[Call to Order]
          [00:05:08]
          GOOD AFTERNOON. WELCOME TO THE COMMITTEE OF PUBLIC WORKS. TODAY IS TUESDAY. JULY 30TH. I AM 
          [Roll Call]
          [00:05:20]
CHAIR OF PUBLIC WORKS. COUNCILWOMAN PURVIS. I'M JOINED TODAY BY MY CO CHAIR, COUNCILMAN PIRATINI. AND WE ARE JOINED IN THE CHAMBERS TODAY WITH COUNCILWOMAN FLOOD. COUNCILMAN ENGEL, COUNCILWOMAN RUIZ, AND COUNCILMAN BENSON, TODAY WE HAVE SOME LEGISLATION, SO I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND LET THE CLERKS READ THE DISCLAIMER. PLEASE THIS MEETING IS BEING HELD PURSUANT TO CR 61.826 AND COUNCIL RULE FIVE, A READ IN FULL. THANK YOU SIR. MADAM CHAIR, DID YOU CATCH THAT? I'M ON VIRTUALLY. OH, I'M SORRY, WE'VE BEEN JOINED VIRTUALLY BY COUNCILMAN BRANT ACKERSON. THANK YOU SIR. FIRST ON THE AGENDA TODAY, WE HAVE SOME LEGISLATION, MADAM CLERK, WOULD YOU LIKE TO READ THIS ORDINANCE INTO THE RECORD, PLEASE? AN ORDINANCE AMENDING 
          [1.
 O-148-24     AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 76.01 AND 76.02 OF THE LOUISVILLE/JEFFERSON COUNTY METRO GOVERNMENT CODE OF ORDINANCES (“LMCO”) RELATING TO LOUISVILLE METRO THROUGH ROADS AND ONE-WAY STREETS
Action Required By:  January 2025
Sponsors: Andrew Owen (D-9) ]
SECTION 76.01 AND 76.02 OF THE LOUISVILLE JEFFERSON COUNTY METRO GOVERNMENT CODE OF ORDINANCES. LMC RELATING TO LOUISVILLE METRO THROUGH ROADS AND ONE WAY STREETS. READ AND FULL. THANK YOU. WE'RE ALSO JOINED BY COUNCILWOMAN CHAPEL, WHO DO WE HAVE HERE TO SPEAK ON THIS LEGISLATION? I'M SORRY. SECOND. THANK YOU. IT'S BEEN PROPERLY MOTION. AND SECOND, WHO DO WE HAVE TO SPEAK ON THIS TODAY? GOOD AFTERNOON. JENNIFER COMMISSAR CURRAN, DIRECTOR OF LOUISVILLE METRO PUBLIC WORKS, ON THIS SPECIFIC ITEM. WE'RE ALSO JOINED BY LAURA FERGUSON WITH THE COUNTY ATTORNEY AND CLAIRE YATES WITH OUR VISION ZERO PROGRAM IS HERE AS WELL. IF THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS ON SPEED SETTING. THAT'S HOW YOU HAVE TO SAY IT. OKAY, SO THE CHANGE IN ORDINANCE IN FRONT OF YOU, CAME TO MY ATTENTION, WE HAVE CURRENTLY A PROJECT FOR JEFFERSON STREET THAT IS UNDERWAY THAT WOULD CONVERT JEFFERSON FROM ONE WAY TO TWO WAY. AND THIS, THAT SECTION OF JEFFERSON STREET WOULD ACTUALLY BE COVERED BY THIS ORDINANCE AS FAR AS DESIGNATING IT TO A ONE WAY STREET, SO THAT IS THE IMPETUS OF MOVING FORWARD WITH CHANGING THE ORDINANCE TO SPECIFICALLY REMOVE IDENTIFYING STREETS THAT ARE ONE WAY, BY ORDINANCE, WHICH WOULD LIMIT OUR ABILITY TO EFFICIENTLY MAKE AND PROPOSE CHANGES TO ROADWAYS. AS YOU KNOW, TWO WAY STREETS CAN BE AN EFFECTIVE MEASURE TO SLOW TRAFFIC, MAKE STREETS SAFER. AND THAT IS DEFINITELY A METHOD THAT WE ARE MOVING FORWARD WITH INVESTIGATING FOR MANY, MANY STREETS IN THE AREA, IN TALKING WITH THE COUNTY ATTORNEY, THE OTHER ITEM THAT IS PART OF THIS ORDINANCE ARE THE DESIGNATED SPEEDS ON THE ROADWAY. RECENTLY THE MUTCD HAS HAS RECOMMENDED EVALUATING STREETS IN A MORE CONTEXTUAL WAY TO SET SPEEDS AND TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION OTHER THINGS BESIDES THE 85TH PERCENTILE. WE ALSO HAVE OUR SPEED MANAGEMENT PLAN THAT HAS A SURVEY ONLINE NOW FOR TWO MONTHS THAT EVERYONE IS WELCOME TO COMMENT ON. THAT WILL ALSO GIVE SOME ADDITIONAL GUIDANCE ON HOW TO SET SPEED LIMITS ON STREETS. THE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION HERE IN THE RECOMMENDED ORDINANCE ALSO IDENTIFIES THAT REALLY, IT IS THE SIGNAGE ON THE STREET. 
          THAT IS WHAT MAKES THAT ENFORCEABLE AND THAT INFORMATION AVAILABLE TO THE GENERAL TRAVELING PUBLIC AND NOT THE ORDINANCE. SO CAN YOU TELL ME WHAT THIS MEANS FOR, STREETS THAT WE CURRENTLY HAVE THAT ARE ONE WAY, THAT WE THAT HAVE BEEN LOOKED AT BEEN CONVERTED TO TWO WAY. I HAVE A FEW IN MY DISTRICT, ONE IN PARTICULAR, RIVER PARK DRIVE, WHICH TURNS INTO CHESTNUT AND MUHAMMAD ALI. MUHAMMAD ALI GOES WEST. RIVER PARK DRIVE RUNS EAST. AND I KNOW THERE'S BEEN SOME TALK OF STUDYING, TO CONVERT THOSE TO TWO WAY STREETS. SO WHAT DOES THIS CHANGE LOOK LIKE FOR THOSE TYPES OF CONVERSIONS? SO TO BE CLEAR, CHANGING THE ORDINANCE WON'T CHANGE THE DIRECTION ON A STREET. IT WILL BE THAT CHANGE DOESN'T HAPPEN UNTIL THE SIGNAGE IS THERE TO BE EFFECTIVE. SO AS FAR AS STREETS THAT WE HAVE EVALUATED FOR ONE WAY TO TWO WAY, IF THEY'RE INCLUDED IN WHAT WAS, 76.02 ON ONE WAY STREETS, THAT IS PART OF THE ORDINANCE THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE REMOVED FOR US TO MAKE THOSE PHYSICAL CHANGES, TO CHANGE THE DIRECTIONALITY OF THE STREET. SO, TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, WE IF THOSE STREETS ARE INCLUDED IN 
          [00:10:06]
THIS EXISTING ORDINANCE, WE WOULD HAVE TO REMOVE THEM FROM THE ORDINANCE. SO IN A WAY, REMOVING THIS LIST IN ONE STEP WOULD KEEP US FROM HAVING TO COME BACK TO MAKE CHANGES TO THE ORDINANCE EVERY TIME WE WANTED TO CHANGE THE DIRECTION OF THE STREET. OKAY. DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR, DIRECTOR KERN, JUST 1 OR 2. QUICK CLARIFYING QUESTIONS. I THINK I'M COMPLETELY FOR THIS, BUT I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I'M GETTING IT RIGHT. BECAUSE, I MEAN, THESE ROADS ARE COUNTYWIDE. I'VE LOOKED AT SEVERAL ROADS THAT ARE IN MY DISTRICT, FOR EXAMPLE, AND SO IF I'M READING THIS CORRECTLY, YOU'RE ATTEMPTING TO. SO THERE'S SECTION 70. UNFORTUNATELY, SCROLLING THROUGH THIS IS A LITTLE WEIRD BECAUSE IT'S VERY A LONG LIST. SO I'M TRYING TO MAKE SURE I GET THIS RIGHT UNDER 76.01 A IT LOOKS LIKE IT SAYS THE LOUISVILLE METRO THROUGH ROAD SYSTEM IS ESTABLISHED. THE THROUGH ROADS ARE SET AS FOLLOWS. AND IT LOOKS LIKE YOU'RE ELIMINATING ALL THE SPEED LIMITS ON THOSE ROADS. IS THAT ACCURATE? CORRECT. WELL WE'RE NOT REMOVING THE SPEED LIMITS FROM THE ROADS. WE'RE REMOVING THOSE SPEED LIMITS LISTED IN AN ORDINANCE BECAUSE THEY WOULD BE SIGNED. I HAVE NOT CHECKED EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM. BUT IN THE ONE WAY TO TWO WAY, AND THEN ALSO SOME OF THE ROADS ARE JUST NOT CORRECT ANYMORE. SO IT WOULD JUST REMOVE IT BEING SET BY ORDINANCE. THE SPEED LIMIT WOULD BE SET BY THE SIGNAGE THAT WAS PHYSICALLY IN PLACE IN THE FIEL. WHAT I DON'T SEE IS WHERE IT ELIMINATES ROADS THAT ARE BY LEGISLATION. SO A COUPLE THINGS. FIRST OF ALL, THERE ARE A FEW. 
