# Council Planning and Public Works Committee - September 16, 2013 > Auto-transcribed civic record · September 16, 2013 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/3115 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/3115?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2013-09-16 - **Last revised**: July 15, 2026 - **Length**: 17,819 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed with OpenAI's open-source Whisper large-v3-turbo model, run locally by The Lexington Times. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude. 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 and Public Works Committee met on September 17, 2013, at 1:00 p.m., with Bill Farmer presiding. The committee addressed five agenda items during the meeting, taking three votes and hearing eight public comments. The committee approved the meeting summary, the Elm Tree Lane Sidewalk Closure, and an Adult Day Care item. One item—Private Streets: Enforcement, Maintenance, Specifications—was deferred for further consideration. The committee also approved items in committee. ## Attendance The following individuals were present at the meeting on September 16, 2013: * Bill Farmer * Jennifer Mossotti * Charles Ellinger * Steve Kay * Linda Gorton * Chris Ford * Diane Lawless * Julian Beard * Harry Clarke * Peggy Henson No members were reported absent or late. ## Votes and Decisions The council took three votes during this meeting, all of which passed unanimously. **Motion on Elm Tree Lane Sidewalk Closure** [timestamp: 01:17:26] Chris Ford moved to keep the Elm Tree Lane sidewalk open and remove the closure item from the council docket. The motion passed unanimously with all ten council members voting in favor: Bill Farmer, Jennifer Mossotti, Charles Ellinger, Steve Kay, Linda Gorton, Chris Ford, Diane Lawless, Julian Beard, Harry Clarke, and Peggy Henson. **Motion on Elm Tree Lane Sidewalk Redesign** [timestamp: 01:19:15] Chris Ford moved to request the administration to redesign the Elm Tree Lane sidewalk with improved pavement, lighting, and landscape for safety and access. The motion passed unanimously with all ten council members voting in favor: Bill Farmer, Jennifer Mossotti, Charles Ellinger, Steve Kay, Linda Gorton, Chris Ford, Diane Lawless, Julian Beard, Harry Clarke, and Peggy Henson. **Motion to Defer Private Streets Discussion** [timestamp: 01:52:35] Jennifer Mossotti moved to defer the private streets enforcement, maintenance, and specifications discussion to the next meeting. The motion passed unanimously with all ten council members voting in favor: Bill Farmer, Jennifer Mossotti, Charles Ellinger, Steve Kay, Linda Gorton, Chris Ford, Diane Lawless, Julian Beard, Harry Clarke, and Peggy Henson. ## Public Comment Eight residents spoke during the public comment period regarding a proposed closure of the Elm Tree Lane sidewalk. **Opposition to Closure** Felice Salomon [00:16:30] opposed the closure, emphasizing the sidewalk's role in neighborhood connectivity for pedestrians, cyclists, and families with strollers. She advocated for repair and maintenance instead of closure. Christian Torp [00:19:57] argued against closing the sidewalk, stating it is a vital pedestrian access route and that closure would not address underlying issues like crime or litter. He emphasized the importance of walkability and accessibility. Steve Pavey [00:21:37] testified that the sidewalk is a key walkable corridor used regularly by neighbors and supports neighborhood development. He offered to help lead a beautification effort if the sidewalk remains open. Janet Tucker [00:37:15] supported the sidewalk as a valuable community asset that promotes walkability and health. She advocated for improvement rather than closure, arguing that crime is a separate issue from infrastructure. **Support for Closure** Lorella Lederer [00:23:54] supported the closure due to safety concerns, citing drug activity, violence, and vandalism in the area. She presented a petition signed by 25 neighbors and emphasized the need to reduce crime. Percy Thomas [00:27:50] testified that the sidewalk is dangerous and used for illicit activity, especially at night. He described it as an eyesore and a hotspot for crime, and supported closure for public safety. Patricia Dyer [00:34:37] reported witnessing drug activity, prostitution, and fights near the sidewalk between 10 PM and 2 AM. She stated the area is unsafe and supports closure to improve neighborhood safety. **Alternative Concerns** Wanda Garr [00:30:03] expressed concern that closing the sidewalk on one side would shift foot traffic to her side of the U-shaped intersection. She questioned the extent of crime and suggested increased police presence instead. ## Contested Items **Elm Tree Lane Sidewalk Closure** The proposal to close the Elm Tree Lane sidewalk generated significant community opposition during the meeting. Residents testified about the sidewalk's importance for neighborhood connectivity, safety, and walkability. Proponents of the closure raised crime and safety concerns as justification for the measure. This created a heated debate between those prioritizing public safety and those emphasizing the need to maintain infrastructure access for pedestrians. **Private Streets Maintenance and Standards** Council members were divided on the question of whether to allow future private streets and how to enforce standards on such streets. Some council members advocated for stricter regulations to ensure consistent public standards across private developments. Others emphasized the importance of developer flexibility and expressed concern about the financial burden that strict standards would place on homeowners. This split vote reflected differing priorities regarding development oversight, infrastructure consistency, and property owner responsibilities. ## Approval of Summary The committee considered approval of the summary from the previous meeting. [timestamp: 00:03:00] **Key Speakers** - Julian Beard - Charles Ellinger **Outcome** The committee approved the summary of the previous meeting without dissent. No further discussion or action was taken. ## Elm Tree Lane Sidewalk Closure The committee discussed a proposed closure of a 200-foot section of sidewalk on Elm Tree Lane, which had been raised due to safety concerns. [timestamp: 00:06:39] Key speakers in the discussion included Chris Ford, Kevin Wente, Lorella Lederer, Christian Torp, Steve Pavey, Percy Thomas, Wanda Garr, Patricia Dyer, Janet Tucker, and Commissioner Paulson. The committee heard public testimony and engaged in debate regarding the proposed closure. Rather than proceeding with the sidewalk closure, the committee voted unanimously to keep the sidewalk open. As an alternative to closure, the committee requested that a redesign be undertaken to address the safety concerns through improved pavement, lighting, and landscaping improvements. The outcome was approved. ## Private Streets: Enforcement, Maintenance, Specifications [timestamp: 01:20:21] The committee discussed the challenges associated with maintaining private streets, including issues related to cost, enforcement, and standards. The conversation involved Jennifer Mossotti, Bill Sallee, Kevin Wente, Charlie King, Chris Ford, Harry Clarke, Peggy Henson, and Julian Beard. A primary concern raised during the discussion was the financial burden placed on the city when private streets are eventually turned over to municipal control. Committee members expressed worry about the costs and liabilities associated with accepting responsibility for streets that may not meet city standards or may require significant repairs and maintenance. The discussion addressed multiple dimensions of private street management, including: * The enforcement of maintenance standards for privately owned streets * The specifications required for private streets * The financial implications for the city when these streets transition to public ownership The committee deferred this agenda item to the next meeting for further review and consideration of potential policy changes. This deferral indicates that additional time and analysis were needed to develop comprehensive solutions to the challenges identified during the discussion. **Outcome:** Deferred to next meeting ## Adult Day Care The committee discussed and approved an amendment to the definition of adult day care center [timestamp: 00:04:00]. Key speakers on this item included Peggy Henson, Harry Clarke, and Chris Ford. The motion to amend the definition passed unanimously. Following the approval, the item was moved to the full council for report out. ## Items in Committee During this agenda item, the committee reviewed and updated its list of pending items. [timestamp: 00:59:00] **Items Removed** The committee removed several items from its active list, including the re-paving program and the tree protection ordinance review. **Items Retained** The B1 ZOTA issue was retained on the committee's agenda due to material changes that warranted continued discussion. **Ongoing Discussion Items** The committee agreed to continue discussing two categories of items: - Capital road projects - Private streets **Participants** The discussion involved Bill Farmer, Harry Clarke, Linda Gorton, Diane Lawless, and Chris Ford. **Outcome** The committee approved the updated items in committee list. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Motion to keep the Elm Tree Lane sidewalk open and remove the closure item from the council docket - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Motion to request the administration to redesign the Elm Tree Lane sidewalk with improved pavement, lighting, and landscape for safety and access - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Motion to defer the private streets enforcement, maintenance, and specifications discussion to the next meeting --- ## Full transcript Music Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I'm going to go. is over there. Lawless is not here. Beard is here. All right, we have plenty to take. Thank you. Second. Motion by Council Member Beard, second by Council Member Ellinger. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed, like sign. Thank you. That passes. Now, I was going to defer next for reasons of time to Council Member Henson, if that's all right. You had indicated maybe we wanted to take the adult daycare issue at this time? Yes. Yes, sir. I'm comfortable with that if the committee is. Pardon? I'm comfortable with that if the committee is, unless there's objection to changing our agenda a little bit. Chair, I'm sorry. If I may. Yes. I don't know. I know there's some people who are here specifically for the Elm Tree Lane Street Closure. Are there people here for the seniors? What's the reason for wanting to put that forward? I just think I can move this out and move this quickly because we've been working on this for a long time and I wanted to make sure that we got to it today and I thought if we go ahead and get it out of the way first off Okay. Makes sense to me. Thank you. Yes, sir. Any other comments or questions? Please proceed, ma'am. Thank you, Chair. All of these motions have previously been made. All right. But there is an amendment to the definition of adult daycare center. So I will move to amend the definition to read any adult care facility which provides part-time care, day or night, less than 24 hours, for at least four adults who are not related to the operator by blood marriage or adoption. The operator must be certified or licensed by a state public agency and may include personal care assistance, administering and or assistance with medication and social recreational activities. So we have a motion by Council Member Henson, second by Council Member Clark, and we are in discussion. Hearing none, I ask for a motion to approve. So we made the motion. We're ready to vote. I'm sorry. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, like sign. And then I would further motion that we move this to the full council. We would do that via our report out. Is that good? Yes, sir. Thank you very much. You're very welcome. Anything else on page 49 that we need to take action on for any reason just while we're here? I would refer to Council Member Ford. I believe all the motions have been made. Very good. Council Member Ford. I believe that's correct. Okay. Thank you. We've concluded that. Thank you both for your work on that. That took quite a bit of time, and I'm, among others, very appreciative. All right, and that moves us back to item number two on our agenda, the so-called Elm Tree Lane sidewalk closure. This is on pages 7 through 9 of our packet and was placed in committee by Council Member Ford, to whom I would defer at this time unless you'd like to call someone else, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Members of the committee, this is an issue that was brought forward to the Council docket. to close this section of sidewalk between Rand Avenue and Elm Tree Lane, I motioned to refer this item to our committee because prior to the second read of this action, there was opposition brought forth unbeknownst to myself and I think perhaps the rest of the council prior to the time it being docketed. We have in our packet on pages 7 through 9 a memo from Kevin Wente in Planning and Public Works, and I don't know if Kevin is here. He's in the back, yes, sir. Okay, great. Kevin, if you could come forward. He was in the camouflage seat back there, yeah. And if you can give us a little background on this, you can do this, the background component, more justice than I could. Thank you. Absolutely. And Ms. Lerner is here, who actually started this process, I believe, Larell. I think it was approximately three years ago that this came to our office requesting the closure. And basically I took it, this was actually the first time that we had a request of a sidewalk closure, at least in my tenure. So I treated it basically like a road closure. Passed it to our division directors, public safety, just to see if there was anyone that had any concerns with closure. Now, this is strictly from the standpoint of an internal measure to review. Upon receiving the response from our division directors, there basically was no one that dissented to the actual closure. So to facilitate this further, in similar fashion to a road closure, we were looking at Kentucky revised statutes. and to facilitate a permanent closure of the entire length of the right-of-way, we had to have the consent among all the budding property owners. There was, I think, everyone with the exception of Shiloh Baptist Church agreed to the closure. In order to facilitate Kentucky Revive Statutes, we could not close the entire length of that right-of-way, which the packet basically represents. it shows the highlighted portion in red that we could facilitate enclosure among the two adjoining property owners that they're addressed at Elm Tree Lane. With that, that's effectively where we stand at this point. We brought this to Council for approval, to which at that point Council Member Ford requested that we put it into this committee for discussion. From our perspective, we have everything, I believe, in line to move forward with proceeding with this. If, and I mentioned in my memo to the committee, if the council voted not to approve the closure, I would feel that it would be incumbent upon our department to facilitate the repair, effectively the replacement of this, because the infrastructure is so dilapidated, it definitely needs to be addressed. So that's effectively our part that we've played. Mr. Chair, if I could, thank you, Kevin. The petitioner, I think, is here, and there are also nearby residents that want to speak in opposition to this. Prior to, if you could better orient us to the area in question. I know that what we have in our packet is in black and white, and it's kind of hard to keep up with, actually. So if there is a way that we can put what you have there, Kevin, on the overhead to better orient us to the impacting properties and just give us a better orientation, I think that would be helpful to myself and to the committee, Mr. Chair. They'll rig up the, he's got the color copies, looks like to me. And then for your information, sir, we have five people signed up to speak on this issue, which we'll defer to. It's your one. Yes, sir. Very good. And Kevin, as you orient us, I want, again, what's on the docket is to close it. And I want you to speak from the perspective of the administration as you guys have studied to bring this forward. We have one property owner who has not, does not support, has not consented. But in lay terms, on the layout that's going to go on overhead, describe what it would actually look like on street level if this were too close as what is docketed. And you'll have to wait until, well, you can go ahead or wait until Ms. Bryant puts that up. May need a laser pointer as well just to facilitate that discussion. From the, at least from my perspective, and look, I actually haven't, I've looked at all this from an aerial perspective. I haven't actually had a personal visit to the site, and I would actually have to defer to Ms. Lerner as far as what the intent would be as far as some type of fencing or what their intent would be insofar as the closure. From our perspective, it really doesn't make any difference as far as the street view. we would basically, I would assume that per the closure that there would be some fencing just to prevent any cut through of residents through the area This is rather intimate at this point And Kevin, if I may, before you get started, to help orient, Elm Tree Lane, if you can point to Elm Tree Lane. Most folks know Elm Tree Lane. This is running north and south between the block of 5th Street and 6th Street. Rand Avenue. It's on the back side, yeah. Rand Avenue, of course, runs in totality from north Limestone eastward towards MLK. the block of MLK, and then it dead ends where that red line is, Kevin. Is that right? That's correct. Okay, and so once you go to the dead end, that is Rand Avenue. Show the cul-de-sac where the dead end goes, Kevin. Thank you, sir. You're going to be forced to make a right turn, which basically becomes a loop back onto Ingham Avenue, I think. And the green space to the right, I think, is the property that's owned by Shiloh Baptist Church. If that spatially orients everybody, I'll defer to you, Kevin, to that. Right. And as I was saying, there were effectively four property owners that, well, these three, this is actually an address on Rand Avenue, the two adjoining properties on Elm Tree that did agree to the closure, and then this large parcel is what is owned by Shiloh Baptist Church. So effectively, per Kentucky-Virror Statutes, given that Shiloh did not want to participate in this, we had to go to the back of the property that is owned by Ms. Lederer in order to facilitate that closure here. And actually I have a separate print that actually highlights. everything in red would effectively be what we would as the city turn over via quit claim deed to the adjoining property owners addressed along elm tree lane so if that helps give things a sense of perspective as to what right of way would be closed that's i'm sorry it's a little dark on this but that's what you see highlighted in red would effectively be the right of way that we would close. Mr. Chair, if I can, just one or two more points I'd like to highlight, and thank you, Kevin. So the prior slide that you placed for us demonstrates that the sidewalk, thank you, Ms. Bryant, that the sidewalk in question and you can hardly tell it here from an aerial view, but that sidewalk connects the dead end of Rand Avenue all the way through to Elm Tree Lane and the proposed closure that's on the docket would, in fact, only close half of what's there. So the remaining sidewalk would just kind of dead end. Correct. Now, we could and we have offered to where if that right-of-way was to be open, we could still dedicate it to the adjoining property owners. It wouldn't necessarily have to be closed. that would facilitate their resources in order to clean that space up or remove the concrete to make it into a green space, whatever would be the wishes of those adjoining property owners, if they wanted to have that room. There would be options moving forward if Council voted to approve the closure of that first portion. Thank you, Kevin. Mr. Chair, with that said, one of the main reasons to bring this forward to the committee was to provide this information on benefit of the committee, but also to offer an opportunity for those neighbors who have interests on both sides of this debate to speak. So if you find it fitting for public comment, whenever you do, that's great. First, would you please turn up what lights we have so we can continue under the light of day. Now, we do have five folks signed up to come and speak with us. First is Felice Salomon, and if you would just come give us your name and address, and I would just remind you all that it is the practice of the council to limit your free speech to three minutes. Welcome. We're glad to have you with us. Hi. My name is Felice Salomon, and I live at 182 East 6th Street, and I am opposed to this closure of the sidewalk primarily because of the issue of connectivity. As a resident of this area, I walk all the time and prioritize mobility. Both my husband and I are bike commuters, and we have a baby that we push around in a stroller. And so sidewalks are a big thing of importance to us, and our neighborhood is full of pedestrians. So if you ever spend any time on Rand Avenue, you know that this shortcut provides a way to get from Elm Tree Lane over to North Lyme, the donut shop, whatever. this is a way to quickly proceed from Elm Tree Lane headed in the westward direction to other parts of limestone and so I also know that this is one of the main pathways for kids at the East 7th Street Center where I often volunteer to go up Elm Tree Lane and have a quick access point to the park Duncan Park is on the other side of Rand and Ingman. So this is, for me, a reason why I feel like this sidewalk needs to be repaired instead of closed. It is a priority in a lot of places to add more sidewalks, and this, to me, seems like a step backward to try to take this sidewalk away, especially when it's been a notable pathway for many years, and a lot of people have come to rely on it. So that's the main reason I came today with Baby in Tow, just to let you know that myself and others mainly use this as a way to easily pass through our neighborhood. And I also feel like the repair of this sidewalk would be a really crucial thing, too, because when you keep something in good condition, it encourages people to take care of it. So I think issues with litter or issues with, you know, things looking unsightly could easily be fixed if they started to maintain this sidewalk and maintain all of the sidewalks in the East End, because that would make it kind of a trend, you know, to encourage the cleanup and the care of different places. So that's been my husband and I's experience as homeowners in this area, that when we start to take pride in our care of our home and things like that, that it also encourages other people to take care of their home. And there's kind of like a neighborhood pride thing that comes about when the city starts to take a concern for certain areas, then it promotes the encouragement of other homeowners to take concern for their properties, too. So I would really appreciate it if we could keep the sidewalk open. We appreciate your time very much. Thank you for coming down. Next up is Christian Torp, I believe, TORP. Welcome, sir. Thank you very much, counsel. My name is Christian Torp. I'm the homeowner of 552 Elm Tree Lane. This pathway is nearly directly across from my house, and I use it often to go to my friend's house. And, you know, as transportation, I'm almost entirely, as an attorney, do everything by walking. I walked to court. So to close down a pedestrian access way in this day and age, I think, is very remiss, because more and more roads and automobiles are used less than alternative forms of transportation are used. I know that there's a lot of concern about crime in the area, but I don't see why the fact that this is a pedestrian-only avenue would make any difference in the crime as opposed to the street or the sidewalk nearby. I don't feel that it's in particularly bad shape. It's in no worse shape than any other sidewalks in the East End. There is more litter, and I think that the city has a great resource in this transit way and that we should be focusing on cleaning it up, maintaining it, and ensuring safety as opposed to closing it down, which will not solve the purported problems with crime or litter or anything else. they will just move. The alleyway does not cause these problems that people are concerned with. It's a way for people to walk. And also, I know the apartment building directly across from me, which would be one or two houses over from the sidewalk, has a ramp and always has a disabled resident. So I think to close a sidewalk that allows someone in a wheelchair better and easier access to our community wouldn't make much sense we should be increasing the walkability and a livability of downtown lexington so we may have economic growth and more prosperity in that area thank you very much thank you sir we appreciate it very much next is steve pavey and councilmember henson can i wait on your question until we've completed these very good mr pavey welcome Hi there, Steve Pavey. I'm a resident at 215 Rand Avenue. From the front of my house, I can see this walkway. Welcome. And I would just point to also that I'm a person that's committed to the kind of development that the city of Lexington I've seen in the past move towards, and that is walkability and what that does for our neighborhoods when we have more walkable neighborhoods. This is a key walkable place. That's a big chunk of land without that. And so to speak to that, I'm an anthropologist by train, so I employed my ethnographic methods and began talking with neighbors, many of them who hold jobs and can't be here. And I did not find anyone in my neighborhood that I talked to, and that might have been the ethnographic gaze that I chose the wrong people, but I chose a lot of neighbors that I could speak with, and no one was supportive of this closure. If you could just come down the public works, for anyone that hasn't been there yet, just to sit there for an hour or two or spend a