►
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).
C
D
E
F
F
F
A
All
right,
we
have
a
quorum
to
conduct
a
business
first
up,
we're
gonna.
Well,
first
up
is
this
just
to
make
sure
everyone
knows
we
have
multiple
committees
proceeding
at
the
same
time,
so
there
will
be
people
coming
in
and
out
and
we
may
have
to
hold
at
some
points
to
make
sure
we
have
sufficient
numbers
to
bring
a
matter
before
the
committee
and
then
second,
if
I'm
not
mistaken,
we
have
a
member
representative
bowling
who
may
have
a
special
guest.
Thank.
H
You
Mr
chair,
I've,
got
my
son
Harrison,
he's
eight
years
old,
he's
in
second
grade
and
he's
following
me
around
today
and
learning
the
ropes
and
hopefully
will
give
me
the
wisdom.
I
need
to
get
through
the
day
so
well.
A
A
H
A
A
C
You
Mr
chairman
I,
will
again
spare
you
the
pain
of
reading
the
entire
title.
This
is
the
claims
Bill.
We
do
it
every
year
and
if
you
have
any
questions
whatsoever,
are
we
glad
to
divert
them
to
either?
One
of
these
members
have.
I
H
H
H
K
L
I
G
K
G
J
J
J
A
A
We
have
government-owned
buildings,
publicly
owned
that
were
probably
under
capacity
at
the
time.
The
events
take
place,
so
you
have
a
catastrophic
event
come
through
and
your
facility
for
say
a
police
station
or
for
EMS
or
for
something
that
the
government
essential
government
service
may
have
actually
been
under
capacity.
At
that
point,
seventy
percent
of
what
was
needed-
80
percent-
they
may
have
actually
been
in
the
planning
stage
of
how
do
we
bring
this
up
to
par,
to
render
efficient
services
and
effective
services
to
everybody?
A
We
have
funds
available
in
the
west
and
the
East
for
those
things
that
have
been
affected
by
those
disasters.
This
would
allow
those
funds
to
also
be
used.
So
when
a
government
wants
to
undertake
rebuilding
or
replacing
facilities,
essential
government
services,
as
mentioned,
they
can
actually
access
the
funds,
WK
and
EK
safe
to
assist
with
that,
and
not
only
just
bring
it
up
to
then
capacity
which
may
have
been
under.
We
actually
allow
them
to
go
ahead
and
hit
up
to
120
percent
of
what
their
current
need
might
be.
A
So
that
way,
we're
not
just
putting
money
in
for
present
or
actually
go
ahead
and
letting
a
small
investment
take
place
for
future
needs.
So
those
communities
won't
have
to
come
back
as
quickly
and
utilize
their
own
funds
to
bring
up
to
capacity
as
it
grows.
The
structure
is
set
up
so
that
you
access
these
funds
by
application
and
it'll
be
set
up
as
a
loan
of
no
more
than
20
years,
with
zero
percent
interest
in
the
main
purpose.
A
Behind
that
loan
is
not
to
make
it
a
loan
necessarily,
but
we
think
that
this
will
assist
them
possibly
and
being
able
to
apply
for
FEMA
reimbursements,
and
that
way
some
money
can
be
pulled
back
into
the
fund
for
use
again.
Payments
on
the
loans
would
come
back
into
the
fund
for
the
life
of
the
fund
when
the
fund
closes
down
I
think
in
26,
then
it'll
just
simply
come
back
into
the
budget
Reserve
fund,
as
those
payments
are
made
back
in
if
any
loans
are
outstanding.
J
J
Committee,
sub
and
representative
Petrie
has
just
explained
the
committee
sub
the
chair.
We're
now
entertain
a
motion
on
the
committee
sub
motion.
We
then
properly
moved
and
second
is
there
any
discussion
all
those
in
favor,
please
signify
by
saying
aye,
all
those
opposed,
nay
committee
sub
has
now
adopted.
Committee
sub
is
before
us.
It
has
just
been
explained.
The
chair
will
now
entertain
a
motion
for.
E
J
H
K
M
K
J
House
Bill
446,
as
amended
by
the
committee
sub,
haven't
received
21,
yes,
votes,
no,
nay,
votes,
no
pass
votes
passes
for
favorable
Expressions
same
on
the
house.
Floor
representative,
Petrie,
House,
Bill
455
is
now
before
us
and
you
do
have
a
guest
at
the
table.