          AND AGAIN, MAYBE IT'S JUST FUZZ. WAS IT THE INTENTION THAT EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THESE ORDINANCE BASED SPEED LIMITS ARE ELIMINATED? BECAUSE IT LOOKS LIKE SOME OF THE NUMBERS ARE STRUCK THROUGH AND SOME ARE NOT? I REGARDING THE SPEED LIMITS, I BELIEVE ALL OF THE SPEED LIMITS SHOULD BE STRUCK THROUGH. OKAY, CORRECT. AND ON THE QUESTION ON ONE WAY TO TWO WAY, WE HAD THIS CONVERSATION YESTERDAY. THERE IS A SECTION AT 76.02 THE COMPLETE SECTION IS JUST A LISTING OF ONE WAY STREETS, AND WE ARE RECOMMENDING TO JUST REMOVE THAT SECTION. SO THAT PAGE THAT'S ON BY ANY CHANCE. I. LAURA LAURA FERGUSON ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY, IF IT WOULD HELP, ON PAGE 17 OF THE ORDINANCE, WHAT IT WOULD DO IS IT WOULD STRIKE THAT TABLE AND REPLACE IT WITH ITS FOLLOWING LANGUAGE WHENEVER CALLED ONE WAY STREETS, WHENEVER A ONE WAY STREET IS DESIGNATED BY ORDINANCE OR BY THE DIRECTOR OF METRO PUBLIC WORKS, THE DIRECTOR SHALL PLACE AND MAINTAIN SIGNS GIVING NOTICE THEREOF, AND NO SUCH REGULATION SHALL BE EFFECTIVE UNLESS SUCH SIGNS ARE IN PLACE. SIGNS INDICATING THE DIRECTION OF LAWFUL TRAFFIC MOVEMENT SHALL BE PLACED AT EVERY PUBLIC INTERSECTION WHERE MOVEMENT OF TRAFFIC IN THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION IS PROHIBITE. SO ESSENTIALLY OKAY. AND I DID SEE THAT. SO I'M OKAY. SO AGAIN IT'S THE WAY IT'S PRINTED. IT'S JUST VERY HARD TO READ. SO THE CHART RELATED TO ANY REFERENCE OF INDIVIDUAL ONE WAY ROADS IS ELIMINATED. ALL THE SPEED LIMITS ARE ELIMINATED. SO ALL ALL SPEED LIMITS COUNTY WIDE AND ANY ONE WAY STREETS WILL ESSENTIALLY MOVING FORWARD, BE COMPLETELY AT THE DISCRETION OF THE ADMINISTRATION. AND I WOULD JUST ADD ONE THING. RIGHT NOW, THERE ARE REGULATIONS IN 71, 86 AND 71, 87 OF THE LMCO THAT SET FORTH PARAMETERS FOR THE SPEED LIMITS AND HOW THE DIRECTOR CAN CHANGE THEM. SO YOU STILL HAVE THAT OVERRIDING MECHANISM FOR A MINIMUM OF MAXIMUM, AND HOW THEY CAN BE CHANGED. THEY'RE JUST NOT ALSO LISTED IN THE THROW ROAD TABLE. I'M NOT SAYING WE NEED TO CREATE IT, BUT IS THERE ANY SIMILAR GUIDANCE? BECAUSE I'LL GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE. I AGREE WITH THE MAYOR'S DIRECTION, PARTICULARLY IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS, TO MOVE FROM ONE WAY TO TWO WAY STREETS IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO, LET'S JUST SAY THAT SOME MAYOR WAS ELECTED MAYOR SMITH IN THE FUTURE WHO WANTS TO MAKE ALL ROADS ONE WAY. IS THERE ANY, GUIDANCE, LIMITATIONS THAT WOULD PREVENT THEM FROM DOING THAT? WE COULD PASS AN ORDINANCE STOPPING THEM FROM. YEAH, YOU COULD, BUT THAT ESSENTIALLY THAT WOULD BE THE CONTROL WE WOULD HAVE TO PASS AN ORDINANCE STOPPING THEM FROM DOING IT RIGHT. AND THE LANGUAGE, AS IN THIS DRAFT, WOULD, CONTEMPLATES THAT ONE WAY STREETS COULD STILL BE SET FORTH BY ORDINANCE OR BY THE DIRECTOR. SO, SO THE LANGUAGE THAT'S IN THIS PROPOSED LEGISLATION RIGHT NOW HAS AN OR. 
          OKAY. I'M GOOD. THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR THE ANSWERS. AND THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR, MISS KERN, I 
          [00:15:05]
DIDN'T I DON'T THINK YOU UNDERSTOOD MY QUESTION SO. BUT I'M GOING TO ASK YOU AGAIN. WHAT DOES THIS MEAN FOR STREETS THAT YOU ALL HAVE BEEN STUDYING AND CONSIDERING TAKING FROM ONE WAY TO TWO WAY, ARE YOU NO LONGER GOING TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION WHAT THE CONSTITUENTS IN THOSE AREAS ARE YOU GETTING? WERE YOU NO LONGER GET ANY FEEDBACK OR INPUT FROM THEM ON, HOW THEY FEEL ABOUT CONVERTING THESE STREETS, THESE PEOPLE THAT LIVE ON THESE STREETS? IS THIS SOMETHING THAT YOU CAN AUTOMATICALLY DO NOW, IF THIS ORDINANCE PASSES AFTER DOING YOUR STUDY, I BELIEVE I CAN TECHNICALLY, I DON'T KNOW, LAURA, IF THE OTHER SECTION, I DON'T HAVE THOSE IN FRONT OF ME SPECIFICALLY CALL FOR IT. AS FAR AS THE DEPARTMENT, CURRENTLY ONE OF THE MAJOR COMPONENTS OF DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION MOVING FORWARD IS THE COMMUNICATION COMPONENT, WE CURRENTLY HAVE A STREET THAT WE ARE LOOKING AT CHANGING, AND PART OF THAT IS THE OUTREACH AND THE COMMUNICATION. AND I KNOW ESPECIALLY I'VE PERSONALLY BEEN TO MEETINGS ON THE SECOND AND THIRD WAY, THIRD STREET CONVERSION, THAT IS INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT TO ME. AND FOR PEOPLE TO HAVE THAT INPUT. THANK YOU. COUNCILWOMAN CHAPPELL. GOODNESS, FIRST OFF, COULD I PLEASE BE ADDED AS A CO-SPONSOR? DULY NOTED. AND THAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN IT. THANK YOU FOR YOUR WORK AND LEADING THIS. WE APPRECIATE THE SUPPORT. COUNCILMAN BAKER, THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR, JUST, I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT I'M ADDED AS A CO-SPONSOR, TOO. SINCE I BECAME A COUNCILMAN AND PROBABLY SINCE I WAS EVER A LITTLE BOY GROWING UP IN DISTRICT SIX. AND, ONE OF THE BIGGEST THINGS WAS ABOUT CONVERTING THE ONE WAY TO TWO WAY STREETS. AND SO INCREASING THE FLEXIBILITY TO DO SO. AND THANK YOU, COUNCILMAN, FOR THE TYPE OF QUESTION YOU ASKED. I, I COMPLETELY GET IT, BUT FOR THOSE WHO DON'T KNOW, I MEAN, MOST OF IT, IT IMPROVES BUSINESSES, REDUCES PEDESTRIAN STREETS, ALL ALL THE GOOD THINGS. AND SO I ENCOURAGE IN EVERY DISTRICT, BUT IN PARTICULAR DISTRICT SIX, THANKS TO YOU, BECAUSE THAT'S JUST BEEN AN ONGOING FIGHT ABOUT TRYING TO GET THE FLEXIBILITY TO MOVE THOSE ONE WAYS AND TO TWO WAY STREETS. AND I THINK ME AND DISTRICT FOUR HAVE MOST OF THEM. SO JUST ENCOURAGING EVERYONE TO CONSIDER THAT WE'RE MAKING YOUR VOTE. THANK YOU MADAM CHAIR. AND THANK YOU. OF COURSE, COUNCILMAN BENSON. THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. 
