Music Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I want to welcome you to our October 8th Planning and Public Works Committee meeting. We have several items on the agenda, the first of which, and this is kind of an unusual and a change, the first five pages are the actual minutes from the meeting last month. and I just have a thing that I like for the committee to approve its minutes before the full council does. So actually I'll be reporting these minutes out at our meeting at 3 o'clock, but this gives the committee a chance to look over the minutes and approve them before we ask the full council to do so. I would just call attention to the fact that there's a motion under adult daycare that we took up and successfully dealt with, as well as a couple of motions about the Elm Tree Lane sidewalk. And those were really the only items that had actual decisions made on them, and I will reflect that during the report out. At this point, I'm going to ask if there are any additions or corrections to the minutes as they have been presented. Hearing none, I'd ask a motion for approval and a second. All those in favor? Opposed, like signed. Thank you all very much. Next up is a returning issue to us, the issue of large utility poles in the right-of-way, and this is something we have heard before. This is an updated version of it and is brought to us by Councilmember Clark, and I would defer to him at this time. Thank you very much. Thank you, sir. I want to simply introduce the topic by explaining to the committee and to the audience that this was an issue that came up last year by Councilman Doug Martin, and it was assigned to me. Yes, sir. Well done. So I have looked at it along with Jonathan Hollinger, my aide, and he was involved in the presentation the last time, as a matter of fact. And we took it on as a project to see if there was validity, how much validity was here and what we actually needed to propose to the committee. And so Jonathan's going to make a presentation that will explain that to the committee, I believe. So, Mr. Hollinger. Welcome, sir. Thank you. So this item came to committee back last December, as some of you may recall, and there was a few ordinance changes that were proposed at that time. The main issue here, obviously, was these very large structures, which I'm sure you're all familiar with. The one on your left is at the corner of Rose and Euclid. The picture on the right is on Cooper Drive. Both of these are actually part of the same project, which was to run another set of transmission lines to the new UK hospital. Here's another picture. The left is Lansdowne Drive, and the right is another picture of Euclid Avenue. This is really where the issue originally came from and what the city could do to possibly prevent these very large structures from being put in the right-of-way. So originally, we had come forward with some policy proposals to require more stringent review of the overhead utility structures by amending our right-of-way ordinance. We also looked at requiring notification of property owners when there was going to be an application for installation of major overhead utilities. And then the last proposal was to establish aesthetic guidelines, which are actually already referenced in our right-of-way ordinance but are not actually in existence. So after meeting with KU and some other stakeholders, we've come across some issues with those original policy proposals. First of all, the utility poles are mainly regulated in most of their aesthetic components by the National Electrical Safety Code, And so we would not really be able to create different requirements than that. And that would include ground clearance, which would relate to the height of the pole, what the poles are made of, how large they are, and things like that. Also, we had recommended that there be some notification procedures. And Kentucky Utilities actually already has notification procedures for their utility projects. And it depends on who is partnering with them. In the case of the UK hospital, UK sort of took on that notification, so it did not run through KU's channels. But they do have those procedures already in place, so that would probably be an unnecessary recommendation. And also, with regard to aesthetic guidelines, there is a state statute that states that PSC-regulated utilities are exempt from Planning Commission approval. So any aesthetic guidelines that were land use based or location based that resembled something like zoning would not apply to Kentucky utilities as they are PSC regulated. So after realizing all of these issues with the original proposal, we went back to the table with KU and talked about what we could possibly do to improve maybe the communication and help the council and the neighborhoods be more aware of when these things are coming early on in the project timeline. so we've come up with with an idea to just basically include a council staff member on the utility coordinating meetings which there are actually two sets of and these started after the south limestone project and have continued since and there's two sets of meetings there's one that is right-of-way utilities only and there's also a project-based meeting for city large city projects like the South limestone project and others and so a staff member would attend those meetings and create and they occur one set of those meetings occurs on a quarterly basis the other set occurs every two months so they're not incredibly frequent meetings so the council would would not receive a tremendous amount of information but just periodic periodically throughout the year they would receive a report they would tell district council members of upcoming large utility projects in their district and it would also inform the mayor and the at-larges about all of the projects that will be happening in the city so this process would allow all of all of you and other elected officials to stay in the loop on significant projects it would also create an avenue for input early in the project timeline so you don't hear about it whenever they're digging the hole to put the utility pole in it also provides a means of coordinating public information and holding public meetings, whether that be a partnership between the applicant and KU or a council member or the mayor and any entity, but it does provide a means of coordinating all that information together. The process would be operated on a pilot basis. I will volunteer to attend these next couple meetings myself well done well i will uh i will draft the uh the report and bring it back to this committee you can take a look at it and i'll be open to your suggestions at that point and if that is something that you think is valuable and you'd like to continue we can uh at that point talk about a means of codifying that so at this point i'd just be happy to take any questions you might have i will defer to other council members but i guess i want to ask isn't there a difference between the title of this, which is placing these poles in the right-of-way, versus mandating that at some point in some super infrastructure replacement that this go underground? I mean, it went underground to the point where it surfaced and came across campus and down Woodland and then down Euclid. So have you looked at kind of the other side of this, which is don't do this? If it is the will of the committee and the council, there are certainly avenues that the city could take to mandate major infrastructure changes to electric utilities. In my previous presentation, I did remind the council that it is very expensive to place utilities underground. and if there was a mandate in place to do so, that it would be likely that utilities may request a rate increase based on that policy. Well, there's lots of policy opportunities, but that's the follow-through we were after, I think, was why blight that corridor and never mind, too much. Up first is Council Member Lawless. Thank you, Chair, and thank you, Jonathan. and Council Member Clark. One thing to remember, when they're doing these giant utility poles, it's because they're carrying a whole lot of power and the expense is enormous. And this was first brought up by Councilmember Martin, in response to the large utility poles down Euclid and Woodland, those were done by the University of Kentucky on UK right-of-way, and they do not have to abide by any city ordinance that we have. I mean, and I can't even put my arms around them. They're so big. And it was quite unfortunate, but we had no policy or legislation or whatever that we have can stop UK from doing those things. Now, in the future, again, when you have those very large utility poles, it's because they're a conduit for a very large power. So that's just my thank you. Thank you, ma'am. I appreciate that. Next is Councilmember Henson. Thank you, Chair. Jonathan, thank you for your work, and thank you for volunteering to go to the meeting. You, too, go above and beyond, I think, what you need to do. But Council Member Clark is very lucky to have