day, several days, you'll see that this is a street or a passageway that is used very regularly. You cannot sit there for more than an hour and see how it is used and the way it is being used. And I personally, so I'm speaking for my neighbors who couldn't be there, but for myself as well, I do use this walkway. And as we try to move away from fuels and the use of our cars, this is a way to access people on the other side of the street, people in other neighborhoods. And this was an important thoroughfare that connected the old East End community. So I'm for keeping this open, and I would actually be willing to give some of my time. I would talk to community members anyways to help beautify this, keep this up. I'd be willing to help lead any kind of group or committee that would be willing to do that kind of thing. Very good, sir. Thank you for your time and adding your professional bent to the commentary. Next is Lorella Lederer. Ms. Lederer? Let us pass those for you, if that's all right. Yeah, we'll take care of them, certainly. We'll bring you the rest back. Thank you. Thank you. Welcome. My name is Lorella Letterer. I've lived at 138 East 4th 3rd Street for 40 years. My niece and I love old houses and are doing what we can to stop demolition by neglect that blights our neighborhood. Most of the houses we buy are uninhabitable and have been vacant from 5 to 15 years. In January of 2009, we bought 523 Elm Tree, shown on the screen. The next picture right now shows how it looks after complete renovation. New electric, new plumbing, new heating and air, new roof, new windows, new drywall, new insulation. Living in this house is having the benefits of a new house with the charm of an old house. Almost two years ago, October 11, 2011, a man was found dead on the porch of 546 Elm Tree at 3 a.m. An apparent victim of a drug deal gone bad, most likely shot at 259 Rand, there was evidence that his body was dragged down the sidewalk and dumped on the porch of 546 Elm Tree. The next day, our tenants at 523 Elm Tree gave us 30-day notice that they were moving before their lease expired. July 21st of this year, there was a shooting in our neighborhood. On August 1st, we received a notice that our tenants were breaking their lease because, and I quote, due to the continued neighborhood violence, vandalism, theft, and street walk of solicitation, we feel it is in the best interest of our family to put our 30-day notice. We have purchased 12 houses in the 200 block of Rand and three houses in the 500 block of Elm Tree Lane. Four of these houses have already been restored and sold to new homeowners. This is a picture, the previous one, of 230 Rand, and this now is after it has been restored at 230 Rand. By making derelict houses habitable again, we are helping to reduce crime in our neighborhood. You have a petition that I distributed signed by 25 neighbors who own and live in the houses on the 200 block of Rand and the 500 block of Elm Tree Lane who want the sidewalk closed in order to reduce crime and improve the safety of our community. Commander Pape and Commissioner Paulson support the closure. The people who use this sidewalk don't live in this immediate neighborhood. The people who live here, meaning the 200 block of Rand and the 500 block of Elm Tree Lane, do not use the sidewalk, and they don't want it used for aiding and abetting drug dealers and prostitutes. This sidewalk is a wasteland between two private properties. It has not been maintained for many years. This sidewalk is not a shortcut to anywhere but trouble. We need your help. Please support our effort to reduce the crime and increase the safety of our neighborhood by voting to close this sidewalk. Thank you. Thank you very much. I appreciate your coming down and the work you've done on your petitions. The last sign-up I have is Percy Thomas. Mr. Thomas, welcome. Good afternoon. I'm Percy Thomas, and I live at 533 M3 Lane, and I'm also a 30-year veteran. I live approximately three houses away from the alley, west of the alley. And I also have the advantages of standing on my front porch. I can see 5th Street. I can see 6th Street. I can stand on my back porch. I can see Rand Avenue. I can see Fifth Street. So I get a view of everything. And I'm up all hours of the night. I see everything. I can see both ends of the alley, the front part and the back part. I've seen transactions go on there. Maybe they exchanged love letters. I don't know what they're exchanging. Getting back to the 30 years of being a veteran, you also have homeowners who have been in that neighborhood. They are also veterans of that neighborhood. They've been there 20, 30, 40, even 50 years. and so if there was any kind of significant historical value to leaving that alley open I wouldn't be here I'd oppose of it but as you've seen the pictures of it I can't see strollers going through there I can't see people walking through there I've never seen strollers going through there I've never seen bicycles going through there so it's an eyesore and it's also a dangerous area real dangerous thank you So you're a 30-year veteran of the neighborhood? Well, that too. Okay. Of the Army. Well, I just wanted to know. You said it twice. Yeah, neighborhood too. I appreciate it very much. Thank you. Thank you. Those are all the folks that we have signed up, unless there's others who want to come forward. If you would, just give us your name and address, please. I'm sorry. I got in on this a little bit late, so I didn't sign up. That's all right. My name is Wanda Garr, and I own property at 250 Engman Avenue. Rand Avenue and Engman Avenue come together in a U shape. Mrs. Lederer is on one side of the U, and I'm on the other. The sidewalk that she wishes to close is one way to get to those two streets, but there is another opening created by an entrance to a parking lot. The entrance to the parking lot is on my side of the U. My concern is that if you close off on Mrs. Lederer's side of the U, that's probably just going to shift the foot traffic to my side of the U. And I already have quite a bit of traffic on my side. Shiloh Baptist Church has various programs for the neighborhood, food distribution, that type of thing. I see people coming back and forth all the time to go over to Shiloh to take advantage of whatever programs that they're offering. Mrs. Latterer spoke to me and she said that the crime is very bad in that area. Mrs. Ladler is usually there in the daytime. Okay, it's been so hot that I go over there in the evening after the sun goes down to do my yard work. And I'm probably there from about 6 to about 9.30, two or three days a week. I get busy. I don't pay that much attention to what's going on. I'm not there dead in the midnight hours, but I have not seen the type of crime that she's talking about, prostitution and drug dealing and that type of thing. Another concern I have is if we're having that type of crime in that neighborhood, I think my first reaction would be to call the police, not to close down the sidewalk. Now, I had a relative at UK Hospital for heart bypass surgery last week. So I had to be at the hospital at 6. I live in the Castlewood Park area. The house I'm talking about is the house I grew up in. My relatives have lived there mostly. When my mother got sick, I was remodeling the house to rent when my mother got sick. I took care of her for eight years. And after her death, I was suffering from grief and some physical ailments. I'm just now getting back to repairing the house, but it will be done. But anyway, I had to go through there at about 5 a.m. At the corner of 6 and M. Tree Lane, there was a police cruiser. When I turned the corner, there was another police cruiser. On down the street, there were two policemen, I guess, walking their beat. But again, I'm just not seeing the constant type crime. We have crime all over the city. drug deals gone bad in your best neighborhoods. I'm just not seeing the kind of crime she's talking about. And if there is, I want more police presence in the area. Your description includes a lot of police already, but I appreciate your comments and your time is up. We appreciate your coming down today. Thank you so much. Thank you. Any others? Yes, ma'am. Yes, sir. My name is Patricia Dyer. I live on Rand Avenue. What's the number, please? Beg pardon? The number on Rand Avenue? 241. Thank you very much. And I see a lot of the crime because, like, I come out at night because I don't sleep because I have a lot of pain. So I get up and go on my side porch. and I was out at 10.30 Sunday night and there was drug activity with the prostitutes and the youth between Rand and Ingman that came out of Alphonse Pre in the cut. And then I've seen a lot of fights down there that was related to the drugs and the prostitutes. And I see this and it's usually after 10 o'clock at night between 10 and 1 or 2 o'clock in the morning. because I'll get up and take my dogs out. And then that's how they notice me being out because my dogs, I went back in the house with them. But I do call the police and I have them come over and patrol. You know, I do make it aware that there are things going on that I don't appreciate and that I'm afraid of, you know, because I've had the people walk up, even the daylight hours, and say things to me and my grandchildren that were very inappropriate, you know. and I just really feel that that cut is dangerous, you know, for all of our safety, you know, in the area. Like I say, most of it's in the middle of the night. You know, it's like from 10 o'clock until 1 or 2 o'clock in the morning is when I see most of your drug activity and your prostitution and the fights and screaming and yelling. You know, there'll be like some black people and some white people having a, I guess, a riot type thing down at the end of the street. I mean, I've been there for two years, one on three years. And I've seen a lot of things happen right in the area, right there by that alleyway. So I think it'd be on everybody's safety, you know, to beautify it and close it off to where they can't just. Because I don't see anybody going through there in wheelchairs, no strollers. I mean, it's not a safe area. It's full of glass, a lot of needles, syringes, things like that. I mean, it's just not a safe place. And I don't see anybody. I mean, I'm out during the day with my dogs and my grandkids all the time, and I don't see people going through there and making that a normal walkway. I appreciate it. I appreciate your testimony. Thank you very much. Anyone else? Yes, ma'am. Welcome. Hi, my name is Janet Tucker. I live at 417 Johnson Avenue. So I'm not directly adjacent to this walkway, but I just think it's a wonderful thing. I do live in the East End. I think I like that you see more people out walking and getting out and doing things, and having a walkway like this is tremendous. And I think we ought to support these kinds of things all over our city and make it so that people want to get out. I mean, I have three dogs. It's really hard to walk down the street with three dogs, you know. And I envy areas that have, like, paths where you can get, you know, away from the street and being able to walk. And I think I just support this walkway. I think it ought to be improved. And I did home health nursing here in Lexington for a number of years. I'm retired now but I went in and out of areas all over the city at all hours and I saw drug deals go on as I got out of my car getting ready to go into a patient's house and you know it's not confined to one area but if we want to talk about questions of crime that's I think a separate issue than talking about a walkway and promoting walkable communities so Appreciate it. Thank you very much. Appreciate you coming down. Anyone else? All right. Seeing none, I have some folks lined up on the council side for commentary or questions. First up is Council Member Henson. Thank you, Chair. I wanted to clarify. the city or public works wants to close the sidewalk, correct? Is that rather than repair it? From our perspective, it matters not. We just facilitate this per the request and the petition that came to us in similar fashion, as I mentioned before, as a regular routine street closure request or right-of-way request. So from our perspective, we are not going to weigh in as far as whether we want or do not want it open or closed. We're basically just facilitating a process to which the public has the right to do so. In this case, it was the closure of that right of way. Do you have a total cost to repair it? In my estimation with the current unit price contract, it was roughly around $5,000 to remove it. That's the total cost? I thought it said the unit price, so I was just curious. Correct. And just making average among those that had bid for the unit price, it was roughly on average around $5,000. Okay. And, you know, I guess I have a problem when we're putting in trails all over the city and we're going to close this. I won't. So, you know, I didn't know if cost was a factor or if it's just a crime. But I really, I mean, in my opinion, if you close the sidewalk, the crime's still going to be there. It's just going to move elsewhere. But, you know, possibly blacktopping it or something. As far as our concern and what I mentioned before, Council Member Henson, is if the council votes not to approve this closure and a quit claim transfer of that right-of-way, I feel it incumbent upon our department to go in and replace the concrete. We would remove everything that's in there and then literally replace it. The sidewalks and these types of issues come to our attention when we're completely unaware of it. We have these little slivers of right-of-way all throughout Fayette County that we don't monitor on a routine basis as we would, say, a pavement management system. So when these issues come to us, we basically just, by virtue of the fact that there was a petition, and Ms. Lederer, chair of credit, you know, scoured the neighborhood with that, brought it to our attention, which is what triggered our mechanism to facilitate that right-of-way process. And then upon completing that process, we brought it to the council for approval. Okay, that gives me a better understanding. And I respect the residents who have spoken about the issue with crime. But, again, also when I saw the picture, I thought it gives the area character. I liked it because I didn't have a clear picture of it until I saw the picture that was shown. And it is in terrible shape. It needs to be repaired. But we also need to put some emphasis on the crime in the area. So thank you. Thank you, ma'am. Next is Council Member Beard. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Kevin, how long is that stretch? I believe I put it in the memo. You don't need to be precise. Off hand, I would say around 300 feet. 200 feet. It says approximately 200 feet from 100 feet lane to Rand Avenue. Okay. And how wide is it? I believe I was estimating it being a standard four-foot-wide sidewalk. Originally, it was a four-foot-wide sidewalk. For the cost estimate, I was calculating at four feet in replacement. It may be a three-foot-wide sidewalk, which would be a minimum, but I didn't actually measure the width. In fact, the residents could probably better give me that width. If it's closed, is it not typical that the adjacent property owners would assume responsibility of that? Get the responsibility for taking care of the space? The space is still going to be there, is it not? I mean, do you put up a gate or a chain-like fence? How do you close it from the pedestrians still using it? Right, and so far as the transfer, that would be incumbent upon the property owners that we would transfer the right-of-way to as to how they would facilitate the actual closure. And from our perspective, the closure would basically be the assignment of the quit-claim deed, assigning that property to the adjacent property owners. As far as a physical closure, I don't know what the plans would be from the resident's perspective. I can't really tell if there's fencing along that or not. but obviously if somebody has a fence that is along that 200-foot stretch, they won't see what kind of shape is inside of there to take care of it. Right. And I'm sure that they don't have any interest in taking care of it. It's kind of a catch-22 on this whole situation. and at least you're going to get, if we keep it open, the neighborhood will at least be able to complain if it isn't adequately taken care of by us. Correct. Okay. I think I've got everything I need. I appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Last on the list right now is Council Member Ford. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to ask Ms. Bryant and Kevin, if you could put back up the slide, please, of the diagram of the proposed closure. And Kevin, I have a question why Ms. Bryant is working on that. Kevin, your memo states, and this is my understanding as well, that the original petition came forward about three years ago. Correct. And it's probably four because I'm in my third year here, and this activity predates me. Correct. Give us a historical understanding of why that process was interrupted at that time. With the petition and with the subsequent notice that Shiloh was not interested in the closure, then we proceeded to inform Ms. Lutterer what the extents of the boundary of the closure would be, would have to be accommodated by virtue of those revised statutes. The fact that Shiloh has effectively half of that right-of-way moving to the West was significant enough to where I proceeded to inform his letterer that it would be to her benefit to reach out to Shiloh on behalf of the residents per her original petition in order to facilitate that. I didn't want to enter in from the standpoint, because from our standpoint in public works, we're not going to get in the mix as to whether we condone or do not condone the closure. We just have a means to provide the closure, which is then legislated by the council. So for that discussion, I left it upon Ms. Lutter to facilitate that. So let me put the question in another way. We understand that this has been studied before in prior times, three to four years ago, but legislatively, has it ever proceeded to the council docket? Not until a couple months ago when we brought it to your attention. So the process didn't go through. We're in a planning and public works committee, those kind of things happen. Let me give my perspective. After this issue arose, and I'm going to be very honest and disclose, is that this is in my district. And I'm personally being challenged as to weigh on what is the best for the public good. Ms. Lerner, Lorella, and her family has done some outstanding things in regards to housing, historic preservation, value member of the community. So have all the other folks, Christian and Janet and everybody in the paves back there as well. So I hate to feel that we're pitting one constituency versus another. As I sit here, committee, once we get through the end of the day, I'm hoping if we can find that balance that can address the public safety concerns versus the connectivity walkability issue. I was out there a few weeks ago when this first came to their attention, and I shared this same story then that I share now. I saw three citizen interactions with this sidewalk. I saw three teenage girls about the same age as my son. They were walking through, going through the neighborhood to say they do it all the time. I saw another guy and his young adult had walked through, said he cuts through there all the time to go where he's going. I saw two other guys in that sidewalk, and I have to agree with Mr. Thomas. I don't think they were passing love notes. I don't know what they were doing, but it didn't look well. So there's no doubt about it that the condition of that sidewalk probably attracts criminal elements at times. The question I have for the committee is, let me look at this graph. my understanding is that if we grant the closing of this portion of the sidewalk that pertains to the abutting property owners who have agreed, we will leave a major stub, for lack of a better term, we'll only be closing half of the sidewalk for all intents and purposes. Is that still up for discussion? For us to accommodate both wishes of all parties, which is to reduce crime but keep the pedestrian access available. Last thing I'll say is when I was out there, it is tough to get a stroller and a bicycle through that sidewalk. And that's because of the deplorable condition of that sidewalk who's nobody's fault but Lexington-fed urban county government. It's our right-of-way. So I'll end there, Mr. Chair. I just wanted to throw that out to the committee to see. I know the issue is closure, but if we can find a way to accommodate both, as I sit here now, that would be my preference. Thank you, sir. We will come, I suspect, back to you after other council members have commented, but I think it would be hard to please all involved without doing something over there. If you're going to keep it open, it needs to be maintained in a form and fashion that the neighborhood would want. And if it is to be closed, it needs to be closed and dealt with accordingly. Next up is Council Member Clark. Thank you, Chair. I'm also torn. I appreciate Council Member Ford's comments because I have the same feelings. I think the thing that bothers me the most is the fact that if we close this passage, I'm not convinced there's a guarantee that's going to change the crime statistics. It may move them somewhat, but I'm not convinced this sidewalk and this passage is creating the opportunities for crime. So I'll throw that out as one side of the issue. So if not on the sidewalk, where? Probably on the street in maybe even greater proximity with some of the people who live in the area. One thing it does is make us aware, if we're having crime on that sidewalk because of the sidewalk and because of the passage, then we're having crime in the area, and we probably need greater enforcement or a little different attack on that. And it may be that a better sidewalk that's more accessible, that's clean, that provides opportunities for biking and strollers and pedestrians. It may indeed change the character of that nature. The other thing is that I'm a little confused about if we vote to close the passage, what guarantee is there that it will actually be closed? And, Kevin, maybe you can answer that. I mean, there's no law that says we have to put a gate on both ends. And so if the resident says, well, I don't want to fool with it, then we've got the same problem. And I would really have to defer to the abutting property owners in this letter in order to address that. I don't know what their plans would be. As I mentioned before, from our perspective, the closure is enacted once the quit claim is assigned to the adjoice of property owners, and it's out of our hands. Effectively, we've relinquished that right-of-way. Right. But that, as far as moving forward and what aesthetics would be in place, if there would be fencing and whatnot, I don't have an answer to that. Okay. That's what I assumed. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, sir. Next up is Council Member Mazzotti. Thank you, Chair. Kevin, I just have a few questions for clarification. We as a city own this right-of-way right now. Is that correct? It is our right-of-way. If you look at the parcel lines, there's no closure among the spot between where the right-of-way exists on Elm Tree and as it extends back to Rand Avenue. So effectively, it is our right-of-way. And so basically, we were the entity responsible for maintaining it and well, maintaining it? Effectively, in my opinion, yes. Okay, and we just not maintain it for what reason? Well, as I mentioned before, until these types of slivers come to our attention, we don't really maintain a record of responsibility of right-of-way. We don't have easements mapped in the GIS just because of the nature of the beast. They're constantly changing. Once these are brought to our attention is when we're acting, and I'm sorry to say that it's more of a reactive measure than a proactive measure because we don't have a pavement-raving system for sidewalks in similar fashion that we do to roadways. So there may be slivers like this. There could be a means to assess that. It would just take some time, but typically this is not something that we're aware of, unfortunately, until it's brought to our attention. I understand. Is there a possibility, I think Council Member Beard asked the question about how much it would cost if you were to put in a street light or something of that nature in some proximity so the area would be well lit, so maybe that would deter some of the criminal activity that's occurring there, or is that not even a possibility? That would require some further evaluation. I'm not exactly sure once we were to replace the sidewalk, if there would be an additional amount of right away to facilitate, say, a street light. There may well be. It might be that we would have to request from an adjoining property owner to place a pole and a light upon their property. We'd have to basically get that in the field and measure to see what would be within our right away. I was trying to achieve that balance that Council Member Ford said. You know, what can we do? I know no one's going to be happy. We either close it, someone's going to be unhappy, leave it open, someone's going to be unhappy. And, you know, that's unfortunately what kind of decisions we have to make. But if there is an alternative out there, whether it's lighting or some kind of things, you know, that would deter that criminal activity, is that a possibility? That's what I'm asking. Correct. And I think there would be a possibility there, yes. Okay. Thank you. Sure. Thank you, ma'am. Next up is Council Member Kay. Thank you, Chair. I have a question for Commissioner Paulson, who I believe is tucked away back in the corner. I believe Ms. Lederer said that you were in favor of this closure. Well, here's what I'll say, and I was prepared that I might get called up. So I actually visited there today and put together a few slides. So hold on. Oh, my. I figured this might happen because of my prior experience with secure design and those sorts of things. Where normally I would be involved is at the front end of this, whether or not this would be built in the beginning rather than the closing. I have been involved with some areas, not in Lexington, but in other cities before where we've had these sorts of issues. In