          I MUST BE. I'M JUST NAIVE. I GUESS. I'VE ONLY BEEN DRIVING FOR 60 YEARS. AND THEN MAYBE. I DON'T KNOW HOW LONG WE'VE HAD THE TWO WAYS OR THE ONE WAYS. AND, ONE OF THE PROBLEMS, YOU KNOW, I GO DOWN SECOND STREET OR OR GO DOWN THIRD STREET. NERVE NUMBER OF PEOPLE PARK ON BOTH SIDES OF THE STREET GOING THE SAME DIRECTION. AND SOMETIMES PEOPLE PULL IN, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE GOING TO BACK IN AND YOU, YOU GO AROUND THEM. NOW JUST THIS MAKING IT TWO WAYS IS MAKING IT SAFER, MORE PEOPLE CAN TRAVEL MORE ON THE STREET THAN ONE, A ONE WAY STREET, GOING THE DIRECTION IT'S GOING. I'M. I HAVE A HARD TIME BELIEVING THAT, SO CONVERTING FROM ONE WAY TO TWO WAY HAS BEEN SHOWN TO DECREASE THE NUMBER OF SPECIFICALLY, PEDESTRIAN ISSUES, TRAFFIC CALMING, ONE OF THE THINGS TO CONSIDER ABOUT ONE WAY TO TWO WAY IS THAT TYPICALLY THEY'RE IN PAIRS. SO YOU HAVE SECOND AND THIRD STREET, YOU HAVE PORTLAND AND BANK. SO YOU HAVE YOU HAVE A PAIR OF STREETS GOING IN OPPOSITE DIRECTIONS. SO THE THOUGHT TYPICALLY, UNLESS THERE WAS DATA TO SHOW US THAT A DIFFERENT COURSE WOULD BE APPROPRIATE, TYPICALLY YOU WOULD LOOK AT CONVERTING THE PAIRS TOGETHER SO YOU WOULDN'T BE LOSING THE NUMBER OF LANES. IF THAT'S THE CONCERN THAT YOU HAVE. NO, I'M NOT I'M NOT CONCERNED ABOUT LOSING LANES. I KNOW THAT WHEN YOU KNOW, I GREW UP OVER BY CHURCHILL DOWNS AND THERE WAS A STREET CALLED TELL BOULEVARD AND IT'S A FOUR LANE HIGHWAY, BUT TWO LANES IS USUALLY ALWAYS, PEOPLE IN THE CENTER, I MEAN, IN THE MIDDLE LANE GOING TO TURN LEFT OR TURN RIGHT, WHICHEVER WAY THEY'RE GOING. WELL, IT'S REALLY YOU ONLY HAVE ONE LANE. THEY DIDN'T. SOMEBODY NEVER THOUGHT THAT YOU OUGHT TO HAVE FIVE LANES WITH A TURN LANE AND TWO LANES GOING IN BOTH DIRECTIONS, AND MAYBE PEOPLE 100 YEARS AGO TOO NAIVE TO KNOW ABOUT TRAFFIC. BUT AS I'VE STUDIED, YOU KNOW, IF WE HAVE FOUR LANES AND THEY'RE ALL GOING IN THE SAME DIRECTION AND TWO OF THEM ON THE OUTSIDES ARE 
          [00:20:01]
PEOPLE ARE PARKING, WE STILL HAVE TWO LANES GOING IN THE SAME DIRECTION WHEN WE WHEN WE HAVE, TWO LANES GOING. I MEAN, WE HAVE GOING OPPOSITE DIRECTIONS AND YOU HAVE PARKING. YOU REALLY ONLY HAVE ONE LANE. AND THEN SO THAT CENTER LANE, WHICH EVERYBODY'S TRAVELING ON AND PEOPLE ARE GOING TO PARK ON THE SIDE OF THE STREET, THE TRAFFIC STOPPED UNTIL THAT PERSON BACKS IN OR DOES WHATEVER THEY'RE GOING TO DO. AND IF PEOPLE AREN'T PAYING, I THINK THERE'S A LOT OF REAR ENDS. I, YOU KNOW, YOU ALL HAVE THE STATISTICS I DON'T. AND, AND THE BEING OLD AND DOING THINGS THE, YOU KNOW ALONG, YOU KNOW A LONG WAY DOING IT THE SAME WAY. IF IT'S FAMILIAR. YOU KNOW, WHEN I GO DOWNTOWN, YOU KNOW, SOMETIMES WHEN SEVENTH STREET CHANGES USED TO BE ALWAYS ONE WAY, AND THEN, THEN IT TURNED INTO TWO LANES, AND I DON'T KNOW, I DON'T KNOW IF ANYBODY HAS THAT CONFUSION PROBLEM WITH ME. I'M NOT LIKE COUNCIL. BYZANTINAE THINKS THAT THIS IS A GREAT IDEA, MAYBE HE SEES THINGS A LOT DIFFERENT THAN I DO. I I THINK THAT THE ONE WAY DIRECTION IS NOT A BAD WAY. AND WE WOULD CERTAINLY CONSIDER ANY CHANGES AND STUDY THOSE AND CONSIDER COMMUNICATE TO THE PUBLIC AND CONSIDER INPUT FROM THEM AS WELL. BEFORE WE WOULD PROPOSE ANY CHANGES TO MOVE FORWARD WITH. YEAH. THANK YOU MADAM CHAIR, YEAH. JUST FOR COUNCILOR BENSON. THERE'S A COUPLE OF THINGS WITH THESE CONVERSIONS. NUMBER ONE, PARTICULARLY IN RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS, NOBODY WANTS TO LIVE ON A ONE WAY ROAD. SO WHAT ENDS UP HAPPENING IS IT ACTUALLY SIGNIFICANTLY DEVALUES PEOPLE'S PROPERTY VALUES. IF YOU LIVE ON A ONE WAY ROAD AS OPPOSED TO TWO WAY. AND THE OTHER THING IS THERE ARE SAFETY ISSUES. I THINK DIRECTOR KEARNS SORT OF DIRECTED THE OTHER THING IS, EVEN IN COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS, THERE IS DATA THAT SHOWS THAT COMMERCIAL BUSINESSES SUFFER WHEN THERE'S ONE WAY VERSUS TWO WAY BECAUSE BECAUSE THE ACCESS IS JUST BETTER. IT'S EASIER TO GET TO THE BUSINESS IF YOU HAVE TRAFFIC COMING FROM BOTH DIRECTIONS. SO, I'M NOT SAYING THAT THERE SHOULD BE A TOTAL BAN ON ONE WAY STREETS, RIGHT? LIKE THERE IS SOME PURPOSE FROM TIME TO TIME, BUT IT'S BEEN. AND THE OTHER THING THAT'S HAPPENED IN LOUISVILLE, WE'VE HAD SUCH A DRAMATIC SHIFT IN WHERE PEOPLE LIVE IN THE CITY OVER THE PAST. CALL IT 20 YEARS, THAT AGAIN, YOU HAVE ONE WAY ROADS THAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN MORE COMMERCIAL IN THE PAST, THAT NOW ARE MORE RESIDENTIAL. SO ANYWAY, BUT YES, I DO SUPPORT US GIVING MORE THE FLEXIBILITY. THANK YOU. AND IT'S NOT A TOTAL BAN ON ONE WAY STREETS. WE RECENTLY DID RESTRIPE WHISKEY ALLEY IS NOW ONE WAY TO ALLOW FOR BETTER OPERATION AND OUTDOOR DINING AND ENHANCEMENTS LIKE THAT. SO WHERE IT'S APPROPRIATE, WE WOULD STILL CONSIDER ONE WAY STREETS. THANK YOU. CLARK, I'D LIKE TO BE ADDED AS A SPONSOR, PLEASE. THIS CALLS FOR A ROLL CALL. VOTE. COMMITTEE MEMBER ATKINSON. YES BELL IS CLOSING. CHAIR. PURVIS. 