Representative
Flannery
representative
Flannery.
Please
introduce
yourself
for
the
record
State.
J
A
J
A
Essentially,
the
committee
sub
on
455
does
the
following:
we
have
by
schedule
a
certain
judicial
projects
that
are
in
the
pipeline
at
various
stages
of
design,
architect,
engineering
or
maybe
even
about
ready
to
start
go
to
bonding
this
bill
tries
to
address
those
projects
because
each
and
every
one
of
them
have
essentially
received
fairly
substantial
increases
in
cost
of
construction.
A
These
particular
projects
are
really
not
amenable
to
my
first
response
of
of.
Can
we
not
do
the
project
because
they're
too
far
along?
Can
we
defer?
Not
really?
Can
we
slow
it
down
now?
These
are
too
far
in
the
pipeline,
and
the
process
has
gone
too
deep,
so
we
really
have
no
option,
except
for
it
to
shut
them
down
and
lose
whatever
gain.
We've
had
in
each
one
of
those
projects
and
Investments
they're
in
or
to
make
an
accommodation
to
let
them
proceed
through
the
through
the
process.
A
So
this
would
allow
them
to
proceed
to
that
process
by
increasing
the
scope,
which
means
that
there
would
be
a
greater
cross
to
the
project
increase
the
scope,
which
second
phase
would
be
to
increase
the
use
allowance,
which
is
the
payment.
That's
made
back
to
make
sure
that
the
bond
payments
are
made
for
the
project
itself.
That's
something
that
the
state
will
have
to
deal
with,
and
we've
also
allowed
this
to
go.
These
particular
sets
of
projects
to
have
bonding
that
go
out
to
25
years
rather
than
the
normal
20..
A
If
we
do
20,
it
increases
our
cost
by
double
on
what
the
payment
would
be
on
the
use
allowance.
If
we
pull
the
25,
it
essentially
cuts
it
in
half,
which
is
much
more
manageable.
We
don't
want
to
nor
look
to
do
this
in
any
other
aspect,
but
these
are
so
far
along
the
pipeline.
There's
so
many
of
them-
and
it
is
an
essential
government
service
that
we
are
going
to
have
to
do
something
with
them.
I
H
H
K
I
K
K
J
E
J
Representative
Chris
Fugue
at
84th
District.
Please
raise
your
right
hand.
You
swear
affirm
to
tell
the
truth
the
whole
truth
and
nothing,
but
the
truth
will
help
you
God.
Yes,
sure
do
you
may
proceed.
We
do
have
a
motion
and
a
second
on
the
committee
sub.
Is
there
any
discussion
all
those
in
favor,
please
signal
Papa,
saying
I,
all
those
opposed,
nay
committee
sub
is
adopted.
Representative.
You
may
proceed.
Thank.
A
You
Mr
chairman
house
joint
resolution
76,
as
admitted
by
the
committee
sub,
would
address
and
do
the
following:
House
Bill
one
from
last
year,
budget
Bill
had
set
aside
up
to
150
million
dollars
to
be
utilized
by
the
tourism
for
improvements
to
the
overall
State
Park
system.
A
That
funding
was
made
available
and
also
lack
funding
of
250
million
was
made
available
to
the
to
the
fire
board.
Each
of
those,
and
in
particular
this
one
on
tourism,
was
set
up
so
that
make
a
make
an
analysis,
make
a
report
certain
things
to
be
included,
get
that
report
back
to
the
general
assembly.
So
we
can
look
it
over.
Consider
it
and
there
had
to
be
an
actual
approval
of
the
reports
in
part
or
whole
to
let
the
money
go
on
out,
even
though
it
had
been
appropriated.
A
The
Senate,
as
I
understand,
has
taken
up
the
matter
of
the
fair
board
and
that
will
be
coming
to
us
we're
taking
up
the
matter
of
tourism
in
that
section
and
that's
what
we
have
on
for
today.
We
had
a
joint
session
of
Senate
and
House
a
r
some
time
ago,
but
not
very
long.
A
The
reports
have
been
out
since
December,
1
or
thereabouts,
so
everyone
should
have
had
time
to
look
over
those
and
listen
and
talk
with
Commissioners
and
secretaries,
and
so
what
the
opinion
is
at
this
point
is:
we
would
authorize
the
release
of
40
40
million
dollars
in
Capital
Construction
for
Campground
upgrades
and
6
million
in
Capital
Construction
funds
for
Broadband
upgrades
for
high-speed
internet
and
wireless
capabilities
across
the
entire
park
system
appreciate
what
tourism
has
given
us
back
as
far
as
a
report
and
their
attempts
at
going.