general, we would not build this as a sidewalk, as a cut-through. We discourage cut-throughs from a crime perspective because they do create opportunities for crime, particularly if they are very narrowly kind of hemmed in between two properties. If we were to put one in, and I've got kind of some pictures of another place here in Lexington where we have, we would generally want a wider setback. The issues that come from this sidewalk is it is a very narrow sidewalk in which you have privacy fences, Not very good viewing, not much of a light, and its sole purpose is for a cutthroat. So one of the things, again, sidewalks, the reason that sidewalks work so well from a crime prevention perspective is that they are in the front of the houses at grade with cars. You can see and be seen. Here the issue is that you can neither really see nor be seen very well. That is something that creates opportunities. It is attractive as a place to meet. And this is some of the discussion that's come up. I do not have crime statistics at all about this location. I have been involved with this. Years ago, I was asked by residents of Rand Avenue to come out and look at it under the guise of, should we close it, can we close it? I said, you need to work with the police if you are concerned about the crime, but I do not have crime data on it. This is the property. Again, the issue is that if this was a new development, I would say put the road all the way through and put sidewalks on it. I would never recommend this for new construction. This is the condition. I really kind of tend to agree with those who say you can't get a stroller. You could get a stroller through there. I was one of those dads. I would have gotten a stroller through there because I would have took my kids off road. But this is not a very smooth – let's see if we can get it. This is – it's dirt with some chunks of concrete. But you can see, and this is probably the more important issue for me, this high fence right here, this grass right here. I mean, the recommendation most likely, and if I remember correctly in the past, that there was a fence along right here as well, which, again, kind of made it a – you'd walk through the dark area. There is a light. You can see this pole right here. There is one light up there. It is a standard kind of cobra head. I'm not sure if it's functioning, how much light it provides. When we talk about lighting, we look at a lot more than just putting one light in this area if you were trying to, from a crime prevention perspective. It does have some overgrowth. It's got a lot of other issues with it. Now, as an example of where we've done something like this in the past, this is off Georgetown Street. And you can see this path right here. When this was originally proposed, it was to be like that. It was to be between two houses without any real right-of-way, and it was designed to get you access to this park. It was also, my recommendation was, you need to have, if you're going to do this, and I think it is a solid recommendation, to get to this park that you do have access, quick access rather than to walk all the way down Georgetown and come in back into the park in that way. That you remove a lot and give more, again, so that they can see and be seen. And there's a destination. There's a quick and easy destination. What I'm trying to get here is from a new construction perspective, this is not something that we would recommend at all right now. If we were doing this, Rand Avenue would go all the way through to Elm Tree as a street. The part where it is difficult is the one that you guys are touching on now. It's obviously been there for a very long time. It is used, both for good and for bad. It's not an easy discussion, but is it something that, as it is currently used, that is currently designed, that it is creating opportunities for crime? I am sure that it is creating opportunities for crime. The suggestion that if it is cut halfway through, will crime sort of hang out over there? It could. I mean, there's no guarantees to any of that. But from a new build, new construction, I would never recommend this be built now. This is a better model if you're going to do that. And, again, the reason that this works, if this park wasn't here, I wouldn't have recommended this. A cut-through for a cut-through's sake is going to lead to more of those issues. Again, because when you're walking on a sidewalk, it provides you an opportunity to see and be seen by others. Cut-throughs like that are a lot more difficult. So I'm not sure if I've just muddied the water for you or cleared it up, but it is one of those things. And, again, you've got to balance that this is a well-used cut-through by this neighborhood currently. My time is officially up, but I haven't really used any of it. I agree. I agree. If the committee would permit me. Please proceed. So I understand about you would not do this if it were a new construction. So, for better or worse, that's not the situation we're faced with. The question of closing half of it, from a likelihood of crime perspective, it helps, it hurts, it doesn't make much difference. Here's one of the things. I was under the impression there might be someone from the Division of Police here today that could tell a little bit more about what the crime data was. that was not something I looked up real quick to even get a sense of what occurs that is reported. So it's a little difficult to get a sense of what are they seeing, but I think it would be important to see those that patrol in this area, what are they seeing, where do they see it from a, you know, I think it absolutely could have an impact on reducing crime. But there is a very real chance that it would just, again, how this is cut is going to be an important part. What goes, I'll go back. what goes right here to make that cut? How is that done? If what you put there is another privacy fence so that no one from the Elm Tree side sees in, then everyone on the Rand side is going to, I mean, it makes it more of an opportunity on the Rand side. It's going to be, depending on how that fence goes in, it could be more difficult to prevent. Again, one of the things about crime that we're hearing about, Council Member Ford mentioned it, and he saw two people maybe passing love notes or something else. It's because it's a place where you can't be seen very well. Right. So if that closure was made halfway and the fencing that we see were not altered, it does not change the visibility. So the property owner would really need to reduce the opportunity for crime. They would have to take down the fence. They'd have to move it so that it was visible from their property. Is that correct? You wouldn't necessarily have to move the fence. It's the type of fence as well as lighting and other things that would go in there. it's not a simple cut it in half it's going to do the whole trick there's a little more to it but that is obviously one step in the way of preventing again the issue is how well traveled is it how much of a use is it are there ways and I don't know the size of the right of way and what could be done to improve it just as it is but as it is is not good so last question and if I can a comment the question is this if it were to be kept open and the improvements were to be made, and given the testimony we've heard from people who live in the neighborhood that they use it for positive purposes, does this abate the likelihood that there will be crime in that particular area? You know, it could reduce, again, just fixing the sidewalk will not reduce the opportunity for crime, no. So if it was left open and you put down a new sidewalk, I would say no. It would not have any real impact on reducing crime. If that is all that would be done, I would say no. Even if there's increased usage? So people have said they have not seen people with strollers, they've not seen people with... Right, and the people with strollers are probably not going to be there at the time that some of those crime dealings are going to be going on. Again, it could increase some of the usage. From what I'm hearing, it gets pretty well used as it is as a quasi-dirt path with concrete. The issue that makes it attractive is that it is off the road. It is away from the road. It is away from where normally people are looking. And it does have high fences on the side, which, again, makes it a little nicer. I'm not sure of the functioning of that light, but if it's 2.30 in the morning, if it's like normal streetlights, I don't know if that stays on continuously all night long, but the streetlights on my street do not stay on continuously all night long. They kind of, correct me if I'm wrong, Kevin, they are on it sometimes and then they phase along a street. I think they do on Fontaine, I'll just say that, because when I'm out running, they pop off and then some of them will turn on. But if that light is not on, if you still have those other conditions that make it a good opportunity, I don't know if just, I would say, just making the sidewalk smooth will not reduce opportunities for crime. Okay. Thank you for those answers. That's helpful. So I think we have, there's a tradeoff. I think that's clear. And the question is, is the connectivity and the opportunity for people to pass through and the present usage worth preserving and improving so that it, in fact, becomes an amenity? Well, in the interest of full disclosure, that property is roughly, I should count the blocks appropriately, one, two, three, it's about three and a half blocks from my house. So I'm familiar with the territory. It's hard for me to believe that closing that will reduce the incidence of crime in my neighborhood. I think there are other factors that are more compelling. What we have seen, I've lived here 30 years, what we've seen is that we can move crime, but it's hard to eliminate it, and that there will be other places and other opportunities. And given that there are neighbors who feel it's important to have that walkway, I'm inclined to support keeping it open. I wish we could find a middle ground. I don't see any. Thank you, Chair. If I can real quickly. Thank you, sir. This would only, again, the closing of this is only for the crime that occurs there. It is not on a neighborhood level. Don't get me wrong that this is creating an opportunity. It's attracting crime to this neighborhood in general. It's more specific about that. And that's why it's more than just the sidewalk. It's the sidewalk, the landscaping, the fencing that makes that place an attractive opportunity for certain types of crime, not all crimes as well. We're going to pivot to Council Member Beard, but before you walk away, this is a picture you took this morning. Yes, sir. So is that a fallen down picket fence along the left-hand side? It looks like something like that. But there is construction, it appears, going on at that house. There is a dumpster in the front yard, I believe. Certainly a code of enforcement action could take care of that. It would strike me. It could, but it also may be allowed if there's construction going on currently. As part of the construction. Looks like a railroad track to nowhere. All right. There's a lot of stuff along that sidewalk. thank you sir um we return to council member beard thank you chair um whomsoever we laid the sidewalk maybe 40 years ago 30 years ago whenever it was we laid the sidewalk it now has deteriorated to the point where where we want to parcel it out to the adjoining neighbors and wash our hands of it. It just doesn't sit well with me at all. I mean, we had the opportunity to keep this place neat and clean, and we, for the last X number of years, plenty of years, we didn't do it. So now we're ducking and shoveling it off to somebody else. And if I was to somebody else, I'd shovel it right back. Noted. Thank you. Thank you, sir. And, Council Member Ford, we return to you, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I'll be brief since this is multiple times speaking. Thank you, Council Member Kay, for bringing Commissioner Polson up. Luckily for us, an in-house expert. Commissioner, if you can come back, please, sir. If your slide is still, you still have your slide available? Before he talks, if it was just up to me, if I had to make a decision based on the current state of that sidewalk and the crime there, if nothing was going to change, no opportunity was available to correct it, I would probably support closing the sidewalk. But I'm not at that point where I have lost hope that we can improve that circumstance, basically just what Council Member Beard has stated. If you can go back to your slide over at Rain Gone Way. and council members are this one or no sir the Douglas Park Rain Garden Way Keller Court that's Rain Garden Way I believe the housing authorities subdivision and that's Douglas Park the back side of Douglas Park and Commissioner I didn't know that you played a hand in that but that's years ago a lot of good football was played back there Go back now to the sidewalk. My question is, do we have the opportunity now to redesign this access? When I say redesign, I'm talking beyond just laying more sidewalk and throwing up one more light and calling it a day. because if we were to do that, it's highly likely that