          YES. SIX YES. VOTES AND ONE NO VOTE. THANK YOU, THANK YOU. YES. WE'RE GOING OLD BUSINESS. NEXT ON THE AGENDA, AN ORDINANCE AWARDING A COMMUNICATION SERVICES FRANCHISE TO UNITED NATIONAL LLC. PURSUANT TO THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS IN CHAPTER 116 OF THE LOUISVILLE METRO CODE OF ORDINANCES. I LIKE TO GET A MOTION, PLEASE. MOTION IT'S BEEN PROPERLY MOTION. AND SECOND, WHO 
          [2.
 O-161-24     AN ORDINANCE AWARDING A COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES FRANCHISE TO UNITI NATIONAL LLC PURSUANT TO THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS IN CHAPTER 116 OF THE LOUISVILLE METRO CODE OF ORDINANCES.
Action Required By:  January 2025
Sponsors: Donna L. Purvis (D-5) ]
WAS HERE TO SPEAK ON THIS, MADAM CHAIRWOMAN, THAT WOULD BE ME. MY NAME IS KELLY MCGRIFF. I'M VICE PRESIDENT OF, UNITY GROUP, WHICH IS A TELECOMMUNICATIONS, COMPANY BASED IN LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS, WITH OFFICES ALL OVER THE UNITED STATES, INCLUDING FIBER ALL OVER THE UNITED STATES. THANK YOU. 
          THERE'S ALSO ANOTHER GENTLEMAN HERE WITH A BIG SMILE. YES. THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. QUAN NGUYEN, ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY. YOU MAY PROCEED. OKAY. THANK YOU, THIS IS A PROPOSAL FOR AN ORDINANCE APPROVING A FRANCHISE AGREEMENT, FOR METRO TO ENTER INTO WITH UNITY NATIONAL TO INSTALL, ERECT OR MAINTAIN COMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES, IN CERTAIN PARTS OF DISTRICT FOUR AND DISTRICT SIX, THE FRANCHISE AGREEMENT IS A STANDARD FRANCHISE AGREEMENT THAT HAS BEEN, EXECUTED AND ENTERED INTO BY METRO WITH OTHER FRANCHISE TELECOMMUNICATION 
          [00:25:03]
FRANCHISEES IN THE PAST, THEY CONTAINED STANDARD TERMS THAT INCORPORATES AE CHAPTER 116, WITH ANY SPECIFICS FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECTS ITSELF, MR. MCGRIFF ADDRESSED THAT THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS. I THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. JUST ONE QUESTION FOR THE COUNTY ATTORNEY. SURE. 
          BECAUSE, LOOK, I GLAD TO READ ALL THIS AND ALL THE LEGALESE BEHIND IT TO SOME DEGREE. THAT'S WHY WE RELY ON ON THE GENIUS OF THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, YOU SAID IT. I JUST WANT TO BE VERY, VERY, VERY CLEAR. IS THERE ANY DIFFERENCES? AND I WOULD SAY EVEN MINOR, BETWEEN THIS TELECOMMUNICATIONS FRANCHISE AGREEMENT AND ONES WE'VE DONE WITH OTHER COMPETITOR TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMPANIES? THE ONLY MINOR DIFFERENCE IS I BELIEVE THERE ARE, LET ME POINT IT OUT TO YOU. THERE IS ONE TERM, AND LET ME TRY TO FIND IT FOR YOU. SO IT'S, PARAGRAPH FOUR OF THE FRANCHISE AGREEMENT, WHICH RELATES TO. IT'S THE WINDSTREAM BYPASS BILL. THAT PARAGRAPH ARE YOU LOOKING AT WHICH, IT'S FOR THE FRANCHISE AGREEMENT ITSELF THAT'S BEEN APPENDED TO THE ORDINANCE. OH, LET ME PULL UP THAT DOCUMENT. OKAY. GO AHEAD. SO IN TERMS OF, ANY MINOR, DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THIS FRANCHISE AGREEMENT AND PRIOR FRANCHISE AGREEMENT, THERE'S A PROVISION IN HERE THAT, SETS OUT, THE EXECUTION OF A, OF A SEPARATE, POTENTIAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN METRO AND, UNITY, AND THAT HAS TO DO WITH ANY POTENTIAL EXCESS DARK FIBER CAPACITY THAT UNITY MAY HAVE WHEN THEY BUILD OUT THEIR NETWORK UNDER THIS FRANCHISE AGREEMENT, FOR PURPOSES OF, LOUISVILLE METRO TO YET TO CONNECT A CAMERA TO THAT EXCESS CAPACITY. DARK FIBER NETWORK CAPACITY THAT UNITY MAY HAVE, AND IT, REQUIRES, ANOTHER SEPARATE AGREEMENT TO CONNECT TO THAT. SO THAT'S THE ONLY MINOR, TWEAK. SO TO SPEAK, THAT'S DIFFERENT FROM THE OTHER FRANCHISE AGREEMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN APPROVED BY LOUISVILLE METRO. AND WHY THE DIFFERENCE, I'M NOT SAYING IT'S A BAD IDEA. 
          SOUNDS LIKE A GREAT IDEA. I'M JUST ASKING WHY THE DIFFERENCE? I THINK IT JUST SETS OUT WHAT THE TRADITIONAL PRACTICE WOULD HAVE BEEN ANYWAY. WHAT WOULD BE FOR, YOU KNOW, EACH PARTY TO ENTER INTO SOME SORT OF A MEETING OF THE MINDS, SO TO SPEAK, IN TERMS OF, THE COST, THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED OF LOUISVILLE METRO TO CONNECT TO THAT, EXCESS DARK FIBER CAPACITY, AND WHAT, UNITIES OR THE FRANCHISEES OBLIGATIONS WOULD BE IN THAT INSTANCE? SOUNDS GOOD. THANK YOU. YEAH. I MEAN, MY ONLY CONCERN IS THAT WE'RE JUST DOING THINGS CONSISTENTLY. AND IF WE ARE, THEN THEN I FULLY SUPPORT IT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. 
          COUNCILWOMAN CHAPPELL. SURE, AND I'VE GOT THE COMPLETE UNION UNITY. CONTRACT IN FRONT OF ME. 
          SO PLEASE FORGIVE ME THAT SOME OF MY QUESTIONS. YOU MIGHT BE LIKE. YOU HAVE THOSE DOCUMENTS IN FRONT OF YOU. LET'S JUST PLAY IT LIKE I DON'T, WHAT IS THE TOTAL CONTRACT AMOUNT? SO THERE THERE ISN'T A CONTRACT AMOUNT, THE FRANCHISE FEES, THERE'S NO IMPOSITION OF A FRANCHISE FEES. 
          LOUISVILLE METRO HAS ELECTED TO, INSTEAD OF COLLECT FRANCHISE INDIVIDUAL FRANCHISE FEES THROUGH THE FRANCHISE AGREEMENTS, THROUGH THE COMMUNICATIONS FRANCHISE AGREEMENTS, HAS ELECTED TO PARTICIPATE IN THE STATEWIDE, I'M TRYING TO REMEMBER THE NAME. 