you, I think. Has any thought been given to camouflaging these things? I mean, even if, and that might be a really off-the-wall question, but even if they go underground, some of the poles would have to be above ground, correct? That's correct. Typically, the largest ones that we're talking about are transmission lines, which are unlike the ones you might see in your neighborhood, which are distribution lines. And the transmission lines require much larger poles and are also much more expensive to put underground. But I was just thinking, you know, if you have, say, for instance, a support pole in a house or a structure, you don't just leave the pole there. You cover it or you do something to it to make it look a little more attractive. And I just wanted to mention that, that I told Council Member Beard we could make it look like a large tree or, you know. So I just think other than putting up a big silver pole, we could maybe look at something like that. So thank you. Thank you, ma'am. Last on the current list is Council Member Beard. Thank you, Chair. Jonathan, a couple of observations, I guess. In relationship to university, they have right of eminent domain, and we might like where they are now as opposed to them swinging their weight around and putting them in somebody's backyard, which I guess they could do. The other thing is underground, for something as big or as large electrically, would need to be refrigerated somehow. You just can't dig a hole and run a line. We ran into that on the fairly ugly building down on the corner of Mill and Vine Street. And they had to, because the courts required certain things, they had to reroute that whole block. and it fed not only that block, but it fed on down to Rupp Arena and some of the, well, two hotels and all of that. And they had some problems actually being able to do that because of the power draw. So it's almost a catch-22. we're probably going to have to live with some of this for a certain amount. Now, the idea of do they actually have to be the same color and all that, I think the painting of them would even be better than what we have. But anyway, thank you for putting your hand up and saying that you'll cover these meetings and for your work on this. Thank you so much. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, sir. There are no other current sign-ups, and I think you volunteered to take us to the next policy point. I'll defer back to Council Member Clark. Thank you, Chair. And let me just answer many of the comments by saying we've thought about those things in deliberation, and particularly our conversation with KU. And we feel like this is probably the best solution that we're going to come up with. we're concerned about over-restricting these kinds of things because we can do that very quickly and would probably in some ways be justified but we don't see the point in it and we think probably it's better left alone and I'd also like to remind everybody that the UK actually worked with the city to get permission to do this in some more or less unofficial ways. But the point was UK was building a new hospital. They had to have power. They had to have redundant power. And so about the only way they could do this, UK did not want it going down Rose Street for several reasons, so they had to turn a corner there. That meant turning a corner with power lines like these, transmission lines, takes tremendous strength in those poles. You might be interested to know that the depth of the pole goes down 60 feet. If you can imagine what kind of tension those lines put on those poles, particularly when they turn a corner. So that's what's happened. And so we feel rather strongly that probably it's best left, like Jonathan has suggested, and that's what we're recommending, that we use this kind of as a pilot to let Jonathan go to these meetings, to report back to the council as he sees appropriate, and let's see where we are. At the point that we're able to make another report to the committee after some time, then we'll see where we are. So that's our recommendation. I'm comfortable with that. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for both of your work on this. I think we look forward to progress as it comes forward. Thank you very much. Third on our agenda is the capital road projects for major corridors and the ability of ourselves to maintain maintenance of those roads. This was originally referred to committee by Council Member Stennett. It has a couple of folks' names next to it. Gentlemen, welcome. We had a good discussion about this last time. You're bringing us more precision this time? Please proceed. It's a bit more for informational purposes. Very good. For your viewing pleasure. That's a nice picture. I can see rub free there. With the discussion that started our last committee meeting, we thought we would provide a little more graphic detail of the conversation and breaking out some of the major roadways for the sake of this discussion. And this really was brought to light by Council Member Sennett. And typically, as you're aware, when we start the resurfacing process, there's one pool of money that we allocate, and then we divvy that up per council district per greatest need. And one of the issues that has come to light per recent discussions is the effect of our major corridors that affect multiple council districts. In this particular slide, I just wanted to show what is the major arterial roadways that we are responsible for as a city to maintain. The major roads that come into the city, as you see highlighted, or they're actually in gray, are those that are state-maintained roadways. Those that are in red are the responsibility of our county government to maintain. The cost that you see associated there at $11 million, that would be basically a standard milling and resurfacing at an inch and a half among those roadways that you see highlighted in red. If we move one step further and look at our minor arterials, that would include roads, as you see there, such as Wilson Downing, Armstrong Mill from the point of Man of War into Tate's Creek, Southland Drive, Rosemont Garden, Lane Allen, those would be the types that would be considered minor arterials. And in your packet, I've actually broken these roads down based on their road classification. So just from a minor arterial standpoint and resurfacing those, it would be a cost associated at just over $15 million. What I wanted to do with the next slide was just to show what the impact is per any given council district. Now, for the likes of the minor arterials, what we've seen historically is you as a council typically pay for this resurfacing through the monies that are allocated to you per your annual resurfacing budget. But with the roads such that are the major arterials, that's where we're looking to find, and if the council would like to authorize the minor arterials, to have a kitty or a pool of money set aside to address issues such as resurfacing, base failure repairs, and basically the like. As you would see with Man of War, for example, and how many various council districts it spans, you could spend effectively all of your chunk of resurfacing money just on resurfacing portions of man-of-war within any given council district. So that's why we thought to show a review of the council districts and how they would be impacted by the major and minor arterials. The next step is we're looking at collector streets. Again, there's a whole list of those, as you will see in your packet, but this gives you another sense geographically of where these lay within the urban service area. The cost associated with resurfacing those, again, at 1 1⁄2 inches, was essentially just over $16 million. And then the total for all three classifications, as you see there at the bottom, was just over $42 million. Now, that is just a bare total. This doesn't weigh into the fact that all of these streets are requiring any resurfacing at this time. We did not weigh into effect the percentage rating as far as what is of greatest need among these streets. This is just bare knuckles as far as what you would see as far as an entire cost assessment for those roads. The final slide that I have here was basically I wanted to highlight, in addition to all the major, minor, and collector streets, the roads that we have resurfaced throughout the Urban Service District with a $13 million bond. We're actually wrapping that resurfacing effort up as of this week, potentially next week. but I wanted to give you a sense geographically of what that $13 million has or where that money has been spent effectively per each council district. We are in the process of breaking those numbers down as far as what has been spent per council district so that you will be able to see individually what monies are remaining to where we can apply additional funds to other streets within your district. But I just thought for the sake of this conversation, it would be interesting to see what $13 million has afforded you in comparison to what the major corridors and where they exist within the urban service area. A very neighborhood-friendly list there, it looks like to me. It is very politically correct, yes, sir. Thank you, thank you. So with that, Brad Frazier is here as well to answer additional questions, but that's effectively just from the standpoint of where we wanted to show where we would have potential greatest need among areas of our major, minor, and collector streets for the sake of this conversation. Go back to your last one, if you would. I have one person signed up. I just want to make a comment before. I mean, really, that shows the policy that Council Member Stenet was really kind of getting down to, is 12 individuals kind of do things individually, and we need to back off and look at things a little more holistically for larger roadways. So that's, I think, the background for the policy discussion here. But in my mind, that map really shows it perfectly. I have Council Member Pizzotti signed up. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Kevin, for the update. So I understand this. The $13 million has been spent. We are, as far as the roads that were presented to us per each individual council district, those roads have been completed or will be completed by the end of this week, potentially next, based on the weather. Okay. So I'd probably get, I'd say on average and probably other council members do too, about 10 to 12 emails on why their roads have not been resurfaced. So what I'm asking you is what do you need for the next phase in order to complete some of those roads that are still on that list that we chose to not resurface because they were either a court or because they weren't heavily traveled? Do you have any idea? Well, hopefully by, I would like to say tomorrow, but most definitely by the end of the week, I would like to give you the breakdown of monies that remain per each council district to where you could in turn just relay your additional streets to me that we could allocate those funds, additional funds to, in order to get those roads resurfaced. moving forward as far as additional fiscal years we're going to be looking at a far lesser amount of money that's going to be dedicated to resurfacing unless we move to another bond allocation for resurfacing and the reason I say that is typically our allocated municipal aid monies run generally around let's say $3.5 million that we divvy up per each individual council district But starting next fiscal year, $1 million of that is going to have to be taken to pay back the $13 million bond. So we're looking at already $1 million off the top and then allocating that additional $2.5 million to each council district. I think we've made a big dent in the roads that were requiring greatest need as of this year in that $13 million bond. But it will be interesting to see once I get a final tally as to our next pavement management rating system, just how much need exists still moving forward, if that helps to answer them. No, it does. And I understand you've also got these major roadways, too, like we're talking about Manowar and some of these major arterials that you haven't even assessed yet. So we can be looking at a larger amount than what we've even already dedicated, which is a good assumption. I just want to make a clarification. It's $1.5 million that we will be taking off, putting it 12 or 10 years, I believe. It won't be $1 million. It'll be $1.5 million. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Thank you. It would be, as far as the major and minor arterials, I think if you were to look at Clay's Mill, for example, within your district, We're putting a lot of money into that to make sure we're already ahead of the game as far as making sure that that roadway is going to be up to spec for the next 20, 25 years, hopefully. We do assess these roads as we would for any road within the council district for its pavement rating. and would put that together to show, let's say, Manowar, for example, within your district, what would be the need and what budget or the fund amount would be required to fix that portion of Manowar. I hope I'm not confusing this, but one thing I want to – I know, I'm starting to speak over myself. So with the $13 million that the council advocated for resurfacing this year, we've effectively spent all that per what, or we've accommodated all the roads that are requested of us. In that exercise, typically as I have reported to council before, I will estimate generally 10% above what the estimated cost is for road resurfacing just to account for the unknowns, which may be a base failure repair, et cetera. What's interesting is we've come to the end of this cycle. We've resurfaced all the roads that were requested. We are now standing at $11.5 million. We still have about $1.5 million remaining within that $13 million bond. So my numbers were pretty correct insofar as the 10 percent overage, but the allocation for each council district is pretty skewed. So that will be interesting to show you and report that to you as well. But just FYI. Okay. One last question. Last week I asked you if you can give me an idea of how much bang we get for our buck. How much road mileage did we resurface for $13 million or $11.5 million? What does that equate to? Do you have any idea? Offhand, I do not know, but I could run that number very quickly. In fact, during the course of this year. I'm just curious. Is it 50 miles, 75 miles? I'm just wondering how much you get for this. If I were to guess, I would say that $13 million probably equated to around 25 to 30 miles. Really? And resurfacing, correct. Because I think people don't understand how expensive it is when they are requesting their streets to be repaved, that it's a real expensive process to have done. Correct. Okay. Thank you very much. Absolutely. Thank you, ma'am. Next up is Council Member Beard. Thank you, Chair. Help me with something, if you would, just in my district now. Wilson Downing Road is a minor arterial, I believe. Correct. Okay. Why? It's a two-lane, no sidewalks, trees right up, in some cases, right up next to the road kind of a situation. Is it just because it goes from a major arterial to a major arterial that you want to? I'll let Brett answer that question, actually, for classification. Brad, you get the answer. Chief Engineer, welcome. Council Member, it could be based on several different factors. One, as you were already talking about, a linkage component between arterials. Another is the way that it would be modeled as far as its volume and its importance through the MPO process. They make identification on which rows are considered a major arterial and minor arterial. Basically, the volume of truck traffic, it makes access to it. As you already stated, its linkage, how important that works out. Just different factors go into it. the zoning components as far as if it's a mix of solely you know if it's only residential some of them you may have something like wilson downing but only have a collector classification but you know with wilson downing because of its location and the fact that it crosses several different collector roads and it does link up major arterials in the community that's probably why it has that Like Lansdowne Drive, for instance? Yes. The fact that there are two schools on Wilson Downing, does that influence anything? Probably would, I would think. Yes, sir. Okay. That's all I need to know. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Thank you, sir. Council Member Lawless. Thank you. I'm having a little trouble seeing the maps and telling where things are, but a lot of these that I'm seeing are state responsibility, like portions of High Street. The sections that you see highlight are actually our responsibility. There are portions of, say, High Street and Maxwell that are under state maintenance, but for the sake of this discussion, those that are highlighted in red and blue, as far as the major and minor arterios, are the responsibility of urban county government to maintain. Okay, so they're just not there. They're not part of the state or federal highway system is what that effectively breaks down to. So you only put the ones up there that are? That would be our responsibility, not that in state. And I also want to compliment you all. This year has been far better in the job that has been done, and so kudos to all of you all. better coordination with the utility companies, better communication. So I really appreciate it. I know that some of the streets in my district, as well as the Woodland Triangle, have had to be put off because of the utility work being done. So I just want to say it's been the greatest paving year of my life. Great. And I'd like to give credit to Commissioner Maloney for organizing. We orchestrate a meeting every two weeks with our contractor to make sure that everybody is on the same page, that we're aware of utility or even our own internal utility work to where we're not going to be getting in and repaving a road to where a week later it's going to be torn up because of utility. So that coordination has been key as far as allocating this $13 million amount. Well, kudos to all of you all. I really appreciate it, Commissioner Maloney, Kevin, Albert. Yeah. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you, ma'am. Next up, we have the dean of this issue, Council Member Stennett. Thank you, Chair, and thank you, Kevin, for your presentation. I think what I was trying to get to, Chair, and where you started off was the major and minor artilleries that you mentioned earlier in your presentation. Getting to the collectors gets a little more in depth than what I'd envision, because if you just look at those numbers alone, that's $26 million of paving. That affects pretty much every major area of our city and almost every council district. Getting down to the collectors, as Councilman Beard pointed out and a couple others, those are roads that we're already doing with our neighborhood funds. A lot of those cut through neighborhoods anyway, so we're already paving some of those. So for my purposes, I wanted to stop at the major and minor and focus on a plan of attack on that $26 million need out there sometime in the future. Have you gone through and surveyed when was the last time on some of those and put a date when they were resurfaced last? Do we even have that data? We do, actually. It is a function of the pavement management system. it's going to become a lot more crucial as we move forward with the GIS-based application that is now actually we're in the process of beta testing that now. So I think that it will be something that will tie over to our existing pavement management system, but we will have a good fixed date to accommodate that. And that way we can actually, as we had mentioned before, kind of have a tracking model to map that degradation so we can forecast five years ahead as to what the need will be based on how this model progresses. That's at least my hope. Yeah, and that's what I want to do the next step is get a plan. How much of that $26 million can we fit into a budget each year and what part of those streets fill that need and that amount of payment we can get done? Because the longer we wait, we'll never get some of these done. If we have to do it all at once, we're never going to get $26 million. So get a plan so we can come pieces at a time each budget cycle, whether it be a million or two million. And speaking of budgets, I know you mentioned that we have debt service coming up. And as anticipated, because I say that, because this council can fund that and pay that bond any way we want. There's no one that says we have to use municipal aid money because it all goes to the general fund. Now, if we budget that way and we want to use that piece, that's fine. But as Kevin mentioned, we get a limited amount of municipal aid money each year. It doesn't mean we can't use general fund money to do paving, too, like we're talking about in our fund balance discussion. So just keep that in mind. I don't want to pigeon us in a corner and then paint us in a corner, and then we can't do something else. We can do each budget cycle, and whether we're off sitting here or a new council, we can make those determinations each year based on our need. And right now, last year, our need in the community was great. It was close to $27 million. Now, the last question is, how much of that $13 million, has it impacted it dollar for dollar, or did our need between last year and this year grow because of winter weather, et cetera? Where do we fall now? Have we recalculated what our total estimated need throughout the city is for paving? I have not run those numbers, but that was going to be a function of what I reported back to you as far as the money that was remaining within your council district and what the dent that $13 million has made in our overall need of roads that rate 65 and less. And I'm going to assume that they've made a significant dent in those roads based on what you brought to our department and some communications that we had to maybe alter or just tweak it a little bit to where we were funneling that money to roads of greatest need. And I think we've done an outstanding job this year. Well, I know it didn't cut it in half, but at a hopeful least it put 30% to 40% dent into it. and the council can take that information and work on what we're going to do next budget cycle or even in the spring in terms of additional bonding or fund balance to put towards some of these roads. If you can get back to us with a plan of how we tackle the minor and major each budget cycle, what we could really handle budgeting-wise and actually getting the work done as well, because some of these roads obviously will be major, major traffic impacts if you close them down for resurfacing. Absolutely. And that's a big decision-making in terms of policy and when we're going to do some of that work. So if you could get the next step going and get us that data, too, on how much impact we really made with the $13 million bond, was it worth it doing a big chunk like that? And thank you for your department and you and Commissioner Maloney and all the work everyone put into it because I think it went pretty smoothly from where I sit. And to get all that paving done from April until now is a pretty remarkable feat when we've had 12 months with only a tenth of that money it's taken us. So something has gone wrong in the past, but I think we've corrected some of those past decisions, and I think we're going on the right path to move forward. So thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. There's three more people signed up, and we need to hear those discussion points, but hopefully in working this policy, we can hone it by maybe having a motion to have them work on, what Council Member Stenet pointed out, major and minor arterials, because if we're able to say that with some certainty today, that will help them in what they're going to do with the staff time. Next up is Council Member Clark. Thank you, Chair. Given this was my first experience dealing with paving, it's been very interesting. I want to announce to the committee that I did not receive one single call that thanked me for repaving their street. I did receive a few calls from the other direction, but it has been an interesting experience. And my question is, when we receive the list of streets and their ratings, the first question, I wondered how old that was, because I drove every street and tried to kind of evaluate them in addition to what I was seeing on the paper. And I found that some of them seemed to me not quite accurate. So, number one, I want to know how old that was, and then I want to know how, in the future, how that process will be done, what are the plans for a continual evaluation of our streets. Just a brief history. In fact, about four years ago, our process was we would evaluate one-third of the county every year, and then on our fourth year, we would do a full county-wide assessment of our roads. So at any one point when you received a list of the pavement management and roads that had a rating, it could be anywhere from a current rating to that of three years in age. We changed that to where we are now evaluating half the county every other year, so the data you receive is no more than a year old. With the movement and my hope towards this GIS-based application, my intent and hope is that it will be efficient enough to where we can produce an evaluation of the entire Fayette County Road system every year, reporting that information back to you rather than in a tabular form in a graphic format as you see in front of you now so that you can see a weighted amount based on a color or however it's best for you to make that determination of roads that are of greatest need. So it will be a lot easier moving forward to see it in that format, in my opinion, than looking at a spreadsheet and trying to determine what do I have here. So that is our intent to answer your question. The information that you had before you when you passed it on to me was no more than a year old. and moving forward we hope it to be accurate within that given care. Okay, and who actually does the evaluation, Kevin? That is within the Division of Engineering. Okay, thank you. Now I'm going to save myself a telephone call, but I'm going to ask you a very specific question. Tell me what the plan is for Southview Drive. It's been milled. It's been milled for a couple of weeks and it hasn't been paved. The issue was that there was a manhole that had a partial collapse, and we have water quality looking into the repair now so that we didn't come in and resurface over where we would have to do a road cut. So effectively, I understand that complaint, and we're working as diligently as possible to get that resolved to where we can go ahead and get the final surface back on that road. That's what I told the residents. Okay, very good. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Kevin. Sure. Thank you, sir. Next is Council Member Akers. Thank you, Chair. Kevin, can you educate me on how streets are included in a collector list or a minor list? I mean, I understand I'm on the Corridors Commission, so we've had lengthy discussions about major and minor, so I understand, but in the 2nd District, there's a lot of new development and new construction and new roads that are what I would consider to be collectors, Greendale Road, for instance, or Lucille Drive. Master Sensation Drive is included, but not Lucille, and Buck Lane is included, but not Greendale or Trailwood that runs through Mayor Haven all the way to McConnell's Trace. So I'm just curious, does that happen every 10 years, or when are those numbers recalculated and those other roads considered to be included? I apologize, Council Member Rakers. I'm really not the one qualified to answer as far as how the ratings are assessed as they come into our network, based on whether it's a local collector, major or minor material. I think Brad can readdress that. Thank you. I'm going to answer that, but I'm also going to look over my shoulder to the folks in planning to make sure I say this correctly. So during the comprehensive plan as far as the transportation element or the component of that, when they look at various properties, it's determined, especially with the MPO's process, that we understand, based on the zoning, that there will be street networks as far as local streets, cul-de-sacs, continuous roadways, but also the need and the layout of what will be your collector roads. For example, like Masterson Station, Collector Road, Sandersville, Collector Road. Basically, it is a component that is anticipated to take what's considered local traffic from cul-de-sacs and those continuous streets, and then it will be like the top component within a neighborhood area or even in a commercial area that will go ahead and allow the traffic to funnel through your arterial network. So that's basically how it works as far as, you know, you have your local streets to where you go to your next category, which would be like your collector roads. And basically it's kind of the collector roads are kind of the lifeblood of an area, especially in a residential area. That's where everybody really needs to get to so they can go ahead and get onto the arterial system and get to other destinations around the county. so would if i wanted to have a road added to a collector list what is that process or who would just determine that to add it to a collector i mean to to a collector what trailwood lane for instance i mean is longer than master sensation drive and probably has more streets off of it more cul-de-sacs off of it etc but it's not on the list for me still drive is another example For me to give you an accurate answer on that, I would want to consult with the NPO folks and give you an answer that way. That would be okay. Sure. That's fine. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, ma'am. Council Member Beard. Second time up, but I did want to get wrapped up in my questions, and I wanted to thank you all for the fantastic work you did on Lansdowne Drive. It was one of those situations where it was too big to ever do. And we were getting to the point where we were getting an awful lot of feedback from constituents about it. And it is beautiful now, very much so. Does ATS ever subcontract for anything that is done, little parcels and pieces that their equipment won't deal with? As far as the actual resurfacing node that I'm aware of, they actually have all the equipment staged to facilitate that. For issues such as striping, they would probably sub that type of activity out. But the actual work as far as the milling and the resurfacing, all that would be under their contract and would be performed by their company. Well, that was as much as it was done. That's very interesting that they're able to do that. We effectively opened three asphalt plants to accommodate this resurfacing effort. so that typically we're operating off of two that are located off of Manchester Street. But the needs warranted the operation and opening of a third plant in order to facilitate this request per the $13 million bond. That's right. Okay, that's all I had, Chair. Thank you. Thank you all again. Yes, sir. I just want to follow up. ATS has been a big help on this. that not only did they go and do this in four or five months, we all thought this was going to take three years. And I've got to commend ATS for putting it together and getting it done in four or five months. And Kevin and Albert and all those guys really worked hard on this. And I just want to commend the hard work. And it was an amazing process. Coming to the council members, did come to our meetings. I think Chris came, I think Council Member Farmer, and it was a good meeting we had with ATS, and I want to commend them, too. They were a big help, and also helping. They're the ones that come up with the idea on your street and able to save us some money and said it's been a lot more, but I want to commend them, too, for what they did. Commissioner, thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you for your service to this government in so many capacities. We appreciate it very much. Next up on the list is Council Member Henson. Thank you, Chair. Kevin, thank you for the presentation, and thank you for all that the entire department has done. I appreciate it. And I guess I just wanted to reiterate what Council Member Stenet had said earlier. I feel like this council, this administration, has done a real good job of getting a handle on a lot of deficit-type things that we have, liability, and as long as we have a plan in place to cover, you know, if we look at the average of streets that fall below that 65 mark every year, and we can generate that number of dollars to keep ahead of the game so that we don't fall so far behind. And I think that's the goal. I know with the bond money and the allocation, the annual allocation, I was able to get all the streets in District 11 paved that were rated 58 and below. That's all very good. So, you know, 59 to 65 still need, but, you know, even when it's, you know, 65, 64, it's not really that bad. But I, you know, I would like to at least get to that 60 mark, I would say. Right. So, but I do appreciate the work that was done. and as long as we have a strategic plan, a goal to get where we need to be and maintain that. Absolutely. We agree completely. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Let me just confirm. If we were to give you a sign and signal at this meeting to proceed using major and minor arterials as your base to work from, to then make a plan on how to regularly fund that replacement, would that give you enough to work with? Because I think if you try to add in the collectors below this, it gets to be a little unwieldy, at least in my mind. Or does it make any difference at this point? At this point, it would be worth consulting the pavement ratings to see where we are and then coming back to this body and addressing where we would perceive that need to be and what that would amount to as far as a dollar figure, and then moving forward with how we would like to budget that. If we want to take a percentage of the resurfacing monies allocated through MAP and say 10% of that is just dedicated to the fund for major minor arterials. But major minor being the universe. In my opinion, I do agree with Councilman Sennett that typically within the collector system, within the given districts, you're already taking care of those with the resurfacing monies at hand. I think we should focus on the major and minor arterials as a separate pool of money. That's exactly what I'm after, and I want to ask the committee for their input or discussion or even a motion, because if we're going to make a policy, we have to give them what the area is to work on. and I believe that the presentation has been made around major, minor, and then potentially collector, but I think for the purposes of the discussion that Council Member Stendert brought forward, it would be to take care to use major and minor arterials as the group to work from. So does that have a comfort level among those here for this? Hearing none, you are so charged. How's that? Very good. Thank you. Thank you very much. Anyone else on this issue? So you want to come see us again in the new year or something, or what are you thinking? We could present as early as next committee meeting, in my opinion, as far as reporting back and providing those numbers and what a perceived need would be. If you're ready to move forward, we're ready to take action. We would be. Very good. Thank you, sir. Appreciate all of your all's time and expertise there. Next up is the issue of merging streets and roads and traffic engineering into a new division of transportation. This is something that's been brought to us, and we may not move forward on it today, I don't think. Did you want to make any comments before we move on? No, Mr. Chairman. Just to ask that we table this presentation until the next committee meeting. With Mr. Maloney's retirement