►
From YouTube: House Standing Committee on Local Government (2/2/22)
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
If
everyone
would
please
head
towards
your
seats,
we
will
get
started
with
the
third
meeting
of
the
house
standing
committee
on
local
government.
We've
got
three
bills
on
the
agenda
today
and
a
fairly
full
agenda.
I
think,
and
we
may
have
to
stand
at
ease
just
a
little
bit
because
we
have
presenters
that
are
over
in
senate
state
and
local
government
as
well.
A
A
Present
we
do
have
a
quorum
and
are
duly
constituted
to
do
business.
We
will
go
a
little
out
of
order
today.
I
think
we
will
call
house
bill
392
as
the
first
bill
before
us
today,
representative
branscombe.
If
you
want
to
approach
the
the
table,
introduce
yourselves
and
your
guests
for
the
record,
and
then
you
all
may
proceed
with
your
testimony.
F
F
You
all
may
proceed
all
right.
Thank
you
all
appreciate
the
opportunity
to
be
here
today
to
speak
with
you
on
house,
bill
392
and
the
purpose
of
house
bill.
392
is
to
establish
state
level,
decommissioning
and
financial
assurance
requirements
for
solar
merchant
electric
generating
facilities
to
protect
landowners
and
local
communities
where
facilities
are
located.
F
We
have
the
the
orphaned
and
abandoned
wells,
and
that's
we
don't
want
to
get
into
a
situation
where
20
30
years
down
the
road
we
run
into
something
like
that.
Landowners
and
local
communities
are
protected
by
establishing
mandatory
state
level.
Decommissioning
requirements
mandating
that
there
is
a
financial
bond
or
security
requirement
to
cover
future
decommissioning
costs,
assuring
that
a
financial,
secure
bond
or
security
for
decommissioning
is
always
in
place
from
the
time
construction
commences.
F
Until
decommissioning
is
complete,
requiring
prior
to
commencing
construction
at
the
time
of
sale
or
transfer
of
ownership
and
every
five
years,
an
independent
professional
engineer
shall
review
and
update
the
value
of
the
financial
bond
to
ensure
that
the
bond
is
adequate
for
the
costs
of
decommissioning
and
affording
local
counties
and
cities
the
option
to
be
named
as
a
secondary
beneficiary.
The
landowner
would
be
the
primary
but
give
them
the
option
to
be
named
on
the
decommissioning
bond.
A
I
Certainly,
thank
you,
mr
chairman.
Thank
you,
members
of
the
committee,
tom
fitzgerald,
I'm
senior
staff
for
the
kentucky
resources,
council,
formerly
director,
on
my
way,
to
being
a
former
staff
for
that
matter.
I
appreciate
this
opportunity
to
to
talk
with
you.
I
had
a
good
conversation.
I
appreciate
representative
branstad's
time
yesterday
we
had
a
good
conversation
and
jeff
and
I
have
have
also
communicated.
I
I
think
we
have
a
common
goal,
which
is
to
assure
that
landowners
at
the
end
of
these
projects
are
not
burdened
by
equipment
and
structures
that
are
placed
on
farmland
or
on
other
land,
for
that
matter
that
no
longer
has
any
useful
life.
The
a
number
of
of
different
parties,
including
mr
samford,
who
I
understand,
represents
one
of
the
solar
developers.
I
Who's
interested
in
kentucky
have
been
in
conversation
on
these
these
issues,
and
there
is
some
of
you
may
be
aware,
a
bill
that
was
filed
in
the
senate,
which
represents
some
of
the
same
concerns
some
of
the
same
considerations
regarding
decommissioning,
and
I
strongly
support
the
idea
of
putting
in
place
a
decommissioning
plan
decommissioning
bond.
I
That
was
the
era
of
the
enron
plant
up
and
I
think
it
was
oldham
county
or
trimble
county,
and
there
was
the
peabody's
thoroughbred
and
a
number
of
other
plants,
and
we
needed
a
siding
process
to
make
sure
that
that
these
facilities
were
compatible
with
the
the
land
compatible
with
the
neighbors
and
protecting
the
land
owner
and
adjoining
landowners,
and
that
all
of
these
impacts,
including
property
value
impacts
and
things
were
being
considered.
We
didn't
at
that
time
think
about
the
end
of
the
life
of
these
facilities.