          IT'S THE MULTICHANNEL VIDEO PROGRAMING AND SALES OR SERVICE TAX, SYSTEM THAT IS IMPLEMENTED BY THE COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY, WHICH STREAMLINES AND, MAKES MORE EFFICIENT THE COLLECTION OF FRANCHISE FEES FOR TELECOMMUNICATIONS FRANCHISES, AND IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING, FROM 
          [00:30:01]
THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND, AND ASSETS WAS THAT THERE WAS A, COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS THAT WAS CONDUCTED A FEW YEARS AGO THAT DETERMINED THAT PARTICIPATION IN THAT STATEWIDE NETWORK WAS, MORE, I GUESS, MORE COST EFFECTIVE, PROVIDED MORE REVENUE TO LOUISVILLE METRO THAN, FOR PROVIDING INDIVIDUAL FRANCHISE FEES WITH EACH FRANCHISE COMMUNICATIONS FRANCHISE AGREEMENT. SO THERE BOTTOM LINE ANSWER IS THAT THERE IS NO CONTRACT AMOUNT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS FRANCHISE AGREEMENT. SO THIS IS TO ESTABLISH NEW INFRASTRUCTURE AND NOT MAINTAIN EXISTING. THAT'S CORRECT. INSTALLING A FIBER NETWORK THAT CAN BE ACCESSED BY LOUISVILLE METRO ONLY, OR FOLKS CAN BUY INTO IT. SO I'LL LET MR. MCGRIFF ADDRESS THAT. BUT IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT IT'S FOR, FOR BOTH FOR WHOLESALE AND RETAIL. YES. YES, MA'AM. SO, THE WE HAVE WE OWN UNITY OWNS THE WINDSTREAM NETWORK, THAT'S BUILT OUT THERE IN LOUISVILLE AND WINDSTREAM LEASES THAT FROM US, PURSUANT TO A MASTER LEASE THEY HAVE WITH US THAT GOVERNS, THEIR USE OF OUR FIBER ALL OVER THE UNITED STATES, INCLUDING THEIR, WITHIN THE MUNICIPAL LIMITS. AND WE ARE NOW UNDERTAKING TO BUILD OUT ADDITIONAL, FIBER THAT WE WILL OWN AND OPERATE. AND IT WILL BE PART OF OUR, RE NOT A REBUILDING, BUT A ADDITIONAL CAPACITY IN OUR BACKBONE, WHICH WILL ALLOW FOR MORE EXPANSION, ROBUST, DIVERSE NETWORK FOR, NOT ONLY FOR PUBLIC USE, BUT FOR, OTHER CUSTOMERS SUCH AS FACEBOOK, WINDSTREAM AND THEN OTHER RETAIL, WHOLESALE AND RETAIL CUSTOMERS THAT, THAT WINDSTREAM MAY USE AND THEN OTHER CUSTOMERS THAT WE MAY PUT ON THE NETWORK OURSELVES. NOW TO THE QUESTION THAT YOU HAD FOR THE ATTORNEY, WE HAVE ALSO AGREED TO IF WE HAVE ADDITIONAL CAPACITY ON OUR NETWORK TO ALLOW THE USE OF SOME OF THAT ADDITIONAL CAPACITY FOR THE CITY'S USE, FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT PURPOSES AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE. AND SO THIS PART OF THIS CONTRACT AND THE REASON IT'S IN PUBLIC WORKS IS BECAUSE AS THEY'RE INSTALLING THIS NEW INFRASTRUCTURE, THIS IS TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY PUT THE SIDEWALKS AND ROADS AND WHATNOT BACK INTO CONDITION, AS IS CORRECT. THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY. AND AS THESE AREAS ARE BEING, HAVE THIS FIBER INSTALLATION, IS IT ALSO THE PURVIEW OF THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT TO EXPLORE ENHANCEMENTS TO THOSE AREAS, IN ADDITION TO THE WORK THAT THEY'RE DOING? SAY, IF THERE WAS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR A STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENT TO CALM TRAFFIC OR OTHERWISE, INSTEAD OF PUTTING IT BACK AS IS, COULD WE DO BETTER OR IS THAT JUST A WHOLE OTHER CAN OF WORMS OUTSIDE OF THIS CONTRACT? THAT'S NOT WHAT UNDER LMCO OR THE LMCO SECTION 116. IT JUST REQUIRES THE FRANCHISEE, CERTAIN OBLIGATIONS IN TERMS OF THE CONSTRUCTION AND INSTALLATION OF THESE COMMUNICATIONS NETWORK. TO, RESTORE THE STREETS BACK TO ITS OR AS CLOSE TO ITS ORIGINAL CONDITION AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE. SO I DON'T THINK THAT THERE'S ANY, ROOM FOR OTHER READING INTO, INTO THAT, REQUIREMENT. SURE. THANK YOU SO MUCH. YOU'RE WELCOME. SO I KIND OF HAVE A QUESTION. PIGGYBACK. PIGGYBACK OFF OF COUNCILWOMAN CHAPPELL'S COMMENTS. WE HAD AN EXPERIENCE WITH GOOGLE A FEW YEARS AGO THAT HAD PUT SOME FIBER OPTICS IN CERTAIN, PARTS OF THE CITY, AND I THINK THE CONTRACT WAS OVER. BUT THEN YOU HAD THE CONSTITUENTS THAT WERE LEFT WITH THE BURDEN OF THE EQUIPMENT NOT BEING REMOVED PROPERLY AND THE STREET BECOMING BULKY AND WHAT HAVE YOU. SO IS THIS SOMETHING THAT COULD HAPPEN? IS THIS SOMETHING SIMILAR THAT COULD HAPPEN, THROUGH THIS AGREEMENT, I THINK, THERE WILL BE A MEETING 
          [00:35:06]
THAT'S SCHEDULED, WITH PUBLIC WORKS, AND UNITY, TO SORT OF HAMMER OUT WHAT THE PROCESS IS GOING TO BE, FOR THE CONSTRUCTION AND THE REMEDIATION AFTER THE CONSTRUCTION PROCESS. 
          SO ALL OF THAT WILL BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT DURING THAT, THAT PHASE. THANK YOU. COUNCILWOMAN ROWLEY. THANK YOU. I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY. JUST FOR MY OWN UNDERSTANDING. SO WHAT WE'RE DOING IS FIXING SOME OF THE GAPS, THEN IN THE, COMMUNICATION NETWORK THAT WE HAVE WITH SMALLER PROJECTS HERE AND HERE TO INCREASE THE CAPACITY. YES MA'AM. CORRECT. YES. AND IN ADDITION, SOME OF THIS I NOTICED AS I WAS READING THROUGH SOMETHING ABOUT CAMERAS. SO SOME OF THIS WILL BE USED BY LMPD. ALSO THE POTENTIAL OF THAT. YES. IF THERE ARE, IF UNITY, THE FRANCHISEE, HAS ANY EXCESS CAPACITY, ONCE THAT BUILD OUT OCCURS, AND IT WOULD BE YOU KNOW, AT UNITY DISCRETION TO ALLOW METRO TO CONNECT TO THAT EXCESS, FIBER NETWORK FOR THE INSTALLATION OF CAMERAS OR, OR WHATNOT. OKAY THANK YOU VERY MUCH. YOU'RE WELCOME. 
          COUNCILWOMAN FLOOD. THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. AND I THINK THIS MIGHT THESE QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS MIGHT BE FOR MR. MCGRIFF. OKAY. SO WHOEVER WANTS THAT, DO YOU SAY, SIR, THAT, WINDSTREAM AND UNITY HAVE HAVE MERGED? WE'VE ANNOUNCED A MERGER, BUT WE HAVE NOT MERGED. 
          OKAY, SO IF YOU DO MERGE, WILL YOU BE TAKING OVER THE OTHER WINDSTREAM AREAS? YES, MA'AM. 
          OKAY. AND I THINK WINDSTREAM PROVIDES OPTICS FOR JEFFERSON COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS. IS THAT STILL PART OF IT OR. NO I CAN'T ANSWER THAT QUESTION. THE ONLY REASON I KNEW ANYTHING ABOUT IT, BECAUSE THERE WAS AN ISSUE, MANY YEARS, NOT MANY YEARS, BUT DURING ONE OF THE HUGE WINDSTORMS, ICE STORMS AND, THE AREA THAT, IT WAS MENTIONED, TO ME THAT, ONE OF THE SCHOOLS IN MY DISTRICT, THAT WINDSTREAM, PROVIDED OPTICS FOR THEIR. IT DOESN'T MATTER. I WAS JUST CURIOUS, THAT I'M NOT SURE AS WELL. OKAY. THANK YOU. BUT IF YOU WANT ME TO, I COULD. YOU KNOW, GET BACK IN TOUCH WITH YOU ON THAT. YEAH, JUST JUST A CURIOSITY. BECAUSE IF SOMETHING HAPPENS, IT'S NICE TO KNOW WHO WHO HAS THE THINGS ON THE. IF THEY'RE IN THE POLES OR IF THEY'RE IN THE GROUND, WHO HAS WHAT, WHERE. SURE. AND IF ASSUMING THAT THAT FRANCHISE AGREEMENT IS WITH, WINDSTREAM, IT WOULD BE WINDSTREAM'S OBLIGATION. BUT I'LL CONFIRM THAT. OKAY THANKS. IF THERE AREN'T ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, WE CAN PROCEED WITH VOTING. THIS IS SOMETHING, THIS ORDINANCE IS CALLING FOR A ROLL CALL. VOTE VOTE IS OPEN. COUNCIL MEMBER ACKERSON. YES. THANK YOU. VOTING IS CLOSING. OH SORRY. CHAIR PURVIS. I DIDN'T GET TO VOTE. 