A
What
is
the
vision
and
the
pieces
and
components
we
were
looking
for?
I
understand,
also
that
this
next
year,
when
we
should
all
take
note
of
this,
if
I
understand
it
correctly,
we'll
be
the
100th
anniversary
of
the
state
park
system.
So
I'm
hopeful
that
over
the
interim,
we
can
continue
to
develop
a
program
of
overall
Visionary
program
of
where
the
park
system
needs
to
be
for
the
next
20
50
100
years
after
next
year
and
I
hope
that
we've
got
something
in
phone.
A
So
we
can
all
agree
on
and
get
started
next
session,
even
for
the
100th
anniversary
in
the
meanwhile,
the
40
million
for
campgrounds
and
the
6
million
for
wireless
are
kind
of
two
independent
modules
that
can
stand
alone
almost
regardless
of
what
the
overall
vision
of
the
system
as
a
whole
might
be.
Wireless
is
one
of
those
things
or
Wi-Fi
Broadband,
as
well
as
things
whenever
you
visit
almost
any
park.
Unless
you
want
to
go
to
a
remote
Campground
that
doesn't
have
it
for
that
particular
purpose.
You
don't
want
to
be
contacted
most.
A
Everyone
else
wants
to
be
able
to
make
contact
with
a
loved
one
or
business
or
something
or
check
information
see
what's
available
in
the
area.
So
that's
just
an
essential
thing
that
we
think
really
needs
to
be
moved
on,
regardless
of
what
the
overall
plan
is
somewhat
the
same
way
from
the
campgrounds.
If
you
remember
tourism's
presentation
and
inside
there
report,
campgrounds
is
probably
the
one
area
that
we
can
all
identify
right
now
that
is
widely
used.
A
It
generally
has
probably
the
best
Roi
and
it's
something
that
into
the
future
at
least
near
future
and
somewhat
medium
term.
Future
is
probably
going
to
continue
with
that
type
of
Roi,
because
we
have
such
a
great
system
to
offer
Campground
activity
now.
This
would
upgrade
then
and
hopefully
attract
more
people
from
inside
the
state
as
well
as
outside
the
state.
A
K
D
Thank
you,
Mr
chairman,
thank
you
for
presenting
the
bill,
but
I
do
have
a
question,
because
a
lot
of
our
state
parks
are
rural,
economic
drivers.
They
provide
jobs,
the
local
folks
say
they
love
their
state
parks.
So
why
do
we
want
to
move
the
150
million
away
from
all
the
parks.
A
Yes,
sir
good
question
so
just
to
make
sure
make
clear:
I
didn't
misspeak
we're
not
moving
away
the
150
million
up
to
150
million
was
made
available.
We
are
we're
indicating
at
least
the
houses
would
be
indicating
the
house
approval
to
move
forward
with
40
million
of
the
150
Ford
campgrounds
and
at
least
6
million
for
a
wireless
Broadband,
so
that
46
would
continue
to
move
it's
the
rest
of
it
that
we're
not
seeing
a
Clear
Vision
of
overall.
A
What
are
we
going
to
do
and
what's
the
private
involvement
and
who's
actually
interested
in
some
senses,
tourism
and
their
project
is
a
more
difficult
project
than
the
fair
board.
Had
the
fair
board
has
their
assets
somewhat
in
a
locate
in
a
reasonably
close
geographic
region
region.
They
also
have
numbers
that
they
can
track
really
really
quickly.
They
can
project
out
one
three
five
years,
what
they
expect
to
attract
and
what
the
ROI
is,
and
they
have
a
facility.
That's
well
known.
Unfortunately,
tourism.
A
We
have
a
great
Park
system
that
I
love,
but
it's
also
spread
over
the
Commonwealth,
which
is
the
way
it
should
be,
which
makes
it
much
more
difficult,
I
think
more
complex
to
actually
present
an
overall
Vision,
both
from
an
Roi.
What's
going
to
work
in
the
future
as
population
demographics
change
and
wants
and
needs
a
desires
change.
And
how
do
we
make
sure
that
we
don't
step
out
on
one
park
or
one
idea
and
we
go
oops
I
wish
we'd
done
something
a
little
different.
