Music Madam CAO. Thank you. Thank you. Let me ask everyone to kind of find your seat and we'll begin to get started here. So these are something that has made it out. Not bad. That's right. That's right. It still is. It still is. Good afternoon, everyone. Let me welcome you to our January 2014 meeting of the Planning and Public Works Committee. We have three or four items on our agenda, beginning with our committee summary from our November meeting, which is in the packet. We have a supplementary set that have been handed out. I have made a couple of punctuational notations to staff for committee. I was going to see if there's any other additions or corrections to the minutes as they've been. Yes, ma'am. I simply had a question, and I have not had a chance to look at your addendum. Maybe it's corrected about the knock at the door. That's the reason you have the addendum. Oh, okay. That's been eliminated, I guess. I think it was a little too much detail for the minutes, and we have left it out. Thank you. That made reference to someone who was trying to come into the meeting through the locked door, just so you'll know. and it had kept the speaker from coming to the microphone at the time. Other than that, any other additions or corrections? I ask for a motion for approval, please. Move approval. Second. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you, Mr. At-Large. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed, like sign. Thank you very much. All right. Next is an item that actually I placed in committee on behalf of the administration at the time, which was the potential for merging streets, roads, and traffic engineering. There's a really excellent memorandum in here by our acting commissioner, Charles H. Martin, P.E., and I think it summarizes some great opportunities on page 8. Mr. Martin, how are you, sir? Well, thank you. Thank you for taking your time to look into this potential combination. We'll see if others have questions. I think that you've laid out a pretty good action plan here with a couple of three things to follow up on. and make any address you'd like, and we'll go from there. No, I think that page 80, your packet pretty much summarizes where we are right now. So I'm available for whatever questions the committee have. I don't think you need action from us to do any of those three bullet points, though, to re-advertise or to work with the human resources or advertise that position. I don't think we have purview there. The only thing that I think that might require some council action is to consider the classification of the streets and roads director position. As you might recall a few years ago, that was reclassified. I'd like to take another look at that with HR to see whether or not that classification is appropriate. I think that you should, and you made reference to it here. If you want to do that through the administrative process and either bring it to me or to the committee, we'll take action on it through the council as soon as you can get it ready, in my estimation. Right. If HR concurs that reclassification is merited, then we will obviously follow the normal process through the council as far as getting approval for that because it would be reflective of an ordinance change as far as strength of staff. Sure. Like I said, right now, from a priority standpoint, I'm focused on waste management right now. That should be advertised tomorrow, the director's position. All right. As most of you probably know, Kevin Wente has transferred over to planning to work on the Acela project for that department. That would be my next priority, even though it's a more recent one, because I really don't have a backup in that role right now. For traffic engineering and streets and roads, they have been vacant for a while. and that the acting folks have done a commendable job in the fact as far as keeping the rails on. I think that I'd rather make sure that we don't have something else to leap off the rail and give that a little more time. I'm confident they will continue to keep it on the rails. Overall, though, is to have all of these things either advertised or filled by May 1 is my goal. By May 1? By May 1. I think that's a laudable goal, and hopefully you can... And that's advertised and filled. The filled part of it is always outside of our control when it comes to recruiting candidates and executing acceptable offers. But with waste management going this week, I'm going to be focused on that administrative officer to get it out within two weeks and kind of stagger them. That way I'm not stuck in an interview panel for a month trying to get through all of that. But to reclassify the streets and roads position, you'd need to, I mean, that has legislative track to it. Precisely. That's one of the reasons why I've put it at the end, because there's some other internal things that need to go. I can proceed with that administrative officer in traffic engineering without any other aspects other than simply taking the time to make sure that the current ad is up-to-date and reflective of what kind of skill set that we'd be looking for. Are there other questions for Mr. Martin on this issue? I would just think that unless there are proponents for bringing these two divisions together, which I don't believe that there are, we would probably take this issue out of committee because we're not going to pursue it, but I would just want to provide the opportunity for your leadership on this because I think we've had conversation about acting positions and things kind of moving into more of a gelled state, as it were, so I'd want you to really work on getting this reclassification done so we can make permanent decisions for both of those areas. Do you want a motion to renew it now? Let's go ahead and renew it now. I'll make a motion to remove it. Motion by Council Member Ellier, second by the Vice Mayor. Any discussion? All those in favor? Aye. Opposed, like, sign? Thank you, sir. Thank you. All right. Next up, design excellence recommendations. Council Member Kaye, thank you for your leadership on this. I look forward to your report. Thank you, Chair. I want to kind of orient the committee members and people who are here and watching to what's in the packet. and explain a little bit about where we are and what we hope to do in moving forward. What you have in the packet is something that was not in the packet when it was on the agenda for December, which is a timeline which I want to talk about in some detail in a minute. And then the two sections of the zoning text where we have proposed amendments, So amendments to Article 8, which governs what happens in the B, B2A, and B2B zones, to add language that would reflect the proposals on design excellence. Article 27, which is presently the courthouse overlay section, and a way to amend that to reflect what the proposal is on design standards and guidelines. What's not in the packet this time, which was in last time, but was added as an attachment for people to print if they wished, is the entire design standards and guidelines draft. In the interest of not cutting down a whole bunch more trees, we didn't print it again. We can get that available if people would like to remind themselves. there's a fairly significant amount of material and there's a fair amount of complexity so I'm going to try and continue to orient people to what we're working on and where we are at this point one way to think about this is that there are really three parts to what needs to happen the first is the text amendments which must be forwarded from this committee if they go forward to council, and from council to the planning commission, which would then have 60 days to modify