          SHERIFF PURVIS, YOU HAVE EIGHT YES VOTES. COULD YOU RECORD ME AS A YES? YOU'RE IN THERE, SIR. 
          YES. OH, OKAY. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. OUR NEXT ORDER OF BUSINESS IS, RESOLUTION R-069, 
          [3.
 R-069-24     A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE OFFICE OF THE JEFFERSON COUNTY ATTORNEY TO BRING A CONDEMNATION ACTION AGAINST THE OWNERS OF CERTAIN PROPERTY, PARCEL NO. EIGHTY-TWO (82), IN JEFFERSON COUNTY IN CONNECTION WITH THE COOPER CHAPEL ROAD EXTENSION PROJECT.
Action Required By:  January 2025
Sponsors: Robin Engel (R-22) ]
DASH TWO FOUR. A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE OFFICE OF THE JEFFERSON COUNTY ATTORNEY TO BRING A CONDEMNATION AGAINST THE OWNERS OF CERTAIN PROPERTY. PARCEL NUMBER 82, IN JEFFERSON COUNTY IN CONNECTION WITH THE COOPER CHAPEL ROAD EXTENSION PROJECT. I'D LIKE TO GET A MOTION. MOTION TO APPROVE. IT'S BEEN FULLY MOTION. AND SECOND, WHO DO I HAVE TO SPEAK TO? THIS. 
          HELLO, MY NAME IS MIKE PENICK. I'M WITH LOUISVILLE METRO PUBLIC WORKS. I'M RIGHT OF WAY. AN ACQUISITIONS MANAGER. THIS IS THE COOPER CHAPEL ROAD PHASE THREE PROJECT TO CONNECT AND TIE IN BEULAH CHURCH ROAD OVER TO BARDSTOWN ROAD IN FERN CREEK, WE HAVE A TOTAL OF 99 PARCELS ON THE PROJECT. WE HAVE ACQUIRED JUST ABOUT ALL OF THEM EXCEPT FOR THESE LAST THREE THAT I'M COMING TO YOU. TO YOU ALL TO TALK TO YOU ALL ABOUT, SO HOPEFULLY, YOU KNOW, THIS WILL BE THE LAST TIME YOU SEE ME, DISCUSSING COOPER CHAPEL, SO IN THIS PARTICULAR SITUATION, IT'S 
          [00:40:03]
IDENTIFIED AS PARCEL NUMBER 82, AND WE NEEDED TO ACQUIRE, 1248FT■!S FOR PERMANENT EASEMENT FOR DRAINAGE TO BE DONE ON THE NEW COOPER CHAPEL ROAD AND THEN WE NEEDED A TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT OF 953FT■S TO DO SOME SLOPING WORK, TO KIND OF DO SOME GRADING AND A LITTLE BIT OF THE TIE IN IN THE BACK SO THAT THE GROUND IS A LITTLE BIT LEVEL AND A LITTLE BIT MORE PRESENTABLE WITH THE ROADWAY, AND THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY OWNER THAT WE WERE TRYING TO NEGOTIATE WITH, DID NOT BELIEVE THAT WE WERE ACTUALLY GOING TO BUILD COOPER CHAPEL ROAD AND, STOP NEGOTIATING WITH US, PRETTY MUCH TOLD US, DIDN'T WANT TO HAVE ANY MORE DISCUSSIONS ABOUT IT. WE DID EVERYTHING WE COULD. WE EVEN, TRIED TO GET OUR COUNTY ATTORNEY REPRESENTED TO REACH OUT TO THE PROPERTY OWNER ON OUR BEHALF, TO TRY TO SEE IF THERE WAS ANY WAY, WE COULD TRY TO WORK SOMETHING OUT, BUT THIS, IN THIS PARTICULAR SITUATION, THE PROPERTY OWNER WAS JUST DISINTERESTED IN TALKING TO US ABOUT THIS PROJECT. COUNCILMAN INGLE, DO YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS ON THIS? YES. THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR, COLLEAGUES, THERE'S NOT MANY TOUGHER VOTES ON THIS COUNCIL OVER THE YEARS. THAT I'VE TAKEN THAN VOTING TO CONDEMN A PIECE OF PROPERTY, IT IS IT IS A LAST RESORT. AND I HAVE TO COMMEND MIKE PENICK FOR, GOING I MEAN, LITERALLY GOING THE EXTRA MILE WHEN THESE WHEN THESE NEGOTIATIONS ARE HAPPENING. COLLEAGUES, THIS IS THE COOPER CHAPEL ROAD CORRIDOR THAT COUNCILWOMAN MADONNA FLOOD, COUNCILMAN, FORMER COUNCILMAN PEDEN, COUNCILMAN HUNT, WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT A LONG, LONG TIME. IT IS THE IT IS THE PARCEL THIS THAT WILL RELIEVE THE GENE SNYDER FREEWAY FROM I-65 TO FERN CREEK IN JEFFERSON TOWN. WHEN THE GENE SNYDER FREEWAY GOES DOWN. WE'VE BEEN WAITING A LONG TIME ON THIS. THIS THING GOT HELD UP BY SOME ENDANGERED, ENDANGERED PLANT IN THE IN THE MCNEELY LAKE AREA AT ONE POINT. 
          SO WE'VE BEEN AT THIS THING FOR A WHILE, MADAM CHAIR. SO, BUT, MIKE, IF YOU COULD, AND MAYBE, JUST MAYBE AS A BIG PICTURE, IN THIS PARTICULAR AREA, AND I, I WANT TO JUST FOR THE VIEWING PUBLIC, THE WHAT PART OF THE PROPERTY OF THE PROPERTY OWNER IS THIS PARTICULAR CONDEMNATION? IS IT THE REAR, IS IT THE FRONT? REAR? WHERE IS THIS? AND IN THE REFERENCE. SO THE SO MY, CONSTITUENTS UNDERSTAND WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE. ABSOLUTELY. SO IN THIS PARTICULAR SITUATION, THE ACQUISITION IS IN THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY. AND IT'S ACTUALLY BEHIND THE PROPERTY OWNER'S FENCE. THE PROPERTY OWNER ACTUALLY OWNS A LITTLE BIT FURTHER BEHIND THE PROPERTY. 
          THEIR FENCE FENCE IS NOT ACTUALLY THE PROPERTY LINE IN THIS CASE, THEY LIVE IN A NEW SUBDIVISION. IF YOU ALL HAVE HEARD OF BARDSTOWN WOODS AND TUSCANY WOODS, AND THE PROPERTY OWNERS HAVE CONSTRUCTED THEIR FENCE, THEY BUILT FENCES IN CERTAIN AREAS. BUT, ABOUT 20FT BEHIND THE FENCE IS ACTUALLY WHERE WE ARE NEEDING TO DO OUR PERMANENT EASEMENT AND TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT. SO TECHNICALLY, THE PROPERTY OWNER DOESN'T REALLY EVEN SEE WHAT'S GOING ON BECAUSE OF THE WAY THAT THEY'VE CONSTRUCTED THEIR FENCE, BUT THE ISSUE WAS IT'S GOING TO BE NOISY. IT'S GOING TO BE DISRUPTING OUR LIVES, YOU ALL HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT THIS ROADWAY FOR YEARS. YOU'RE NOT GOING TO BUILD IT. SO I DON'T SEE THE POINT OF NEGOTIATING WITH YOU ALL. YEAH. AND SO, YOU KNOW, I MEAN, THIS ISN'T EVEN ON THEIR PROPERTY, BUT BUT EVERYBODY WANTS THEIR WANTS TO CONTINUE THEIR PEACE AND QUIET AND EVERYTHING ELSE. AND THIS IS A CORRIDOR, MADAM CHAIR. THAT'S I MEAN, IT IS GOING TO TAKE ON A WORLD OF ITS OWN, AND IT'S GOING TO BE AT THE REAR OF THIS PROPERTY COMING ALL THE WAY OVER FROM COUNCILWOMAN MADONNA. 