I
I
There's
areas
that
really
need
to
be
strengthened
in
order
to
assure
protection
of
landowners
and
as
opposed
to
protection
of
the
developers
who,
once
the
projects
are,
are
done,
are
gone
and
those
include
in
the
big
first
a
technical
issue
regarding
the
ad
hoc
members
of
the
citing
board,
the
as
written
the
language
would
have
them
continue
to
be
part
of
the
citing
board
for
this
project,
even
if
the
project
is
never
constructed.
I
I
don't
think
that's
what's
intended,
but
there
needs
to
be
a
cap
on
that,
so
that,
if
the
certificate
expires,
they
are
no
longer
part
of
a
siding
board
if,
if
the
facility
doesn't
go
forward,
the
second
is
is
a
more
significant
issue,
which
is
the
decommissioning
plan
itself.
I
The
bond
needs
to
be
reviewed
by
the
siding
board
for
its
adequacy
under
this
bill.
It's
not
under
this
bill.
An
engineer
who's
employed
by
the
developer
is
going
to
propose
what
they
think
it's
going
to
cost
to
decommission
the
facility,
and
that
is
not
reviewed
by
anybody
for
its
adequacy.
It
needs
to
be
reviewed
by
the
sighting
board
and
there
needs
to
be
input
from
the
landowner.
I
As
well
as
others
as
to
whether
that
that
decommissioning
a
bond
both
in
its
its
amount,
which
needs
to
include
not
just
the
cost
of
decommissioning
but
the
cost
of
a
third
party
decommissioning,
so
there's
some
administrative
overhead
there,
because,
like
a
mining
bond
or
any
other
kind
of
bond,
if
you
default,
somebody
else
is
going
to
have
to
be
hired
to
do
the
job
you
were
supposed
to
do,
and
so
there
is
an
administrative
cost
there.
That
needs
to
be
considered
and
added
to
the
cost
of
that
bond
in
case
you
default.
I
The
second
is
the
form
of
the
bond
needs
to
be
reviewed.
It
says
it's
just
any
says
another
type
of
security.
We
need
to
what
kind
of
security
we
talked
about
is
it.
It
certainly
can't
be
a
self
bond.
We've
got
a
some
horrific
examples
of
self
bonding
in
other
industries
that
have
failed
when
the
companies
themselves
have
failed
or
don't
have
the
capital
any
longer
to
to
live
up
to
their
commitments.
I
The
requirement
one
of
the
concerns
under
the
decommissioning
plan
language
in
the
bill,
the
all
of
these
provisions
are
incorporated
into
the
leases
and
the
landowner
doesn't
have
the
ability
to
vary
those
terms.
For
example,
it
requires
removal
of
underground
components
and
foundations,
such
as
underground
conduits
and
things
only
to
a
three
foot
depth.
Well,
what
is
a
three
foot
depth
today
may
not
be
at
three
for
depth
forever
because
of
erosion,
because
it
changes
the
lane
use.
I
I
think
a
landowner
has
a
right
to
have
all
of
that
underground,
conduit
and
all
of
that
other
underground
components
removed
unless
they
want
them
to
remain
in
this
bill
they
wouldn't
be
allowed
to,
because
the
only
thing
the
developer
would
be
responsible
for
is
removing
it
down
to
three
feet.
Additionally,
it
allows
the
interconnection
and
other
facilities
to
remain
in
place
quote
for
future
use.
I
That
should
be
the
landowner's
decision,
because
in
many
cases
the
transformers
and
the
inverters
and
the
other
equipment
which
are
very
costly
among
the
more
costly
components
to
remove,
should
be
removed
because
they're
going
to
be
of
no
use
to
the
landowner,
and
so
the
landowner
needs
to
control
that
not
the
terms
of
a
lease
that
are
dictated
by
the
statute.
I
Regarding
the
the
decommissioning
bond,
it
is
unclear
from
the
statute
whether
the
bond
would
have
to
be
adjusted
in
five
years.
It
says
an
updated
bond
has
to
be
filed,
but
it
doesn't
say
that
the
updated
bond
has
to
be
recalculated
in
order
to
assure
that
the
the
costs
rem
that
the
amount
of
bond
is
sufficient
25
years
out
to
require
complete
removal
facilities
and
reclamation
of
the
of
the
sites.
I
Finally,
regarding
the
relationship
between
state
and
local
ordinances
and
state
and
local
bonds,
the
language
needs
to
be
tightened
significantly,
because
the
local,
currently
the
interaction
of
the
state
board
and
local
communities,
and
we
have
actually
wrote
a
model
ordinance
on
zoning
and
planning
for
local
communities
to
try
to
help
them
exert
whatever
influence
they
have
to
make.