the access would be better. The crime perhaps would still persist at night. From your expertise and your vantage point, is there an opportunity for us to redesign, taken in regards to what you've studied with Safe by Design standards, to improve that sidewalk? There is an opportunity. I mean, you can always try to make it better. And I think the question, the issue that would be here is what could we do because I don't know how much right of way we have in this area. And the other issue is what, again, the concerns that I have for it, and I would like to see it. I'd like to, one, talk with the police that are in that area more about the types of crimes they're seeing there, the types of reports they're hearing, types of activity that they see. but some of the issues that i have just looking at it the the concerns are again visibility is is not good we are going to be limited in what we again chris correct me from wrong zoning allows how high of a fence in the backyard eight feet we cannot require that they they can put an eight foot privacy fence there if they so choose as can be done here a lot of people are going to say those residents are going to say, if you're not going to close it, I'm going to put an eight-foot privacy fence on my property line. We cannot prevent them from doing it. If that is done, it's not going to help that matter at all. Because again, you're going to be the only way you'll be able to see down this, for the most part, is if you are at the end of that sidewalk. If we could work with them so that we could improve visibility, that would be, and again, from our own perspective, we could go out there from a code standpoint and make sure the landscaping is cut so it's providing good visibility, but the fencing is going to be a key issue. I would much prefer that it's farther back, but that's really not an option. Again, that's what makes this different than this. We do have more farther back, and when we talk about creating access at trail points, it's with the idea that you've got good access. You've got good visibility. Ten feet on the side is my preference to a sidewalk so that you can see what's there and that the vegetation is kept low. Going with what we're dealing with, we could work on it. I'm just not sure how much impact we're going to be able to get. Lighting would be good if the issues are in the middle of the night. But again, that's some of the issues we have to talk with the police that are in that section, that are in that area on a daily basis to get what kind of activity, what times are they seeing things, one of the residents hearing things when they're hearing things to try to get a comprehensive. And again, it's going to be multi-pronged to really do anything. Lighting could work, lowering the But, again, by right, we cannot prevent them from having an eight-foot fence on their property line. Okay. Thank you, Commissioner. Mr. Chair, I have a motion I want to make, but I'll allow Council Member Clark to speak, if that's okay, before I make my motion. Very well, sir. Council Member Clark. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Council Member Ford. I think there's some statistics that we're missing here. We keep talking about crime, and yet we have no information from the police how they feel about this. And maybe it would be appropriate for us to have additional information, some testimony from them, to give them an opportunity to say, yeah, this is a really bad spot and we need to do something to close this. I would certainly be more comfortable if we had some information from them because we're talking without a whole lot of data. And we talk about the crime that's going on, and yet we don't know exactly how much crime is going on around this area or in this particular passage. So I'm concerned about the fact that we don't have that information. Thank you. Very good, sir. Thank you very much. will return to Councilmember Ford. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm going to bring forth two motions for the committee. Well, don't confuse us. I won't. I'll bring them just one at a time. One of the other questions I had was a question of precedent. And I think I've polled a few of the Councilmembers that I've talked to about this issue. And I always thought, and I think Commissioner Polson mentioned, you think of sidewalks going across the right-of-way in front of your home. and that has something to do with visibility. But from what I understand, there are several sidewalks designed like this throughout neighborhoods and throughout the city. Maybe not 200 feet long, but they exist. They exist through the size of residential properties, through the size of buildings and things like that. this does not at all discount the concern for crime, particularly for the abutting property owners. But I do think we will be making a mistake if our policy is to close sidewalks and access ways through neighborhoods. Instead, we should be, one, addressing our infrastructure-related responsibilities, as a government. And then two, working with the neighbors, working with the police department. And I know that the police department actually supports closing this. We should be working together to make sure that we can keep this area safe. But if we close this sidewalk, and I just speak to the east end specifically, so what are we going to do next? Go down the next block and close that sidewalk and close that alley. And so I don't think that's the right policy to go. I'm going to make two motions, but I'm going to tell you what I'm going to be bringing forth. One is to keep the sidewalk open. Secondly, it's going to ask the administration, Kevin, and I would even implore Commissioner Polson to lend his expertise to this effort is going to be to redesign the improvements in that sidewalk, both pavement, lighting, landscape, et cetera, and to bring these amenities to the neighborhood. First motion, Mr. Chair. Yes, sir. Is to make a motion to keep this sidewalk open. So moved. Motion, a couple of seconds. Is there a discussion? Yes, sir. That's my round here. Thank you. Have we made a motion to close it? Or is that kind of a... That's a great question. What's on the docket for second read is to close it. So we have to make a motion to... Or can you just... Since we have that motion on our end, do we have to... Can we just have it taken off then? Or just withdraw that motion then? Okay. All right. Any others in discussion of the motion? Is the discussion whether the motion has been couched correctly in relation to our previously non-taken action or action we almost took, I guess? Well, that's, yeah, I guess we have to still read this one out, and that one's still coming for second reading. I can rephrase, and I can do it very quickly. to keep this sidewalk open and to remove the item from the council docket that requires the closure. There you go. Thank you. Were the same seconds told? Yes. All right. Now we're in discussion over the newly crafted motion. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, like sign. Motion passes unanimously. Council Member, you said you had a second motion. Yes, sir. Mr. Chair, I would move to request the administration to proceed with the redesign of this sidewalk that will improve pedestrian, bicycle access, as well as safety and lighting concerns, and to bring that back to this committee. So moved. Motion and a second. Do you want them to return here with that work product? I'm just asking. Yes, sir. All right. Very good. All right. Discussion on this subsequent motion? Hearing none, we'll move to a vote. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, like sign. That motion carries. I want to thank all of you all for coming down and being with us here today. We appreciate your help with this issue. I assume that these things will move forward kind of together, but the second motion will come back here as to what actually would be recommended for keeping the sidewalk open, making it safe, and a bright alternative for the neighborhood. Yes, sir. Very good. Thank you. Thank you very much. Next, then, on our agenda is item number three, private streets enforcement, maintenance, and specifications. This has been placed originally in committee by Councilmember Mazzotti, and it begins on page 10 of our packet and goes on for several pages, just giving a lot of background history and some examples of things, I think, that both have and have not worked. I think we may be looking for potentially a modification of how we do these things or not, but I will defer to Council Member Mazzotti, and we will go from there. Thank you, Chair. In the essence of time, since we've got a 3 o'clock, I'd like Bill Sally to come up from the Planning Department and just give us a quick synopsis of some of the issues in reference to maintenance responsibilities and problems. I think we all understand the process, how it comes to us. My big concern was maintenance and some of the problems associated with having the private streets. Thank you. Certainly. Good afternoon. I prepared a memo for Council Member Masotti that we'll be glad to share with other Council members as well. Generally, private streets and private access easements are not maintained by the urban county government, but most often by an association of property owners. Small homeowners associations have reported from time to time difficulty in maintaining private access easements in their residential developments, and that has led to requests for the urban county government to take over those facilities as public streets. In some instances, that is not a problem when the access easement has been constructed fairly recently when our regulations require that things like the depth of pavement, the base on those facilities, are done to the same as public street standards. However many years ago, that was not a requirement of our subdivision regulations, and so those tend to be the more problematic ones in those types of requests. In terms of reported problems, one that is foremost in the staff's mind are things like lane markings where you're dealing in a commercial setting. Obviously on public streets we have a system by which we refresh lane markings, arrows, stop bars, things of that nature. There's not really a comparable mechanism for commercial private access easements, such as you would find in Nicholsville Road Corridor and Hamburg or other areas. Overall, private streets account for, in the staff's estimation, far less than 8% of our overall streets in the county, and in terms of lane miles, much, much less than that. I think the other problem that would come to mind sometimes are street connectivity issues, where a private access easement might be proposed instead of a continuation of a stub public street. That has not happened as much recently. We have had some changes to our subregs to allow a little more flexibility in public street design, so that has helped that issue. Thank you. Thank you, Bill. I guess my thought process was I know how expensive it is now for us in all of our districts to keep up with street paving and maintenance. And by having us having to do extra maintenance when it comes to taking in these private streets, that's another burden on the taxpayers. So for discussion purposes, I would just kind of like to get the council members' input as to whether or not they think that we should still permit this process as far as having private streets done. And I can tell you that there are several neighborhood associations that initially when they start out, the members are very eager to pay their homeowner association dues. And then as time goes on, sometimes the structure changes. The elected body is no longer in place. The dues aren't collected, and sometimes those streets aren't maintained. Then they're turned over to the city, and then we've got streets that we have to either bring up to grade or have to provide some other type of maintenance with. and I'm just concerned about the costs associated with that. I know it's a minimal amount of streets compared to what we have altogether, but I'm just wondering for future purposes if that's something that we shouldn't have to consider, whether or not we should continue having private streets. I'm sure there's a lot of developments like that because of the ability to close the streets and gated communities and so forth. But, again, does the good outweigh the bad in this? And that's the reason I brought this here, because I believe in the beginning of the year we accepted a private street, and there was concern about enforcement, traffic enforcement, parking, maintenance. And it seems like it's incumbent upon us to do all this once we get these streets, but is it cost-effective, and should we continue to practice? So your question is, or I'm asking, whether or not we should have private streets or whether or not we should have a mechanism where private streets could come into the public right away. I think we already have that mechanism. We do, I know. But I'm just wondering if we should even have private streets at all. Okay, all right, very good. So you've asked the committee to make comment, or council members to make commentary as they would like on this issue. Yes. Perhaps even at this time. So did you, was there a memo you brought with you today? And