          FLOOD'S DISTRICT, OFF OF PRESTON HIGHWAY IN THE COOPER CHAPEL ROAD. SO I'M GOING TO JUMP OUT OF HERE FOR A SECOND. IT LOOKS LIKE COUNCILMAN FLOOD'S IN HERE, SO. AND SOME OTHERS. THANKS, COUNCILWOMAN FLOOD, I WAS JUST GOING TO SAY THAT THE KENTUCKY CREST, THAT, COUNCILMAN INGLE THAT STOPPED THE PROJECT, IT ONLY GROWS ALL OVER THE IN THE WHOLE UNITED STATES. THE ONLY PLACE IT GROWS IS IN THE VERY SOUTHERN TIP OF OKOLONA AND THE NORTHERN TIP OF BULLITT COUNTY, THEY'RE ACTUALLY TRYING TO GET 2600 ACRES OF THAT. THAT'S VERY FEW ACRES THAT EVEN STOPPED THE MENARDS PROJECT FROM GOING FORWARD BECAUSE THEY FOUND IT ON THAT PROPERTY. IT STARTS POLLINATION IN THE ENTIRE NATION, THIS KENTUCKY GLADE CREST, BECAUSE IT BLOOMS VERY EARLY MARCH. IT LOOKS LIKE A WEED UP IN SOME PEOPLE'S MIND, BUT IT'S VERY VITAL TO THE POLLINATION IN THE UNITED STATES. AND DOES IT OFFER A CURE FOR DISEASES OR SOMETHING? SOMETHING. YOU KNOW, IT STARTS. STARTS POLLINATION? YEAH. I'M JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT, YOU 
          [00:45:03]
KNOW, THE VALUE OF BECAUSE IT DOESN'T GROW ANYWHERE ELSE IN THE US. IT DOESN'T GROW. YOU CAN'T FIND THIS PARTICULAR PLANT ANYWHERE ELSE IN THE UNITED STATES. YEAH THAT'S THE ONLY TWO PLACES IT GROWS. AND AS A RESULT, FISH AND WILDLIFE. AND BECAUSE WE HAD TO MITIGATE IT, WE HAD TO STOP EVERYTHING WE WERE DOING, COLLECT THE SEEDS. SO WHEN IT'S SEEDED. SO WE HAD TO WAIT FOR THE SEEDS TO TAKE ROOT IN THE NEXT SEASON, WHICH WAS ANOTHER YEAR LATER BEFORE WE COULD ACTUALLY PICK BACK UP AND CONTINUE WORKING. SO IT WAS IT WAS REALLY IT WAS LIKE, BUT, YOU KNOW, IT'S LIKE IF YOU HAVE AN INDIANA BAT OR IF YOU HAVE ANYTHING THAT'S CONSIDERED ENDANGERED OR THREATENED, IT JUST IT JUST MAKES YOU CRINGE LIKE, OH MY GOODNESS, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE TO COME UP WITH SOME SORT OF REMEDY. IT'S ON THE NATIONAL PRESERVATION OF PROTECTED SPECIES. AND, YOU KNOW, IT'S LIKE IT IS A REALLY, REALLY BIG DEAL, BELIEVE IT OR NOT. BUT EVEN IN IN GOING BACK TO WHEN THEY WERE BUYING, TRYING TO BUY PROPERTY IN THE OKOLONA AREA, THE FIRST PART OF COOPER CHAPEL, SOMETIMES THEY COULDN'T FIND THE PEOPLE THAT HAD INHERITED PIECES OF PROPERTY. SO WE HAD TO CONDEMN. AND THEN THERE WERE PEOPLE WHO BELIEVED THAT IF THEY, IF THEY GOT IN COURT, THAT THEY WOULD GET MORE MONEY FOR, SAY, LIKE A PIECE OF SHRUBBERY THAT WAS IN THE RIGHT OF WAY TO BEGIN WITH, THERE'S ALL KINDS OF THINGS THAT THAT STOP THAT PROJECT. A IT'S LIKE ROBIN INGLIS HAVING TO HAVE SOME PROPERTY CONDEMNED STHATHE PROJECT CAN MOVE FORWARD. BUT, YOU KNOW, THAT USED TO BE A FARM MARKET ROAD. BUT NOW, I MEAN, YOU HAVE YOU HAVE HUGTRUC AND HOOL BSES AT A PASSING EACOTHEON TSE T LAS. I VDAOU. NE BE NDI MEEVYBODTE CDEMN OJECTS FORWARD. SO NOW IT'SE AFFECTING PUBLIC SAFETY. COUNCILWOMAN RUBY. YES. THANK YOU, I'M JUST HAVING A HARD TIME UNDERSTANDING, AND I WISH I HAD AN IMAGE IN FRONT OF ME SHOWING ME PRECISELY WHERE THE ROUTE OF THE ROAD'S GOING TO GO. I JUST HAD THE COUNCILMAN INGLE SHOW ME RIGHT OVER HERE. IT'S GOING FROM THERE. IT'S LIKE, I KNOW VERY LITTLE ABOUT EXCEPT WE PRESENT IT HERE. AND HONESTLY, I WOULD LIKE TO TABLE THIS SO I CAN GET SOME MORE INFORMATION ABOUT WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. AS NOTED, YOU'VE GOT ENDANGERED SPECIES IN THAT AREA. YOU'RE GOING TO GO APPARENTLY RIGHT THROUGH THE MIDDLE OF A PARK. NO, WE MITIGATED THAT. THAT'S NO LONGER AN ISSUE, WE WERE JUST TALKING ABOUT TO THE ROAD. YEAH, WE WERE WE WERE TALKING ABOUT, WHEN WE WERE FIRST GOING THROUGH THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROCESS FOR PLANNING COOPER CHAPEL AND WHEN THIS PLANT WAS DISCOVERED, WE HAD TO COME UP WITH AN ACTUAL MITIGATION PLAN BEFORE WE COULD DO ANYTHING. AND SO IT SET US BACK TIME WISE. BUT THE ROADWAY IS NOT GOING TO AFFECT THE PLAN ANYMORE BECAUSE THE ALIGNMENT HAS BEEN SHIFTED AND WE'VE MOVED THAT PLANT TO THE AREAS WHERE IT'S ALREADY TAKEN ROOT AND REESTABLISHED ITSELF TO WHERE WE WERE ABLE TO CONTINUE GOING FORWARD. OKAY. WELL, I'D STILL LIKE TO SEE A PLAN FOR WHERE WHERE THE ROUTES GOING TO BE GOING. WHEN YOU SAY THE ROUTES, YOU MEAN THE MITIGATION PLAN FOR THE PLAN FOR THE ROAD, THE PLAN FOR THE ROAD. OH, YEAH. WE COULD SEND YOU A SET OF PLANS. THAT'S NOT A PROBLEM. YEAH, I'D LIKE TO SEE THAT. BEFORE I VOTE ON ANYTHING, I WANT TO UNDERSTAND WHAT IT IS I'M VOTING ON. 