I
The
decisions
in
a
way
that's
going
to
protect
local
landowners
and
local
interests
and
right
now
the
only
thing
that
has
primacy,
if
you
will
in
the
local
ordinances
regarding
the
citing
process,
is
the
setbacks.
This
says
the
decommissioning
plan.
Decommissioning
bonds
will
have
privacy,
we're
concerned
that
they
need
to
better
mesh
so
that
only
if
that
local
bond
is
as
adequate
and
considers
the
cost
as
minus
the
salvage
value.
Should
the
local
bond
be
able
to
take
precedence
over
the
state
bond.
I
There
needs
to
be
assurances
because
in
many
cases,
depending
on
the
planning
and
zoning
regulations
locally,
they
may
not
have
a
specific
process
for
managing
the
sighting
of
this
type
of
facility,
and
it
may
be
a
zoning
issue
where
there
isn't
a
bond.
It
may
be
that
they
have
a
construction
bond,
but
they
don't
have
a
decommissioning
bond.
I
So
we
need
to
make
sure
that
there
is
a
better
meshing
of
of
when
you
defer
to
the
local
community
and
when
the
state
default
kicks
in,
so
that
we
are
assured
that
there
is
an
adequate
bond
in
place
and
that
the
landowner
is
not
going
to
be
stuck
with
the
and
the
and
the
neighboring
properties
and
the
community,
stuck
with
the
cost
of
of
removing
these
facilities
or
the
blight
of
the
facilities
not
being
removed,
and
with
that
was
chairman.
I
Last
thing,
I'll
mention
that
this
is
an
interest
that
representative
branskin
that
you
and
I-
and
I
think
other
members
of
the
committee
do
share,
because
I
was
part
of
the
oil
and
gas
work
group
that
put
together
that
fund
to
deal
with
those
abandoned
tank
batteries
and
wells
and
and
pits,
and
that's
something
jeff,
and
I
also
have
a
lot
of
common
interest
in.
We
just
got
some
federal
money
through
the
infrastructure
bill
that
is
going
to
fund
that
state
orphan
tank
and
orphan
wealth
fund.
I
So
hopefully
we
will
see
some
additional
effort
to
get
those
old
tank
batteries
and
wells
and
pits
off
of
the
farmland
and
to
to
reclaim
the
14
000
plus
abandoned
wells
that
we've
got
in
the
states
so
kudos
to
the
legislature,
forehead
and
put
that
fund
in
place.
It
put
us
in
good
stead
to
get
that
federal
money
and
they,
I
think
it
just
got
announced
today.
So,
mr
chairman,
I'd
be
happy
to
answer
any
questions.
I
I'm
looking
forward
to
working
with
representative
branscomb
to
tighten
the
bill
up
and
to
work
with
jeff
as
well
to
tighten
the
bill
up
in
order
to
to
fully
protect
the
interests
of
landowners
and
farmers
and
to
assure
that
these
facilities,
which
are
siding
in
kentucky
because
we've
got
the
sun
and
we've
got
the
interconnections
through
pjm
that
when
they're
done
and
and
and
are
done,
being
productive,
that
all
of
the
equipment
all
of
the
infrastructure,
all
of
the
underground
conduit.
I
F
I
think
we're
good.
Mr
fitzgerald,
not
we
had
a
conversation
last
night,
very
good
conversation,
and
you
know
he
hit
the
nail
on
the
head.
We
both
we've
got
some
common
interests
here
and
some
of
his
suggestions,
we're
going
to
take
those
into
consideration
and
and
look
forward
to
working
with
him
and
really
appreciate
kind
of
his
insight
and
his
background
in
this
in
this
dealing
in
this
area.
So
look
forward
to
working
with
him.
D
Thank
you,
mr
chairman,
gentlemen,
thank
you
for
the
bill
today,
tom
kind
of
stole
my
thunder
there,
that's
exactly
what
I
was
talking
about
as
the
bonds.
You
know
it's
come
to
this
very
committee
before
with
the
water
treatment
and
waste
and
things
with
these,
these
industries
go
belly
up,
and
then
they
don't
have
the
capital
to
make
the
bond
whole.
