give you some confidence that I don't think the concepts are going to change. Most of the comments we had were with respect to the bylaws. The agreement itself is, is pretty standard and it's what's required by the law, so, um, I don't anticipate that there's major issues with any of the documents, um, but the agreement is, is the first step towards getting the whole thing established. Very good. Uh, motion on the floor, Council Member Beard, it is time for work session, so we'll hear your comment. I under- I understand it is. Um- The motion- In fact, it may be n- not. It's not the motion, but I just wanted to- Oh, we have- ... uh, make a- ... we have a motion on the floor. Did you wanna comment about the motion? Um, o- o- Since it's open for discussion. Only that the point is, it will still be a- have an opportunity to, uh- Yes. ... uh, review this before it actually would come before council. Right. So, uh, it... We wouldn't be flying blind. Yes. Other comments about the motion? All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Anyone opposed, nay? No one opposed, so we will hear that straight to the blue sheet process. Um, we will review our items in committee next month, and I would entertain a motion to adjourn. So moved. Second. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Aye. No one's opposed, we're adjourned.