A
It
doesn't
fit
into
the
overall
plan
and
that's
what
we're
hoping
to
work
on
over
the
interim,
so
we're
not
holding
up
the
150
there's
no
intention
of
doing
that
from
the
outside.
It's
proceed
with
the
40
and
the
six
on
those
two
modules
will
continue
to
work
on
the
remainder
over
the
interim
and
I
hope
that
we
can
come
back
in
24
with
a
better,
with
a
better
idea
on
the
vision.
N
Thank
you,
Mr
chairman
I
speak
for
the
people,
and
the
people
want
pickleball
and
Yurts.
We've
heard
it
I've
heard
it
several
times.
I
wanted
to
ask
you
in
that
potential
budget
language
of
150
million
dollars.
It
was
contingent
on
this
comprehensive
plan
that
the
parks
department
would
bring
to
us.
I've
personally
seen
it
presented
three
times
and
I
was
convinced.
N
Apparently
you
were
not
but
I'm
worried
that
there
were
some
things
that
were
required
of
them,
that
where
it
was
impossible
to
succeed
right
to
detail
public-private
Partnerships
in
the
park
system
that
have
never
happened
before
and
I've
heard,
you
say
many
times
quantify
quantify
quantify
it's
really
difficult
to
quantify
quality
of
life
and
our
Park
system
is
critical
to
the
quality
of
life
of
kentuckians.
So
I
wanted
to
ask
you
about
that
process
of
The
Proposal.
What
was
not
satisfactory
to
you
in
there
and
and
why
was
it
not
set
up
for
failure.
A
One
not
set
up
for
failure.
Two,
as
you
heard
me
say
repeatedly
individually
and
in
group,
settings
quantify
quantify
quantify
ROI
ROI
ROI,
but
it's
not
all
about
the
math
all
the
time.
There's
quality
of
life
there
are
unquantifiables,
it's
the
it's,
the
palatable
part
of
it
that
you're
looking
for
also
that
has
True
Value
to
it.
A
So
yes,
but
when
I
look
at
this
plan,
first
off
put
in
a
little
bit
of
context,
we
have
money
from
several
years
ago
that
was
a
tune
of
about
50
million
dollars,
absolutely
necessary
upgrades
to
the
parks,
there's
still
a
good
portion
of
that.
That
hasn't
been
let
out
yet
not
because
we
haven't
approved
it.
It's
just
been
sitting
around
for
years,
because
there
are
difficulties
of
dealing
with
multiple,
multiple
properties
and
other
logistical
items,
but
the
fact
is
is
up
until
recently,
very
recently,
a
large
portion
of
that
hadn't
been
utilized.
A
Yet
when
we
look
at
this
plan,
although
we
have
some
modules
like
yep,
that
seems
mature
and
it
seems
like
a
good
Roi
both
on
math
as
well
as
quality,
the
other
ones.
Just
don't
have
that
same
appearance.
So
if
I
thought
they
don't
have
a
chance
of
doing
this,
then
I
wouldn't
be
talking
about
looking
at
it
in
the
interim
and
trying
to
get
it
ready
for
24..
I
still
want
them
to
be
able
to
get
it
done,
but
it's
just
not
reached
the
level
of
yes.
A
This
is
mature
enough
and
I
can
quantify
it
in
the
two
ways
that
we've
talked
about
on
the
ROI.
That's
sufficient
understand:
I,
like
Parks
I,
like
quality
of
life,
I've
never
played
pickleball,
but
I
look
forward
to
one
day
doing
so,
but
we're
also
charged
with
making
sure
that
we
use
taxpayers
money
to
the
optimal
amount,
because
it's
not
ours.
This
I
can't
get
behind.
Except
for
on
these
two
modules.
M
Representative
I
know
especially
from
House
Bill,
one
that
the
primary
objective-
and
it's
probably
fair
to
say
your
objective
too-
is
to
reduce
income
tax,
go
to
a
more
consumptive
based
tax
reform
system.
Okay,
it's
very
much
common
sense
to
me.
If
our
objective
is
to
lower
the
tax
burden
of
our
residents,
the
most
common
sense
way
to
do
that
is
to
increase
our
tax
revenues
from
non-residents,
which
are
basically
tourism
and
one
of
our
biggest
drivers
in
the
state
of
our
tourism
dollars
is
our
state
park
system.