I see that. Yes, sir. I didn't realize I would be presenting this information to you today, or I certainly would have brought copies for you. I appreciate that you brought that, and I see that Director King may have a comment, and I will defer to that. No council member seemed to jump right into that breach immediately. I thought I might frame and give you just some other ideas. Private streets have been allowed by your subdivision regulations, I know, at least as long as I've been in here. So clearly from the 1969 subdivision regulations, they've been allowed. There have been changes over time in the way they've been dealt with. And as Bill mentioned, the older ones are probably more problematic than the ones that occurred in the last 20 to 30 years, not only because of the age, but also because the standards have been tighter, and planning commission has been less inclined to waive sidewalks, less inclined to waive rights of way or easement widths and things like that. So that is the case. I think if you want to vet this issue, I would just comment, I think the development community should be allowed to weigh in on this, and not just the residential. You know, oftentimes the motivation is for, you know, a private and exclusive development, whether you think that's a good idea, a bad idea, a gated community, it probably would be a good idea to at least allow that airing if you're looking at the threshold question of whether private streets should be allowed at all. The other thing that I would mention, there are many instances, particularly when we're talking about private access easements in commercial areas, when you're essentially, because of the design, in order to not waste land, a full-blown public street with curb, gutter, and sidewalk is excessive in order to create a parcel of land. and you probably would need to engage some of the commercial developers as well before you just get in the idea of eliminating private access easements and private streets altogether. It is a complex issue, has a lot of facets, and I think you are very correct that when they do end up coming back to us that there are oftentimes I think council wants to help the neighborhood have situations, and sometimes we do take those things in without them being fully brought up to snuff. I do want to also, though, mention that as a legal matter, the property owners know or should know what they get into when they purchase a lot with private streets because the subdivision plats for at least 40 years have very strict language, very clear notes, that the private responsibilities or the responsibilities for the street, snow removal, maintenance, is the property owner and not the public. Again, as we all know, a lot of times people buy properties without actually reviewing their plats, so they may not know all the responsibilities that goes with it as a practical matter. But as a legal matter, all of that information is out there, including the language that says if they ever do and come and request the government, they need to bring them up to full specification. So, again, I think it's a good idea to review these things from time to time, and I think it's a good discussion to have. I just think it maybe needs to be just a little bit wider. Very good. I don't disagree at all. Thank you. We have two council members who have come into the conversation. First is Council Member Stennett. Thank you, Chair. I just want to jump in here for a second because having one of the neighborhoods that are in your packet today, Laclede Court, petitioning currently the ability to come onto public streets and turn their private streets over, I think there's a couple of issues that are problematic for me. Having served on council for a while, I inherited some areas of the city that Mr. King just alluded to. In the last 40 years, you can easily find out whether it's not a street that's public or private. But before that, it's very difficult. Woodward Lane off Liberty Road, the city embarked on a major sewer project about three years ago and put sewer down that road thinking that was our road. And it wasn't our road. We put sewer on private property and had to go back and get the easement. So it's very difficult, even from our legal research, to sometimes determine that, unless a resident knows for sure whether their street is public or private. In the Cleeds case, I think it's readily known, and when everyone bought their homes, they were private roads. Did they elect them when they built their house? Most of them know. Some of them are still there. But the issue is, what standard do we really make them come up to when we take the streets over? And the estimate that was given in the research done by the Department of Public Works, $400,000 for 20 homeowners to pay. The average price of a home out there is about $150,000. I'm not sure too many neighborhoods can split $400,000 by 20 people, 20 individual property owners, and come up with that money, so they'll never be able to. the road will deteriorate and we'll end up with a problem in our city and a public safety hazard for residents so i think one issue is the standards and the estimate we're making them put in curb and gutter they don't have curbs now new sidewalks do we is that the standard we want to instill that they have to do all that i know the planning commission once they receive the petition can waive some of that and ultimately it comes to council and we can waive some of those requirements too and i'd like to be a little more specific though because i think sometimes we tell them $400,000 and attempt just to say, well, we can't do it, go away. I'm not saying we did it in this case, but I'm saying sometimes that's happened in the past. It's a scare tactic to say we really don't want this street because it is substandard. But at the same time, you have other taxpayers and developers who have built streets to our standards, spent the extra money, took the extra time, and did it right. So when you go back to the zoning process and the public or the development process, why should we still approve streets below our standards, even if they're private? I think all private streets should be up to our standards, period. There should be no relaxing of the curb and gutter requirements. There should be no relaxing of what the road size should be going forward. And I think, Mr. King, you probably can answer this. Do we allow substandard to move forward at this point during a final development plan process? Substandard, according to our engineering grades that have presented to these neighborhoods, that we're saying you have to come up to our standards. Do we still allow substandard private roads? Some things are. Usually curbs aren't typically waived. Typically sidewalks aren't waived. But oftentimes in order to do setbacks and to avoid having to go to a variance of the Board of Adjustment, there will be an easement rather than a right-of-way with the setback set from that. It can create a different, more private type of environment. Other things, again, in commercial. In commercial, you've got a whole different situation. But, you know, obviously, again, it's a real hard thing to talk about, describe in this type of format when we're talking about all the different types of examples and different things we have. But typically the Planning Commission does for private residential streets will require curb, gutter, and sidewalk. Now, one thing that we do have, we have developers that want to do nontraditional parking. Okay? And sometimes that gets allowed on a private street because they would rather have a perpendicular parking situation, whereas for public streets, you cannot back out into a right-of-way. It just wouldn't be allowed. So that's one case where things are allowed different than the typical public street. Yeah, I think we do need to separate commercial from residential. I think they're very different animals. I mean, having Hamburg in my district that has a ton of commercially private streets, a much different issue than some of our residential folks. So I do think there is a distinction there. But on the residential side, I would hope that staff, we wouldn't approve anything substandard to what our current engineering grades are for the thickness, the curb and gutter, et cetera, going forward, because I think it puts us, I don't know, I don't want to say hypocritical, but I'm going back to a neighborhood now saying you have to put them into our standards because we let your developer not have to do that. I would probably not use the word substandard for what goes on today. Alternatives that would not be acceptable for a normal public street, yes. But in terms of substandard, there's never been anything substandard in terms of the deft paving and the engineering requirements, things like that. Not as long as I've been here. As you all know, that's a long time. So it's more about developers looking for some flexibility and design and things like that sometimes. And in previous days, think of the Lakeview Islands. They wanted a private development. They wanted to put a gate. They didn't want sidewalks on both sides, as would be standard. So if you eliminate that possibility, and again, I'm not saying that's a good or bad thing. There have been a lot of times I'd like to have been able to cut through there and haven't been able to. But that's what you would get into in those kinds of situations. Yeah, but in my experience now, this is the third neighborhood I've had petitioning to come back onto our system. While we let someone else reduce their costs, get more profit out of an area, the rest of the city is having to come back now and possibly foot the bill going forward. And to me, there's something wrong with that inherently going forward to continue those type of practices. I know we obviously have less land to work with now, less areas of infield, But this is still an issue I think we need to pay close attention to as well as how we accept them. I would hope that we'd be a little more relaxing. Like I said, $400,000 for 120 houses to come up with a pretty steep price tag. We couldn't even come up with it as a council very readily right now given our financial situation. But, again, sometimes some of that may be substandard, but some of that may be that the condition of the road, because of lack of periodic maintenance over time by the Homeowners Association, and they have gotten away with not having to pay as others. So it is multi-sided and complex. I agree. Personally, I would have no problem with private streets and residential be eliminated entirely, although I do think when you get into things like townhouse projects where you have what looks like a typical parking lot, you're going to require a lot of excessive improvements in some of those situations in order to create an access easement, a private situation that may – it's hard to explain. If I had some examples, I could show you that I think, again, if you picture a full public street, curb, gutter, sidewalk, and parking separated from it, there are a whole lot of developments out there that would take up a lot more land, have a lot more paving, generate a lot more stormwater, you know, those kinds of things. So it is a very complex issue. Yeah, and just for the record, let me say I have no problem making a neighborhood bring the paving, the resurfacing up to our standard and have it resurface before they turn it over. But to go and say you have to add curb and gutters and sidewalks, that's a big undertaking. that if they didn't have them before and they don't want them, why are we making them do that? That's just where I come from. I do think we need to pay attention to those multifamily developments and townhomes and then commercial we're going to have to address separately. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, sir. Next is Council Member Clark. Thank you, Chair. Interesting conversation. Council Member Mazzotti, I appreciate you bringing this to our attention. And I say it's interesting particularly because yesterday, just yesterday, I got a call from somebody who wanted to know how to take their private street public. Well, I had no idea. I didn't even know. And this was a street in Palomar. This was a court in Palomar. And I'm going, wait a minute, how can that be a private street? And so we're looking into this now. But somebody explained to me, maybe somebody could tell me, how that becomes a private street originally in a development like Palomar. In the land subdivision regulations, it has always been allowed for a developer to petition to create a private street. There are certain criterias that can't be required through street. You know, there's findings the Planning Commission is supposed to make in order to allow that. But it is not uncommon for developers to request to have an exclusive private street. They can control access. They can control who parks on it. They can control who comes on it. To me, it's been an interesting selling point. To me, that wouldn't be a selling point. But to some people, that kind of privacy is a selling point. And again, over the course of history, you have various developers that have requested those kinds of things. at various points in time and at various locations. Yet, Chris, in Palomar, of all the streets in Palomar, courts, through streets, everything, as far as I can tell from the list that have been provided here, that one street is the only one that is private. Don't recall that specific one. I guarantee you we have the history in our case files. I understand. So anyway, I think that answers my question. It's really not a question. It's really just an expression of concern. And so I guess we'll be in touch, but I think the questions that have arisen are very important, and I appreciate that. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, sir. Next is Council Member Henson. Thank you, Chair. I have a question I don't know who can answer, but when you have a private street that is not properly maintained, who enforces that? I don't see a lot of people jumping up there. And I'll tell you a situation I have. Come on, Sally. You may have stumped the band with that one. And I'll tell you what, I have a situation right now where the drainage, you know, on this street there's no stormwater system, and they had a swell that over time, I guess it's a swell, it's built up. So what it's doing now is flooding the neighborhood downstream of them. So they set up higher, so all the water. So I'm like, I don't think that's fair to the neighborhood that has stormwater system. But these older subdivisions don't always have the system of drainage easements and other things. I didn't know. Charlie's sitting back there. I didn't know if he cared to comment on that or not. But I find it very unusual. I also have a private street in my district that only about 100 feet of it is private. So the rest of it is public. Did you hear what I said? I did. I was listening. Were you asleep? I'm sorry. No, I was listening. I was contemplating all the difficulties because I probably know a lot of the same ones that you're talking about as well. You know, from a stormwater management standpoint is that, you know, I think that's some missteps that this community has made over the years as it has changed its character and expanded. You've heard me say this before, is that in the past the attitude is, well, if I drain the water off my property, I'm good. Right. So there is a major disconnect between public and private stormwater conveyance systems, and then you mix in that, well, we're going to dump it in a creek that doesn't seem to really belong to anybody, and then it's on the street. It's a mishmash of things. You know, you didn't really ask my personal opinion, but I'll offer it anyway, is that I don't think we should have private systems because of that, is that it's a difficult thing for people to deal with farther down the road. Now, in saying that is that when you try to backtrack into these existing neighborhoods, the challenges both from an engineering and management and cost are astronomical. Right. Well, thank you. I might end up putting that in Environmental Quality Committee. Please, please. Thank you, Council Member Massadi. I do find this very interesting. Next is Council Member Beard, then we'll return to Council Member Mazzotti. Thank you, Chair. Council Member Hanson, the people who are maintaining those are the same ones that are maintaining the 200-foot long. Exactly. Kevin, I guess it's you. I just, eeny, meeny, miny, moe is kind of the way we do it up here. Whack-a-mole. In some of these, it's tight quarters to get around. Do school buses go up into these areas? And what do fire apparatus, what do they do about it? Well, with regard to police fire, they're going to enter in regardless of what the configuration is of the neighborhood. As far as public schools, that I really can't speak on behalf for most of the private streets. I know that a number of these, if they're small, similar to Council Member Stenet's issue with Laclede, it's basically a circular, it almost looks like a court. But there's one point of entry, one point of exit. And I don't believe that a school bus would enter into that neighborhood. I wouldn't either. So that's an excellent question. There may be some private streets to which, yes, there is a school bus access point for that, but at this point I'm not sure I couldn't answer. And I would think some fire apparatus could not get in there either easily. Correct. And that was a major point of discussion at the start of the year when we were looking at a property that was being requested, a ball home property off of Hayes Boulevard. I think it was Lochmere Estates, similar issue with regard to Council's concern as to whether our own emergency vehicles would have a means to get in. And FIRE made it clear that there would be restrictions as far as parking on street just because of the concerns they would have for making the run and getting to their point of destination. I know that the student housing area that was right by the railroad tracks on South Broadway, they were tight quarters there, and the fire department wanted a gate in the back off of another street to be able to get in there. Absolutely. And they just push a button and the gate unlocks. It's a pretty nice situation, but they run into that type of problem, I guess. Correct. And one point that Chris had mentioned as well, with regard to some townhome and condominium complexes, we did have a request where effectively their parking lot has two official street names. that we're private and we're requesting us to come in and take care of it. So effectively, they're asking their street, although it effectively is nothing more than a parking lot for us to maintain. So there would have to be some criteria as to whether, from the standpoint of public works, we're not in the business of maintaining parking lots. That really, in my opinion, falls more on general services, parks for their facilities, but not when it comes to a residential community, although they do have in the enhanced 911 system, a named street for their development, if you look at it, it is nothing more than a parking lot. So it is a complex issue. It looks like we're in a position right now to solve all the problems of developers and such that took place in the 50s, 60s, and 70s. Thank you, Kevin. Thank you, Chair. Very good, sir. Housemar Mazzotti. Thank you, Chair. I didn't mean to stir up a hornet's mitts today, but why not? My concern is I'm not sure how we would go about proceeding, especially for the residential areas. Is there any way that we can do this so we are consistent saying from this point on that every residential development, and I know there's going to be some pushback because I do that for a living, and I know there are specific developments that don't have sidewalks, curbs, and gutters, but can we not either have some input from you all because every council member up here can cite an issue that they have with private streets. Everyone up here can and the problems associated with it. So can we not from now on say, okay, if you were to build a development, these are the parameters you have to live by And we're sorry that you don't want to, you know, not put in the streets, curbs, gutters, I mean the sidewalks, curbs, and gutters, but we have to because eventually we may end up as a city taking this on. That's correct, and that's an excellent question. And my response, and Chris can probably explain in greater detail, but from our experience, I think I inherited this issue as far as the process when Charlie Bowen left. I remember. And it came from the mayor's office to Public Works. In so far as inheriting that, I think there was some consideration to lighter standards because of certain lobbying that individual homeowners or larger neighborhood associations wanted to not have to facilitate that type of maintenance activity because of the expense. As we move forward, I think we've done a good job insofar as relaying the initial petition to our division directors, police, fire, it goes through planning, it goes through engineering, all of our divisions within public works. Those concerns are vetted, and we make that public information to you as counsel to determine. But I think we've actually seen a trend moving more towards the complete street notion, where we want to see stormwater infrastructure. We want to see curb and gutter and sidewalks. And that, in similar fashion to what Council Member Senate was saying, it is a costly endeavor. There have been a number of times that, unlike what you see on that list, we've had a number of requests for private streets to be made public. But when we look at the cost associated with not only bringing their street up to our level of construction, but also the costs associated with the requirements of stormwater, sidewalks, and that kind of infrastructure, people just immediately back away and say, we'll figure out a way. But then we leave the burden on the resident or the homeowner, and how fair is that? Or the neighborhood association. Or the neighborhood association, correct. Correct, exactly. So I think we're operating off of what is now a CAO policy, And I think, yes, we could make improvements to that to make sure we had a defined set of standards that if these areas did not meet, these would be the costs associated moving forward with getting those two-hour standards per subdivision regulation. I think that's a fair assessment. If we could do something like that, maybe, Chris, you can chime in on this. But I know there's going to be pushback on this, and I can understand probably some of the developments that don't want to have to come up to public standards, but again, ultimately, the government may be the one who's maintaining it. Well, I would completely defer to Kevin and his judgment in terms of the process of existing ones being made public and those issues associated with that, and certainly within the Council's prerogative to adjust standards. because even the notes on the plats going back 40 years say if the government requests that they become public, then those requirements for all the upgrade don't have to be burdened on the property owner. So, again, if the government's the ones wanting them. So, again, it gets into that whole public policy area that you've been exploring here today, and I can't really add a whole lot to that conversation, I don't think, compared to Kevin and engineering and folks like that in terms of what the costs would be, what the burdens would be. If you want to get the conversation rolling about not allowing any more new private streets and residential areas, it is within your prerogative to initiate an amendment to the land subdivision regulations that would remove that option from development applications. That's within Council's prerogative. So if you did want to explore that, this may be a venue where the Council may want to put that and allow folks from the public to come and react to a proposal like that. Mr. Chair, if possible, I'd like to move that into committee for next month. Maybe we can have some further discussion in reference to the... The discussion and the idea of a text amendment. The text amendment. I think if you want to do that, I'm going to ask you for a motion in a second then. Because I consider that a separate issue from the one I think that you brought to the committee, at least in my mind. Well, let's go initially first with further discussion before we go with the text amendment. Because I think we're going to have to have some input, no question, from the development community and builders and so forth, and even neighborhood associations before we move any further on that. So I would put it in committee for next month that we would continue our discussion as far as private streets and residential areas and go from there. So moved. You asked the committee for input. I think you got a variety of it. So I'm glad for us to keep it in committee. I think we might need to meet offline or in between times to tailor our discussion and what a couple of our goals might be. Because it's everything from re-racking the current policy to stopping it cold and doing something different. And it's been a good conversation. It's fleshed out some things, some nuances of policy that we probably need to have some time with. So let's just keep it and roll it. Keep it rolling. If you all look at the last page, and we're closing in on our time here, we already have three items that kind of have rolled into next month's agenda already. I don't really want to run through all of these items or take committee items per se at this moment, but we're going to come back on the utility poles in the right-of-way is set for next month. The capital road projects and major corridors discussion we had last month would come back again. Then the conversation about merging the streets and roads and traffic engineering and division of transportation comes back. So we're going to have a good agenda. This can come back to it, too. I just think it would be wise for us to take our time and make sure we use the committee's time properly, too. Very good. All right. Yeah, are there any other comments on that issue before we move to our last item on the agenda, which has to do with committee items. Unless there was a specific motion on any one of those right now, I would just move or ask for a motion to adjourn. A motion and a second. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed, like so. Thank you for a fine meeting.