D
That's
my
biggest
concern
about
this
whole
thing
here
is
that
we
have
to
make
sure
that
that
those
bonds
are
secure,
that
the
end
of
their
lifespan,
they're
able
to
do
what's
right
to
to
help
the
land
owners
and
also
what's
right
for
state
of
kentucky,
but
thank
you
for
the
bill.
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
C
Yeah
and
follow
up
to
representative
donahue's
question
on
the
front
end:
are
there
assurances
that
the
bond
will
be
in
place
and
will
take
care
of
what
could
happen
on
decommissioning
down
the
road?
At
some
point,
when
the
facility
becomes
to
the
point
where
it's
not
useful
anymore
or
not
productive,.
G
Sure
I
can
address
that,
sir.
The
the
the
bill
requires
that
a
decommissioning
plan
be
filed
as
part
of
an
applicant
before
the
signing
boards.
It
has
to
be
part
of
their
application.
G
And
then,
when
you
come
over
a
little
bit
later
in
the
bill,
it
requires
that
the
actual
decommissioning
bond,
a
copy
of
that
must
be
filed
prior
to
the
commencement
of
construction
and
then
there's
other
provisions
that
make
sure
that,
if
there's
any
transfer
of
ownership
of
the
facility
that
the
new
acquirer
has
to
provide
either
an
adoption
of
the
existing
bond
or
a
replacement
bond
prior
to
them
acquiring
the
facility.
So
it
it
once
it's
once
the
bond's
in
place.
It
would
be
all
the
way
through
the
end
of
the
decommissioning
phase.
C
F
Yes
in
statute
in
the
in
the
language
there's
there
has
to
be
an
update
at
least
every
five
years
in
that
amount
by
a
independent
professional
engineer.
So,
yes,
that
is
in
the
language.
E
Yeah,
I
just
had
one
what
triggers
the
decommissioning
process
I
mean.
Is
the
life
of
these
solar
panels
at
40,
30
percent
20
percent,
I
mean.
Is
there
any
mechanism
that
a
land
owner
could
sit
there
and
say
no,
it's
still
producing,
even
though
it's
just
barely
trickling
or
or
is
there
anything
like
that.
G
Yeah,
primarily,
it's
you're
going
to
be
looking
at.
What's
the
end
of
the
lease
for,
for
which
the
facility
is
cited,
it's
conceivable
that
a
project
you
know
could
extend
the
lease
terms,
so
it
would
go
longer,
and
so
maybe
market
factors
come
into
play
as
well,
but
primarily
you're
going
to
be
looking
at.
What's
the
least.
J
D
D
County
and
city
have
the
ability
to
deal
with
this
currently
through
the
use
of
planning
and
zoning,
and
I
see
this
as
kind
of
a
end
around
around
that,
and
this
is
not
something
that
we
saw
coming
years
ago
and
there'll
be
something
else
down
the
road
years
from
now,
and
are
we
going
to
have
little
carve
outs
for
those
that
don't
want
to
take
on
the
difficult
issue
of
implementing
planning
and
zoning
in
in
their
town
or
county
or
or
are
we
going
to
insist
that
it
be
used
in
that
way
going
forward,
because
everything
we've
talked
about
from
both
sides
could
be
accomplished
by
planning
and
zoning?
D
I
Chairman,
thank
you
ed.
We
we
do
have
you
know
currently
every
approval
that
the
signing
board
has
given
has
had
a
decommissioned
bond
requirement
to
it.
Putting
it
in
statute
is
a
step
forward,
you're,
absolutely
right
to
give
them
that
legislative,
clear
legislative
authority
to
do
so,
but
they've
not
let
any
of
them
out
the
gate.
Without
a
decommissioning
bond.
A
Bill
does
pass
with
favorable
expression
same
on
the
house
floor.
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
Thank
you,
representative
branson.
If
you
want
to,
you
may
want
to
stay
at
the
table,
I
think
you've
got
another
bill
coming
yeah.
A
You
we'll
just
introduce
yourselves
for
the
record
again.
This
is
house
bill,
399.
E
A
Motion
in
a
second,
the
motion
made
by
representative
thomas,
the
second
by
representative
lockett,
if
you
all,
would
just
give
us
a
brief
update
on
what
the
sub
does.
A
F
F
Prior
priorities
of
state
funds
received
through
local
government
economic
assistance
funds
and
municipal
road
aid
funds
house
bill
399
allows
those
citizen
comments
at
a
time
that
may
be
more
convenient
for
the
citizens
when
they
can
address
several
issues
simultaneously,
instead
of
requiring
a
specially
called
public
meeting,
and
we
hear
from
city
officials
that
tell
us
that
usually
no
one
attends
these
public
meetings
or
public
hearings.