M
A
Yeah
good
on
the
move
from
in
tax
on
income
over
to
consumption,
and
yes,
you
would
want
to
bring
in
people
from
outside
of
the
state.
And
yes,
the
parks
are
a
good
mechanism
to
do
that.
You
can
also
waste
money.
That
is
not
well
organized
and
well
thought
through
and
go.
Let's
throw
some
money
at
the
problem
and
hope
we
bring
people
in.
A
You
may
get
a
positive
return,
but
it'll
be
a
wasteful
positive,
because
you've
had
a
lot
of
lost
opportunities
from
not
thoughtfully
thinking
through
the
process
of
how
the
money
is
going
to
be
spent
and
how
it's
going
to
be
phased
in
over
time.
Whether
or
not
a
particular
park
has,
in
the
future,
an
Roi
that's
worth
pursuing
or
whether
there's
another
property
in
the
Commonwealth
that
might
be
added
on
to
the
roles
of
the
state
park
system
because
it
has
a
promising
Roi
and
then,
even
more
importantly,
in
order
to
optimize
those
taxpayer
dollars.
A
Even
though
you
may
have
an
issue
of
proprietary,
don't
want
to
disclose
a
particular
deal,
but
we
can
get
into
what
the
deals
in
the
abstract
conceptually
they
are
or
if
we
have
any
at
this
point,
we
don't
know
whether
there's
any
private
involvement
or
not
it's
a
great
way
and
you've
seen
several
bills.
This
session
that
tries
to
leverage
private
interest,
along
with
public
interest,
to
maximize
those
public
dollars,
not
seeing
that
here
so
I'm
in
agreement
with
all
the
objectives.
I
just
think
that
this
is
not
the
optimal
way
to
proceed
with
it.
A
However,
if
you
look
at
those
two
modules
that
we're
talking
about
moving
forward
with
there's
no
withholding
of
funding,
because
the
funding
has
been
made
available
for
consideration-
it's
not
been
given,
but
the
thing
about
it
is:
it's
got
to
get
another
piece
of
approval
before
it
can
go
out
the
door.
This
is
where
we
run
into
a
hitch
of
we've,
given
them
the
opportunity
showing
what
the
what
it
is,
what
the
target
is.
They've
gotten
close
I
think
they've
hit
it
on
these
two
modules
here.
A
M
One
follow-up:
okay:
has
this
process
of
appropriating
money
to
a
specific
purpose
and
then
requiring
that
I
don't
know
if
I
would
call
it
an
entity,
but
the
person,
the
the
entity
or
purpose
that
it
has
received.
The
appropriation
now
has
to
come,
come
back
to
justify
it
in
a
certain
way
to
access
that
appropriation.
Shouldn't
that
be
a
process
done
prior
to
appropriation,
and
has
this
been
done
in
the
past
this
way
or.
A
I'm
not
sure
about
what
has
been
done
in
the
past
as
far
as
whether
this
type
of
mechanism
has
been
used,
I
know,
then
thought
processes
and
a
r
for
the
last
two
years
we've
been
looking
at
this
type
of
process
and
the
reason
being
is:
let's
take
this
one,
for
instance,
had
we
last
session
said
well,
let's
talk
about
it
for
a
while.
Could
we
get
a
consensus,
that's
good
enough
to
move
forward.
We
might
be
in
the
24
session
saying:
okay,
do
we
even
have
the
money
available?
A
Do
we
have
a
sufficient
plan
and
then
we're
in
25
coming
back
going
well?
Can
we
do
this
in
an
off-budget
year
and
put
the
money
in
if
we
now
have
a
full
plan?
This
was
actually
a
way
to
go
and
say:
look.
We
have
money
available
a
priority
as
state
parks
in
the
development
long
term,
that
money
will
remain
there
as
far
as
I'm
concerned
as
an
opportunity.
Let's
see
if
we
can
get
the
right
use
for
it,
I
think
this
actually
speeds
up
the
process
rather
than
slowing
it
down.
O
Thank
you,
Mr,
chair
chairman,
thank
you
very
much
for
your
diligence
and
and
making
sure
that
the
I
guess
all
departments
and
cabinets
have
a
mission
and
an
understanding
of
I
want
to
ask
this
a
question
you
mentioned
just
a
few
minutes
ago
how
the
money's
been
sitting
around
and
so
forth
and
I
appreciate
you
delineating
the
46
million
versus
the
other,
and
you
have
having
a
vision
that
they
have
a
more
of
a
consolid
vision
with
a
good,
strong
Roi.