          COUNCILWOMAN RUBY, ARE YOU MAKING A MOTION TO TABLE THIS? YES, I AM, YOU NEED A SECOND? YES. NO. SECOND. THE MOTION FAILS. THERE'S NO MORE. IF THERE'S NO MORE DISCUSSION, WE NEED TO DO A VOICE VOTE ON THIS RESOLUTION. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF MOVING FORWARD, PLEASE SAY I. I ANY OPPOSED? THE EYES HAVE IT. THIS WILL GO ON. OLD BUSINESS. OKAY. THE NEXT LINE OF BUSINESS SIMILAR TO THIS ONE, SO THE DISCUSSION WILL PROBABLY BE THE SAME. IT'S R-070, DASH TWO FOUR RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE OFFICE OF THE JEFFERSON COUNTY ATTORNEY TO BRING A CONDEMNATION AGAINST, THE ACTION AGAINST THE OWNERS OF CERTAIN PROPERTY. PARCEL NUMBER 83, IN JEFFERSON COUNTY IN CONNECTION WITH THE COOPER CHAPEL ROAD EXTENSION PROJECT. I'D LIKE TO GET A MOTION MOTION TO APPROVE. SECOND, PLEASE. SECOND, SIR. YOU CAN PROCEED. OKAY, AGAIN, MIKE PENICK, PUBLIC WORKS. RIGHT OF WAY, THIS PARTICULAR PARCEL IS ADJACENT TO THE PREVIOUS PREVIOUS PARCEL THAT I JUST TALKED ABOUT. SO THE PROPERTY OWNERS, I, I'M ASSUMING, HAVE BEEN IN CONTACT WITH EACH OTHER, IN THIS PARTICULAR ACQUISITION, WE ARE NEEDING TO ACQUIRE 
          [00:50:01]
2137FT■!S OF PERMANENT EASEMENT, AGAIN FOR DRAINAGE. AND WE ALSO NEED TO ACQUIRE A TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT OF 696FT■, WHICH WOULD REVERT BACK TO THE PROPERTY OWNER. AND AGAIN, THAT'S FOR SLOPING AND GRADING AND BRINGING THE PROPERTY A LITTLE BIT MORE DOWN LEVEL WITH THE ROADWAY, THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY OWNER HAS JUST GHOSTED US, WE'VE, TRIED EVERYTHING. 
          GONE OUT, KNOCKED ON THE DOOR, CERTIFIED LETTERS AGAIN. I REACHED OUT TO THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE FOR ASSISTANCE, WE WERE ABLE TO TALK TO THEM, BUT THEN THEY JUST CUT OFF ALL COMMUNICATION. AND THE ONLY THING I CAN THINK OF IS THEY DISCUSSED IT W INFLUENCED P COMMUNICATIONS WITH US, GIVEN GIVEN THE FACT THAT, THIS IS ACTUALLY THE NEXT ONE, TWO ARE THE LAST. THESE ARE THE LAST ON THIS PROJECT BECAUSE WE'RE WE'RE ALMOST DONE. WE REALLY HATE TO DO THIS. IF THEY WOULD JUST TALK TO US, WE COULD WORK SOMETHING OUT, BUT THEY JUST CUT US OFF. 
          COUNCILMAN INGLE, THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. ONCE AGAIN, AS MIKE HAS INDICATED, WE HAVE GONE BEYOND THE CALL OF DUTY HERE. SORT OF, ASKING, PROPERTY OWNERS, THE IMPORTANCE OF THIS PARTICULAR, ROADWAY, AND I JUST WANT TO ADDRESS COUNCILMAN RUIZ. I LOOK, IF YOU'RE JUST JUST SORT OF TUNING IN ON THIS, THIS TYPE OF THING, YOU JUST LIKE I DID. HOW MANY? MIKE HAS THIS BEEN? THIS THING FROM? FROM THE START OF THIS PROJECT. TEN YEARS. 12 YEARS, FIVE? YES, AT LEAST, AND I, I'VE BEEN BEFORE YOU GUYS, I KNOW AT LEAST THIS IS ALMOST MY FOURTH YEAR. I THINK I'VE COME AND TESTIFIED ASKING FOR PERMISSION TO CONDEMN. I MEAN, I WILL TELL YOU, MADAM CHAIR, I CAME UNDER SERIOUS FIRE FROM. I MEAN, THESE ARE FIVE, NOT FIVE ACRE TRACT. THESE ARE MASSIVE TRACTS OF LAND IN THE RURAL PART OF MY DISTRICT HERE THAT WHEN THEY FIRST ANNOUNCED THIS, I MEAN, I CAME UNDER FIRE HERE. SO THIS IS NOT. IT'S NOT LIKE THEY JUST DREW THIS LINE ACROSS FROM PRESTON HIGHWAY TO BARDSTOWN ROAD YESTERDAY. THIS THING HAS BEEN TWEAKED. THEY HAVE TRIED TO DO EVERYTHING THEY CAN TO IMPACT THE LEAST AMOUNT OF PROPERTY OWNERS. AND SO WHILE I AGAIN, I UNDERSTAND WHERE MY COLLEAGUE IS COMING FROM HERE, BUT WE ARE DOWN TO TWO MORE PARCELS AND THIS COOPER CHAPEL ROAD CORRIDOR IS MOVING, MOVING ON DOWN THE ROAD. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU SIR. AND I UNDERSTAND SOMETIMES HOW THESE THINGS CAN GET IN THE WAY OF DEVELOPMENT. 
          YOU WORKED ON IT A LONG TIME, SO I UNDERSTAND WHY WE NEED TO MOVE FORWARD. IF THERE AREN'T ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, THIS CALLS FOR A VOTE, A VOICE VOTE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. ALL THOSE OPPOSED, THE AYES HAVE IT. THIS WILL GO ON, CONSENT CALENDAR, THE LAST PIECE OF BUSINESS IS R-074-24. A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE OFFICE OF THE JEFFERSON COUNTY ATTORNEY TO BRING A CONDEMNATION ACTION AGAINST THE OWNERS OF A CERTAIN PROPERTY, PARCEL NUMBER 94, IN JEFFERSON COUNTY, IN CONNECTION WITH THE COOPER CHAPEL ROAD EXTENSION PROJECT, I'D LIKE TO MAKE GET GET A MOTION, PLEASE. SECOND. THANK YOU. IT'S BEEN PROPERLY MOTION. AND SECOND, AND AGAIN, WOULD YOU PLEASE SPEAK ON THIS MIKE PENICK PUBLIC WORKS RIGHT OF WAY, THIS PARTICULAR PARCEL, ALL WE'RE ACQUIRING IS A TEMPORARY EASEMENT. WE DON'T EVEN NEED A PERMANENT EASEMENT. 
          WE DON'T NEED ANY ACTUAL PROPERTY ITSELF. WE JUST NEEDED A TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT. AND THE PROPERTY OWNER WANTS US TO PAY ON THIS, FROM NOW UNTIL THE CONSTRUCTION ACTUALLY BEGINS. AND THAT'S NOT ALLOWED ON THE FEDERAL LAW. AND THAT'S NOT IT'S ALSO NOT ALLOWED UNDER APPRAISAL GUIDELINES WITH THE KENTUCKY TRANSPORTATION CABINET. WE HAVE TO PAY THE PROPERTY FOR WHAT IT'S WORTH, AT THE TIME THAT WE'RE ACTUALLY ACQUIRING IT. AND SO WE CAME UP WITH A CALCULATION, WE PRESENTED IT, BUT THE PROPERTY OWNER WANTS US TO LEASE IT AND NOT GET AN EASEMENT. AND WE CAN'T LEASE IT. THAT'S NOT ALLOWED, I UNDERSTAN, FINANCIALLY THAT, YOU KNOW, HE FEELS LIKE WE'RE HOLDING HIM HOSTAGE. AND WHAT WE'VE RELAYED IS WE'RE NOT HOLDING YOU HOSTAGE. IT'S YOUR PROPERTY. YOU CAN DO WHATEVER YOU WANT WITH IT. IT'S JUST AT THE TIME OF CONSTRUCTION WILL BE IN THIS AREA. WE JUST ASK YOU TO ALLOW US TO BE IN THIS AREA. THEN WHEN CONSTRUCTION IS OVER WITH, WE'RE DONE. WE GET OFF YOUR PROPERTY AND YOU CONTINUE LIVING YOUR LIFE. BUT THEY WANT US TO TREAT THIS MORE LIKE RENTAL INCOME. AND YOU KNOW, I DON'T HAVE AN UNLIMITED AMOUNT OF MONEY. I CAN'T JUST PAY YOU. YOU KNOW, I CAN'T DO THAT. SO THANK YOU. 
          COUNCILMAN ENGEL. THANK YOU. IF THERE AREN'T ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, AGAIN, THIS IS A VOICE VOTE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. ALL THOSE OPPOSED. THE EYES HAVE IT. THIS WILL MOVE TO THE CONSENT CALENDAR. THANK YOU. THERE'S NO OTHER BUSINESS. THE MEETING IS ADJOURNED. THANK YOU.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.