coming up, we would like to have some discussions with him also. Fine. I don't think there's a problem with that on the committee side. If you all are comfortable. Yes, ma'am. For next month. Thank you. Very good. Thank you very much. Which rolls us down to item number five, which is the private streets enforcement, maintenance, and specification. Brought to us by Council Member Mazzotti, and I would defer to her at this time. Why? Am I saying it wrong? Have I said it wrong for 15 years? You have. It's like pasta, not pizza. Pasta, like an S. Say it. Mazzotti. So it's softer. It's no Zs. Mazzotti. Pasta, not pizza. Thank you. Thank you very much. I appreciate it. Thank you. You're welcome. Jennifer. You're welcome, Bill. The issue of private streets. This is, you know, I think in everyone's district, an issue. And I guess by reading through the packet and having the discussions that we've had, I certainly feel that we need to separate private streets from commercial streets. I mean, residential from commercial, because there's a huge difference. although I don't see, in my opinion, any more reason to grant private streets. And I know that may cause some issues, but I think down the road we have been recipients of streets where we've had to maintain them, we've had to deal with them as far as public safety issues. Can we get an ambulance down the street? Can we get a fire truck down the street? I mean, these are all issues that we have to think about in our districts. And I think everybody has, as I said, a street in their district that they are concerned with as far as safety issues. So I don't know, Chair, how we want to go about doing this. I think last time Chris King said that this would have to be done. You know, we'd have to have a public hearing. But I'd kind of like to get input from the other council members if they feel this is something that is worthy of changing before I go any further. Thank you, Chair. I'm still busy figuring out the vowels and consonants of your name. I know it's not easy. Thank you. If other folks have comments on this or we can proceed, I think, though, if we're looking for a policy angle here, it might be in some of the maintenance and specification and enforcement part, maybe not so much in taking the idea of private streets out of our toolbox, which I think is something you'd given comment to last time and maybe even just now. But we can proceed ever how we would wish to, and at this point I would defer to the Vice Mayor. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just a comment in answer to the question. I do think it's an important issue. and it's been for many, many years now we've been asked to take private streets which do not meet our standards and to me that for the most part is a safety issue because many times it deals with the width of the street and so I would like to see us take it up in some way and I was very happy that in some place in here I read that we were going to require a 50-foot easement, even though the street was not our standard width. So I'm not sure exactly where we need to go with it at this point, but I think we need to be discussing it and figure out what will be best for our community. Very good. Thank you, ma'am. Thank you. Council Member Stenet. I think there's two issues we're dealing with. One is how do we accept those private streets into our system if they're already private and the neighborhood requested? I think we can relax and deal with some of those policy decisions. But the other issue of do we even allow them to begin with on the planning phase, I'm not sure that's the real crux of what we're trying to get to, but it might be. I do think there is a difference between allowing commercial and allowing residential in our community, a big difference. Commercial are a lot more easily added and accepted and maintained and just to a larger scale. A lot more maintenance dollars behind commercial private streets. You get into the residential, you create a nice HOA. It's up and running. In 10 years, it's bankrupt or defunct. Then they want to turn the streets over. That's another issue. So I do think there's a difference between commercial and residential. But I would like to see us change some of the CAO policies on how we accept them into our system. I think that's the real crux today based on what the vice mayor just said. There's a neighborhood out there that wants to come on, but the streets are woefully inadequate from what they should be. And there's no neighborhood that's going to have half a million dollars to get them up to standard. There's just not. So we need to deal with that. Thank you. Agreed. Excellent commentary. Thank you. Next, Council Member Henson. Thank you, Chair. And I wanted to also add that there's another issue with private streets. if the street becomes in disrepair and it has a negative effect on a surrounding neighborhood. So it's like the private street doesn't have a, you know, there's no money to correct, say, water runoff issues. and the water is flooding another area from that street. And we can't force them to correct that issue. So that's something else that I would like for you to look at, if you would. Thank you. Thank you, ma'am. Director King, although I have Harry Clark first, Council Member, if you would. But I wanted to, after your comments, hear from the Director of Planning, right after Council Member Lawless. Let me ask this question then. Coming to this process late, I'm wondering why a developer builds a private street, calls it a private street, without the restrictions or without the requirements that we would impose on ourselves. So a private developer can build a street without any constrictions based on size? Now I will defer to Director King very specifically or Mr. Saleh. And while he's coming, if that's the case, one thing it seems like we could do, we could simply impose standards. They would say the street, if you're going to build a private street, it's fine, but it's going to have to be this wide, this deep, et cetera. Very good. Gentleman. Again, it's very hard to relate to these because you're talking about physical conditions and situations. But first of all, these are rooted in law, in the land subdivision regulations, and there are requirements and restrictions. There is some more flexibility on private streets than there are on public. Public is very rigid, although they're not as rigid as they were 15 years ago. There were some changes made about 10 years ago. But to change, I won't comment on the acceptance process. That's really outside of our bailiwick. But in terms of new development rules and regulations, it will require to remove that possibility from the ordinance or to restrict it only to residential will require a text amendment process of the land subdivision regulation. So at some point you probably would want to explore what that language actually is in the ordinance, what the requirements are now, what flexibility the Planning Commission has to review proposals by developers, and look at the difference between situations that you have with single-family detached versus townhouses versus condominiums. it's a little hard to have a one size fits all solution but I do think it is a matter that is ripe for review and discussion but Chris if we were going to if we were going to build the street we would have requirements for that would we not And why can't we impose exactly the same standard on a private developer who's going to build the street? You could, but that would mean if you picture any time you were creating a townhouse lot, you would be required to do a formal street, 50-foot right-of-way, curb, gutter, sidewalk, setbacks, then beyond that. I mean, you can do that, but there will be a physical ramification in that. There will be cost implications to do that. Again, that's entirely within Council's purview to direct that the laws be changed to do that. But there will be some ramifications. I understand what it is possible to do if we chose to do it. Yes. Yes. Thank you very much. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, sir. Next is Council Member Lawless, followed by the Vice Mayor. Thank you. I noticed on the list of 3rd District Council private streets, a lot of them are, I think, on U.K. property. Is that? Yes. Thank you. There are a number of private streets that are on U.K.'s property, yes. So I'm assuming that we wouldn't take those in as... There's never been a request of UK for us to accept the right-of-way of a private street on their campus. In fact, it's actually just the opposite. that more traditionally we've seen in the last, I'd say, five years, a request of UK to obtain the public right-of-way and transferring it to either a private street or them just dedicating the right-of-way to UK for construction. Leader Avenue, for example, is one that stands out in recent past that's been the case. But never in my tenure insofar as taking this policy, and it actually was under Charlie Boland's guide. Since it's come to our department, I have never had an opportunity where UK has made that request among us. I mean, like Woodland Avenue is on here? Woodland? Not all of it, but part of it. No, I don't. Maybe from Columbia on in or something? I'm sorry? Maybe from Columbia on in. Well, now, I know that there's a proposal to where Woodland, the portion of Woodland where the new construction is beginning and they're wanting to route traffic around to sport complex drive, that portion they want to make private as well as hilltop drive, which may already be, in order to make that full pedestrian movement and not allow vehicle access to that portion. So that might be the reason why that was listed as such. I'm not sure why Woodland at that point. I'm not sure what you just said. Unless there's a portion of Woodland I'm not aware of that is private. Yeah, I mean, I know they've talked about it. I just didn't know that it was. It's actually in the process now. And I certainly assume that that would be the council and the city's prerogative to grant that or not. It would be before you for approval, yes. And then there's a couple like Courtyard Place, I think it is, that goes, it's a small street that goes behind some townhouses over there off Walton or Ashland or one of those. And I would assume that when these private developments build private streets, there's a homeowners association that maintains and they pay fees that maintain. In some cases, I'm not sure if that's true for all townhomes, if that's the case. Well, I mean, I have almost all of these on the list for the third district are U.K. property. Okay. Okay, thank you. Thank you, ma'am. Vice Mayor. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Kevin, on your list of private streets, what percentage of them would you say are residential single-family home? and Mr. King mentioned the townhouses. Do you have any breakdown on that? At this point, I apologize, I do not. I would say, I would venture to guess the vast majority of these are actually single-family residential streets that they serve as such. But without doing an assessment and looking at various layers within the GIS to make that determination, I'm at a loss to answer that at this point. Okay. And then, Mr. King, if you could, you mentioned townhouses, and can we, if we chose to make some changes to the land subdivision regs, could we split out townhouses and large apartment complexes away from residential single family, or how does that work? Yes, you could. I mean, clearly you could review the rules and set restrictions on where different allowances on private streets can or could not occur. I mean, I understand what you were saying about a townhouse development, and it is very different from a single-family home development. My main concern, well, my first concern is the safety issue and whether we're sure we can get a fire engine and an ambulance down every street we have. And I don't know. Does anybody know the answer to that? I would say yes. I mean, virtually everyone, for as long as I've been here 40 years, and even though there have been changes in the requirements and restrictions and the practices related to that over time, all of those proposals were reviewed by the technical committee, fire, police, and others. Where you have some other situations where you have private streets like gated communities or ones like the islands where the streets actually connect up in two ways but the public isn't allowed to move through, council can even, I believe under those plats, could go in and request that those all be dedicated and made public and allow public access through that. So there are cases where it has nothing to do with the width or the size. It's desired to have a gated community or something of that nature. So that's what I'm saying. You encounter all different kinds of situations. Right. And do we know if on private streets, if there's parking allowed, if all of them are wide enough to have parking and allow an emergency vehicle through? I don't think you can say that for every street. And I don't think you could even say that for every public street that we have out there, particularly older streets. On the newer streets, you certainly have enough for parking on one side. Okay. Virtually 100% of the cases, close to it. I'm sure you could find an exception. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Farmer. I hope that we will look at some of the subdivision regs that Mr. King recommended and just to know exactly what we require and what we don't. I think we could both do that as well as see any sort of a working group we wanted to to kind of study around on this. Thank you. Thank you. Next, Council Member Masati. Thank you, Council Member Farmer. Chair, I guess my suggestion would be is maybe, Chris, If we could get some information on how many streets that are not involved in multifamily developments that are strictly subdivision streets, so we could at least start in that direction. So to me, that would seem like the most appropriate way to handle this, that any future subdivisions that are going in, we would not allow private streets for residential areas. what would that I know we talked about the subdivision regulations what would we need to do for that in order to have that occur not that there's going to be a lot of new subdivisions coming in but there possibly could be in order to change the rules to not allow any new residential subdivisions to contain private streets single family or multi family single family I'm talking about single family at this point Okay. Again, you could do that through a text amendment of the land subdivision regulations, which is the same process as a zoning ordinance text amendment where the council would initiate a specific amendment, refer it to the planning commission. The planning commission must hold a public hearing and make a recommendation back to the council. In your experience, how many subdivisions have come on within the last five years that have had private streets? Mr. Sally might be better positioned since he works in those trenches every day. If it may not be a trend, I just don't know. I don't believe there have been very many subdivisions at all that have come through in the last five years with the housing downturn. We are seeing an increase this year in new subdivision plans rolling through our office and through the Planning Commission, but I don't recall any of those involving private streets throughout the entirety. There may be one or two small ones, but some access easements for, again, townhouse, multifamily. So you don't see it as an issue as far as residential development then? Not since the recent housing downturn. Prior to that, in the early part of the last decade, we had consistent requests for private streets, And that has been since we modified the regulations, as Council Member Clark asked about the depth, private streets having the same depth as public streets. Okay. Thank you. It could be a good time to be working on policy before that becomes more prevalent again. Thank you, ma'am. Council Member Beard. Thank you, Chair. We've been focusing on residential. I'll just skim through this very quickly. In the 4th District, we've got a Professional Heights Drive. We've got Tates Creek Center Drive. We've got Will Height Court, all of which I think are commercial in nature, I guess, how you designate it. And not quite yet, Kevin, but just a second. One other thing, training track drive in the 12th District, unnamed street in the 12th District, and track kitchen drive, all which are embedded inside, I think most of them embedded inside of Keeneland, but not spot embedded, in other words. um how are those handled or how should they be handled or can they be handled i think for the assessment moving forward where we are looking at the geography of that location and whether it exists within a single family residential neighborhood if there are townhouses associated with it like councilmember lulles is saying a number of those in her district are within uk proper in similar fashion to those that you would find around keen on with the presentation for the the information that's in your packet, effectively all I did was do a query on everything that had a value associated with private, which is P in our GIS, and they queried that out of everything that's inside the urban service area. There's also issues of these, and it may have gone into the 12th District to where it's outside the urban service area as well, because we've had a number of those streets request for inclusion as a public right-of-way. I'd just like to add, particularly as it relates to some commercial areas and the rural areas, these were never even reviewed as streets. They were basically driveways. But with the introduction of the E911 system, a whole lot of things that had always been considered driveways were given a name, and they're not public streets, but in order to create the addressing system and make them easily identifiable and findable on GIS systems and emergency responses. Again, a whole lot of things that were never even reviewed as private streets were basically given that status. I had a couple of other examples which I'm just kind of curious about. One is the Greenbrier out at Winchester Road, and the other is, and I can't remember right off the top of my head what the name of it is, it's on Versailles Road on the right-hand side as you're going toward Versailles. but out somewhat. Westmoreland? Westmoreland perhaps? Yeah, Westmoreland. Are those private? I believe those are public. Public? Okay. Just wondering, so there's no rhyme or reason in many cases for? Again, it goes back particularly a lot of those older ones. It was developers' wish to create an exclusive subdivision versus one that the public could go in or out. I think of the One's the Long Alumni, like I know, I don't remember if Tabor Lake still is, but it was private. The woods was private. Of course, the Lakeview Islands development are all private. But, you know, again, a lot of those were developers trying to create a certain gated community. Right. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Council Member. Council Member Massadi, I think that there's a couple of policy things going on here that we need to spend some time on, and I'm anxious for your commentary and a little bit of direction, because I think that there's some challenging parcels of land out there that we'd like to challenge and make something happen on behalf of infill and redevelopment, but we want to make sure that we bring either we set up so we know these will always be a private street or they can only come in under certain circumstances. It's a little murky, but I think it needs work on behalf of the opportunity for infill and redevelopment. I agree. I was going to try to sift through the murk, so to speak. On page 63 and 64, you see a petition for a private street acceptance on Laclede Court, and they're asking in order to have the stud that's going to cost the neighborhood looks like $402,000. Of course, just like Council Member Sennett said, I mean, what neighborhood could come up with that kind of money? So I would like to make a motion that we initiate a text amendment to not allow private streets and residential subdivisions. We have a motion. for purposes of discussion it's been seconded by the vice mayor so we're in discussion over the motion to eliminate or to initiate a text amendment to eliminate private streets in residential subdivisions I'm not talking about multifamily homes I'm not talking about townhomes I'm talking about a residential subdivision anyone under discussion Yes, ma'am. Vice Mayor. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm not sure whether the chicken or the egg ought to come first. I do think that if we initiate the text amendment, then the process would be, Chris, you can delineate it, it would go to the, would it come to us first and then we send it to the Planning Commission? That's what I was going to suggest. Before you can officially initiate an amendment, you have to have specific language that you would pass and refer and that we would advertise. So I was going to suggest, if I had been asked back to the podium, that we would be glad between now and the next committee meeting to at least draft a proposal that would do that for you all to review. So my question for Mr. Farmer and Ms. Masati is whether, because I'd like input from all the entities, including the development community, because I think the development community is probably quite willing to go with some changes. So where do we get that in this process, or would we want to do some kind of working group to take the text amendment and then tweak it and bring it back? I'm not sure how that could fit into the process, as opposed to just going straight to public hearings. Do you have an idea on that, Mr. King or Mr. Farmer? Sure. Well, again, certainly we would have some draft language before your packet was done. I know Todd is here and can certainly spread the word amongst his organization, and you could have that conversation right here before it goes on to the full council to even initiate the formal process. So there would still be formally informal discussion about the idea in this venue. Okay. So there would be time to, if we wanted changes, to make them before anything goes through the official channels before the Planning Commission. Because I think that's important. I'm in agreement. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Next up is Council Member Kaye. I guess we're still under discussion of the motion to have a text. Yes. And if I can ask Chris to come back up, it would be helpful to me to get a little bit, if you're willing to do this, a little bit of the sense of the pros and cons before we initiate a process that may end up not really meeting the needs that people have expressed. I mean, the reason I ask the question is I understand that there are many different ways in which private roads actually have been deemed beneficial to the community for whatever reason. So can you just talk a little bit about the upside, the downside, if we were to start moving in this direction? So I'm asking for a pre, you know, before you draft something, I understand that. And you may, if that's a bad question, say it's a bad question and we'll go on. Well, it's a difficult question because certainly I have always leaned towards the sides of public streets wherever they are possibly done. I am not a fan of gated communities or private developments personally. I would not live in one personally. but again so some of that's a subjective personal opinion others of it you know gets to a matter of public policy but in my experience there are cases where an access easement where what i would call a full-blown public street in order to create a lot that can be sold or transferred or built upon is excessive would be contrary to being able to provide affordable housing in some cases would be inflexible in design in some other cases, may not be environmentally the best way to deal with the situation in some cases. But again, some cases is the operative language. So again, I'm trying to describe physical situations with words, which is difficult to do. But I do think that as you go through and explore this, You know, some of those will come to the fore. I mean, clearly it's very easy if you say you cannot create a single-family detached residential subdivision on a private street. You know, that would be very easy to implement in law. In terms, again, in policy, it may not be. There may be neighborhoods or developers that want to do that, create an exclusive woods or a Lakeview Island or other type of development like that. So again, the pros and cons have some subjectivity to them. It's about as honestly as I can answer your question. Okay, so it really does sound like it would be useful to get some preliminary language to come back so we can discuss in more detail how the language might be crafted to include, obviously, what we want to have in and to exclude what we'd like to keep out. So thank you for that. Thank you, Chair. Anyone else on the motion? Hearing none, all those in favor of the motion, Mr. Seaton Piper is saying aye. Aye. Opposed, like sign? I'll say no. So I don't know if you want to put that up for a little vote, but I guess it passes for now. Anything else then? Then the last item on the agenda is our list, and I would just say we have a few minutes, and I think there's, while I don't want to go through everything on the list, I think there's three things we could potentially pull off. First, at work session, I'll be reporting out about the adult daycare center, so I think we would have a motion to remove that from this list. Motion and a second to remove adult daycares. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed, like sign. Second would be the performance bond versus letter of credit. I think we've had that discussion and really we've vetted out through there. I ask for a motion to remove that. Motion and a second. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed like sign. And lastly, we'll also report about the Elm Tree Lane sidewalk closure at work session, and I would ask for a motion to remove that also. Motion and a second. All those in favor? Aye. Thank you very much. That brings us to the end of this agenda. Unless there's other announcements or comments. Yes, ma'am. I'd like to move into the Planning and Public Works Committee and discussion on greenways. I believe there's a greenway master plan that was supposed to be under development and it's due to be completed this fall. So I'd like an update on that. And Chris has some pictures of some of our greenways that exist in my neighborhood. So I think sooner rather than later would be appropriate. I think your motion could be properly couched during work session. Okay. To refer something from the council to the committee, and we'll be glad to take it up. All right. Thank you. Thank you, ma'am. Anyone else? Then I ask for a motion to adjourn. Move adjourned. All those in favor? Aye. Thank you. We are adjourned. you