O
Do
you
see
any
thing
in
that
remaining
part
that
is
delayed
because
of
of
just
because
of
just
I
guess,
procurement
issues
or
any
any
type
of
perception
in
terms
of
trying
to
get
these
things
out
the
door
sooner.
A
I
appreciate
that
has
been
discussed
in
some
other
I
think
budget
review
may
have
taken
this
up
at
some
point
in
time
may
have
been
taking
up
an
Roi
I
mean
our
anr.
A
There
are
going
to
be
different
explanations
of
why
it
took
so
long
for
that
money
to
be
let
out
it
may
be
tourism,
it
may
be
Finance,
it
may
be
Logistics.
It
may
be
supply
shortages.
To
be
honest
with
you,
I,
don't
know
that
I
can
put
my
finger
on
just
one
cause
of
the
one
significant
cause.
There
are
some
to
believe.
It's
mismanagement,
some
that
believe.
A
It's
misplanting,
some
people
believe
it's
no
interest
in
it
and
then
all
the
other
things
I've
mentioned
sitting
here
today
and
under
oath
I,
can't
tell
you
that
I've
got
a
finger
on
one
particular
or
two
particular
things.
That's
the
cause
of
it.
Others
have
a
stronger
feelings
and
and
thoughts
about
it
than
I
do
but
I
can't
look
in
line
and
tell
you.
This
is
what
it
is
at
this
point.
I
just
know
for
a
fact
that
it
has
lingered
for
an
extremely
long
time,
which
I
will,
for
one
can't
accept.
P
Thank
you
Mr
chair,
and
this
may
be
more
of
a
comment
than
a
question,
but
I
I
appreciate
I'm,
sorry,
your
explanations
and
and
things
but
I
am
I'm
still
failing
to
see.
I
feel
like
half
of
this
proposal
was
really
going
toward
the
customer
experience.
So
there
was
talk
about
improving
the
accommodations
to
Lodge
rooms
and
cottages
and
upgrading
those
there
was
a
swimming
pools
mentioned.
P
I
think
that
eight
out
of
the
27
are
not
even
functional
right
now
and
in
those
are
things
that
would
draw
people
in
and
I
think
that
they're
also
for
local
folks.
Some
some
of
those
pools
are
probably
the
only
pool
that
they
have
access
to
so
the
money
that
we're
seeing.
That
would
be
directly
impacting
customer
experience,
which
would
only
increase
usage
and
increase
dollars.
P
A
I,
understand
and
I
have
the
same
concern
and
we
want
to
get
that
Roi
because
Roi
back
as
fast
as
possible,
but
it's
a
character
flaw
on
my
part.
I
guess:
I
have
to
see
the
full
vision
and
I
have
to
be
able
to
analyze
that
and
make
sure
that
each
step
is
not
going
to
commit
you
to
something
where
you've
just
wasted
or
had
lost
opportunities
that
it
fits
in
reasonably
within
a
full
process.
In
reviewing
this
I
just
can't
get
there,
it
doesn't
mean
I'm
right.
A
It
just
means
I
personally,
when
I
analyze
it
it's
not.
There
I
see
too
many
missteps
that
can
happen.
It's
just
not
mature
and
complete,
as
I
can
look
at
you
and
I
go.
This
is
good.
It
needs
to
be
done
because
I
think
in
one
two
three
years,
I'm
going
to
have
people
come
back
to
me
at
that
point
and
go
why
in
the
world,
because
this
is
what's
happened-
I
don't
want
that
I
want
to
make
sure
we
optimally
use
this
and
then
I,
understand.
I.
Think
everybody's
approached
us
in
good
faith.
A
How
do
we
make
this
better?
The
great
thing
is:
I
haven't
heard
any
comments
here
or
really
about
this
of
Tourism
shouldn't
get
this
or
tourism
needs
to
go
away
or
the
state
parks
need
to
go
away.
I'm,
not
hurting
anything
like
that
at
all.
It's
just
a
question
of
I'm
happy
with
the
questions
and
comments
today,
because
they're
all
geared
toward
what.
How
do
we
do
this?
How
do
we
get
this
done
and
how
do
we
do
it?
The
right
way,
at
least
we're
all
pointed
in
the
same
direction?
I
just
can't!