However,
citizens
often
attend
the
regularly
scheduled
council
or
commission
meeting.
A
J
Thank
you.
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
I
just
want
to
briefly
say
thank
you
for
bringing
this
bill
up.
I
do
support
this.
I
have
around
25
suburban
cities
in
jefferson
county,
which
is
about
25
of
all
cities
in
jefferson
county
and
then
other
lists
that
we
that
we
looked
at
in
terms
of
going
from
75
to
150
000
in
terms
of
budgetary
expenditures
and
so
forth.
That's
around
six,
and
if
you
took
those
other
cities
around
my
district,
that
makes
up
a
10,
so
that's
around
almost
half
of
what
we're
affecting
so.
J
I
do
appreciate
bringing
this.
It
provides
the
clarity
the
officials
already
are
bonded,
and
so
they
can
cover
themselves
in
case
something
does
happen,
but
I
just
want
to
appreciate
bringing
up
and
bringing
this
our
antiquated
bill,
our
antiquated
procedure
or
level
into
a
more
of
a
more
of
a
current
day
situation.
So
thank
you
very
much.
A
E
D
E
D
A
H
H
Thank
you,
chairman
member
chairman,
meredith
and
members
of
the
local
government
committee.
I
appreciate
the
opportunity
to
bring
this
bill
to
you
today.
We
began
working
on
this
bill
long
before
recent
events
in
western
kentucky
reminded
us
of
the
importance
of
planning
for
situations
in
which
vital
city
records
may
be
lost
or
damaged.
In
recent
years,
kentucky
has
suffered
much
damage
from
floods,
tornadoes
and
storms
of
all
kinds.
H
This
legislation
puts
in
place
options
to
replace
information
when
a
local
government
made
a
good
faith
effort
to
replace
or
recreate
a
lost
damage
or
destroyed
record.
This
includes
tampered
records
and
those
lost
through
ransom,
rare
or
cyber
attacks.
Briana
carroll
with
the
kentucky
league
of
cities,
we'll
explain
more
details
pertaining
to
this
measure
and
why
it
is
so
important
to
local
governments.
K
Thank
you,
chairman
meredith
and
members
of
the
committee
house.
Bill
351
provides
a
common
sense
answer
for
local
governments
that
suffer
catastrophic
events
such
as
recent
tornadoes,
flooding
fires
in
addition
to
malicious
attacks
such
as
disgruntled
employees
or
cyber
crime.
There
have
been
17
federally
declared
disasters
in
kentucky
since
2015,
including
re,
the
related
tornadoes,
severe
storms,
flooding,
landslides,
mudslides,
snowstorms
ice
storms
and
straight-line
winds.
K
These
disasters
typically
cover
multiple
cities
counties
and
there
have
been
damage
to
public
buildings
such
as
the
recent
damage
to
the
mayfield
city
hall,
the
more
records
move
to
electronic
formats,
the
more
likely
that
they
are
going
to
be
lost
through
ransomware
or
cyber
attacks.
Despite
redundancies
and
off-site
storage,
many
of
these
records
are
irreplaceable
house
bill.
351
requ
requires
local
govern
governments
to
make
good
faith,
attempt
to
replace
and
recreate
these
lost,
damaged
or
destroyed
records
by
contacting
the
individual
or
entity
in
charge
of
producing
or
storing
the
record
recreating
the
record.
K
If
the
data
is
available
seeking
a
copy
from
an
individual
or
entity
that
has
one
if
the
local
government
cannot
replace
or
recreate
the
record
officials
could
file
an
affidavit.
That
includes
the
following:
the
statutory
citation
requiring
transmission
of
a
record,
a
description
of
how
the
record
was
lost,
damaged
or
destroyed
steps.
The
local
government
took
to
attempt
to
reconstruct
the
record
and
any
data
the
city
has
been
able
to
reconstruct.
K
The
goal
is
always
to
provide
transparency.
However,
the
reality
is
sometimes
that
the
reconstructing
decades
of
public
records
may
not
be
possible.
That
is
what
this
bill
addresses
and
allowing
local
governments
to
file
this
affidavit
will
help
ensure
that
they
do
not
miss
out
on
vital
funding
opportunities
when
they
need
when
they
are
needed.
The
most.