J
Representative
Petrie
representative
fugit,
if
you
all,
could
go
back
to
the
first
row
and
stand
by
commissioner
Meyer
I
think
you
signed
up
to
speak.
If
you
have
any
guests,
please
bring
them
up
with
you
at
this
time.
J
If
y'all
would
please
identify
yourselves
for
the
record.
L
Q
J
L
Thank
you
chair.
Thank
you.
Representatives
we've
been
here
quite
a
bit
over
the
last
month
month
and
a
half
and
are
very
appreciative
of
your
time
appreciative
of
the
Vision
forward
to
a
lot
and
give
Kentucky
state
parks,
150
million
dollars,
we're
here
to
tell
you
why
we
need
the
other
104
million,
which
is
very
important
to
get
started.
L
As
you
know,
this
is
not
about
Kentucky
state
parks.
This
is
about
your
community.
This
is
about
the
people
in
your
community.
This
is
about
the
people
throughout
the
Commonwealth
of
Kentucky,
that
believe
in
Kentucky
spot
state
parks
and
the
components
that
it
brings
to
our
great
state
through
tourism,
Economic
Development,
what
it
does
for
creating
jobs
in
your
own
communities
throughout
the
state.
As
you
all
know,
the
ones
that
have
had
have
parks
in
your
districts
or
close
to
your
districts
as
you
call
on
state
parks
for
help
and
answers
to.
L
What's
going
on
in
your
state
parks,
we're
there
we're
there
to
answer
questions,
and
we
ask
you
to
be
there
for
Kentucky
state
parks.
Today,
representative
and
chair
Petrie
has
met
with
us
several
times
and
and
read.
We
appreciate
your
open
door
and
bringing
us
in
to
to
meet
with
you
on
this
150
million
I
want
to
say
that
we
put
this
proposal
in
front
of
in
front
of
you
all
on
December,
1.
L
I,
don't
know
how
many
of
you
all
have
read
this
thoroughly
at
all,
but
we
did
not
hire
a
consultant
to
put
this
plan
together.
We
took
approximately
20
Parks
staff
members
team
members,
sat
down
for
a
seven
month
period
of
time
and
put
this
plan
together.
This
is
Straight
From,
the
Heart
straight
from
your
communities.
Straight
from
you.
L
L
L
Utility
improvements,
20
million
dollars,
as
many
of
you
all
know-
or
maybe
you
don't
know-
we
have
mentioned
several
times
in
our
meetings-
we
own
the
infrastructure
grids
in
13
of
our
state
parks
across
our
state,
kdv
being
one
of
them
in
2021,
kdv,
Kentucky
dam
Village,
one
of
our
biggest
state
parks
that
we're
so
proud
of
and
I
know.
You
are
in
your
in
the
in
the
Western
Kentucky
and
Land
Between.
The
Lakes
was
shut
down
32
days
because
of
a
grid
outage.
L
L
L
I
just
think
we
need
to
take
a
hard
look
at
the
allotment
that
we
have
here.
Campground
upgrades
you're
willing
to
move
forward
with
that
building
system.
Improvements
read
through
this
proposal,
read
through
how
we've
carefully
and
inclusively
with
you
all.
L
L
Let's
get
it
for
our
communities,
let's
get
it
for
the
state
for
our
state
for
the
Commonwealth
of
Kentucky,
let's
get
it
for
the
people
in
our
communities.
Let's
do
the
right
thing
here:
get
the
150
million
dollars
going
now,
because
the
only
thing
we're
going
to
do
by
not
moving
forward
with
the
full
150
million
that
we
have
proposed
we're
going
to
increase
the
expenses
that
go
along
with
this.
L
As
you
can
see
what
has
happened
just
in
the
last
two
years
and
in
years
to
come,
nothing's
going
to
get
cheaper
the
longer
we
wait,
the
more
expensive
it's
going
to
get.
We
put
great
people
in
place.
We
have
an
excellent
team
and
you
all
know
them
well
we're
communicating
with
you
each
and
every
day.
Q
Q
Q
Q
We've
met
with
wkrecc,
wherever
they
have
told
us
that
they
would
meet
with
their
board.
If
we
are
able
to
use
monies
and
clear
those
right-of-ways,
then
they
would
take
them
over,
possibly
with
their
votes.
That's
strong
for
those
in
Eastern
Kentucky.
We
did
that
at
break
Center,
State
Park
recently,
so
like
my
great
grandfather
that
played
there
at
Cumberland,
Falls
and
I
hope
you've
been
there.
If
you
haven't
it's
one
of
our
Premier
parks,
he
had
a
vision.
Q
Q
P
Q
Q
number
one
in
restaurant
Revenue
number
two
in
the
number
of
golf
courses
number
two
in
the
number
of
swimming
pools
at
27,
which
we
just
got
done.
Saying
representative
Stevenson
that
we
need
help
with
most
of
our
pools
are
aging
we're
number
five
and
revenue
net
of
entrance
fees
and
we
don't
even
charge
a
fee
to
come
to
our
state
parks.
Q
L
Yes,
sir,
don't
do
this
for
Kentucky
state
parks?
Do
it
for
your
communities
do
for
the
people
that
are
hard-working
people
in
your
communities
that
want
to
see
them
Thrive
because
they
need
this.
Our
Parks
need
this.
Your
communities
need
this
and
it's
time
to
get
it
started
now.
That's
all
I
ask
thank
you.
I
Yes,
Sharon
well,
I
was
sitting
here.
One
of
my
local
constituents
sent
me
a
question
and
the
question
is:
do
we
Outsource
any
of
our
contracts
out
of
state
people
like
for
camping
and
they've
got
down
here,
America
Incorporated
when
we
contract
them
for
camping
and
they
take
those
reservations
they
want
to
know
if
that's
Outsourcing,
to
out-state
jobs,
where
our
high
school
students
can't
work
there
in
the
summer.
Q
Campgrounds
are
very
dear
to
my
heart:
we
have
about
30,
campgrounds
and
since
Circa
I
know
I'm
under
oath,
so
I'm
going
to
give
a
guesstimate
here
around
2006.
Q
With
our
bid
processes,
we
went
with
a
company
called
Reserve,
America,
yeah
and
Reserve
America
does
her
reservations,
but
no,
we
depend
on
our
workers
at
those
booths.
Those
kids
that
need
a
job
are
working
in
our
campgrounds
they're
gaining
the
interpretation.
They
need
to
better
themselves
moving
forward.
It's
a
proud
moment
to
have
that
in
our
Park
system,
I
say
that
because
I
started
my
career
as
a
seasonal
in
1987.
Q
F
O
Thank
you.
Mr
chairman
commission,
you
said
mentioned
something
about
Tennessee
I'm
down
here
in
front
of
you
second
lap.
There
you
go,
you
mentioned
Tennessee
and
comparing
them
to
you
all.
Can
you
give
me
a
quick
answer
in
terms
of
how
you
compare
to
Tennessee
what,
when
it
comes
to
getting
the
procurements
in
the
process
and
get
it
out
and
make
it
making
sure
it
comes
into
fruition,
because
Mr
Maple
Mr
Myers
mentioned
something
about
you
know
it's
been.
Q
Q
J
A
A
Coming
at
the
proposal
with
his
objective,
as
we
can
for
the
purposes
of
already
mentioned,
with
the
concerns
already
mentioned,
so
I'll
look
around
and
go
well,
several
of
you
have
either
been
honored
and
recognized
or
called
out.
Whichever
way
you
want
it.
A
A
J
I
H
H
R
My
vote
please:
yes,
I
the
plan
that
was
put
forward,
150
million
dollars
and
while
we're
leaving
104
million
on
the
table
and
not
investing
that
total
amount
into
the
parks
and
the
director
of
parks
and
the
assistant
director
I
think
have
made
a
good
case
for
the
plan
that
has
been
put
forward
so
based
on
that
I
vote.
No.
Thank
you.
Mr
chair.
Yes,.
H
H
K
Explained
I
guess,
vote
Yes,
sir
voting
guest
today,
but
do
have
some
questions
we'll
want
to
talk
to
Chairman
Petry
about
have
several
state
parks
in
my
district
and
it's
a
important
issue
for
my
district.
Thank
you.
Yes,
sir.
D
E
J
M
Sir
I'm
voting
no
today
and
I
want
to
make
it
very
clear
that
my
no
vote
is
not
about
releasing
40
plus
million
dollars
to
the
park
system.
My
no
vote
is
clearly
because
we
are
withholding
90
billion
dollars
from
the
park
system.
That
I
feel
is
it
extremely
important
in
generating
non-resident
spending
and
non-resident
tax
revenues,
and
that's
why
I'm
voting
now.
Thank
you.
Yes,.