if it wishes, but to return back to council within 60 days with their recommendations. And then it would come back, I presume, actually, to this committee for further consideration. That would be just the zone text amendments. The second part is the fairly substantial packet, which is the design excellence standards and guidelines. Fair amount of detail. A lot of work has gone into that. I think it's fair to say that there is, for the most part, agreement about the content coming out of the design excellence task force. The third piece is a set of incentives that are meant to accompany the design standards and guidelines to ensure that the additional requirements are met by additional positive factors in the way in which we now deal with development in the downtown area. So if you turn to page 15 in the packet, what's there is that's where the timeline is. And it's set out with three columns. One has to do with the actual budget process. So if there are budgetary implications for any of the proposals, it's a timeline for what would happen with budget. The second column is incentives. and a word about those. There are really three categories of incentives that are being worked on as we speak. One of them is regulatory. So are there ways in which we can change the existing regulations to make it more attractive for people to develop downtown within these guidelines? The second part is administrative. So there the question is can we add, if we need them, or assign personnel specifically to work with developers who are working within the area that's governed by the design excellence standards and guidelines. And the third part is financial or financial equivalence. Are there ways that we can either provide specific incentives or offsets or whatever that would, again, make it more attractive for people to develop within the area governed by the design standards and guidelines? I think it's fair to say that, as I said, that coming out of the Design Excellence Task Force, there was consensus about most issues that you see before you. There were a few items where we took a vote, and there may have been one person who dissented. dissented. And it's important to make clear that the way in which the Design Excellence Task Force functions is a little bit different from some others in that there were a broad range of people represented on that task force, but the way it was set up, and I want to quickly say before my time, it was set up that only the council members who were part of that task force were the voting members. So when it came time to make decisions, it was only the council who was making those decisions. So in that conversation, there were a number of items, as I said, that did not have consensus, even amongst the task force members. But in addition, people who were on the task force representing other interests had questions or concerns. One of the main ones had to do with the balance between decisions made by board and decisions made by staff. So I expect that that will continue to be a part of the conversation as all of these issues go forward. And I don't want to run down a litany of other items. There were not many others, but there were a few others. And I want to be clear that there will be an opportunity to address those issues basically multiple times. The way this is now envisioned, it has to go to the full council if it goes forward from this committee. It has to go from this council. The text amendments have to go to the Planning Commission. They have 60 days to do their work and get something back to us. They are required to have at least one public hearing, and they may have others, and they have their own open meetings. It will come back to this committee for further consideration and then finally go to council. But before it does, I want to say as clearly as I can that it's important that we consider the zone text amendments, the guidelines and standards, and the incentives together as a package. We don't want to get ahead of ourselves and move one piece of that forward without the other. We want to be sure that we understand exactly what the impact will be positively and if people have those concerns, what the negative impact might be. So functionally, what that means is that what I'm going to ask today is that this committee move forward to council just the zone text amendment as proposed. With the proposal that council moved that to the Planning Commission. That will, as I said, it will take at least 60 days to come back to council, but that we hold any final and formal approval in this committee on the guidelines and standards and on the incentive package and on the zone text until we have all of them in front of us. On the incentives themselves, the Infill and Redevelopment Committee has been doing a fair amount of work on those. There is a white paper that Maiaid Leah Boggs developed for that committee that they considered last week. That work is going forward. It's fairly comprehensive, and as I said, it involves changes in regulations, changes in administration, changes in actual financial incentives. All of that will come back to the Infill and Redevelopment Committee in March. Following that, I will reconvene the Design Excellence Task Force and ask them to look at the set of incentive packages that are being proposed, then all of that will come back to this committee to be considered as a whole. So, again, there's a lot going on. There are many pieces. Work is being done on all of them. What I'm proposing today is that that piece that requires Planning Commission review and approval be forwarded to the Council to be forwarded to the Planning Commission. So having said that, I'll take questions, comments, et cetera. Thank you. Thank you for the brevity of that. Let me just ask you logistically, which pages of the packet would we want to take action on based on your suggestion? That would be the zone text amendments to Sections 8, 17, 18, and 19, which have to do with the B2B, B2A, B2B zones. And that's language that incorporates reference to design standards and Article 27. So that's pages, whatever that starts. Starting on 26 then? Actually, it starts on page 20. The Article 27 starts on page 26, but the Section 817 starts on page 17 in the paging of the packet, and it goes through page 39. So it's all that. Okay. Yeah. Understood. All right. You've laid that out quite well, and I think certainly you have done a great job of best matrix of the new year using color in here. Well done. And unless there are questions, it seems like you've given us a great trail to follow there. We'll go first to the vice mayor, Vice Mayor Gordon. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Council Member Kay. I don't have a question. I just wanted to make a couple comments. One, that I appreciate that for those of us who did have some specific concerns, that at least I know the ones that I brought up are incorporated into this new draft. And I think that because this continues to get vetted and that you've made a good effort to listen to the requests for changes and try to incorporate them gives us an even better product. The other thing is I like that we're going to move this forward as a package. I think in the beginning that, you know, it was very tempting to move it in pieces, but it will be better served and we will be better served if it goes in a package and I appreciate that that's the way you're doing this. So thank you for your leadership on this. Thank you. Anyone else? I just had a couple based on the task force update that starts on page 11 and on page 13 under status of incentives. Base data will be collected by mid-January 2014 to be used for the analysis, and a consultant will be engaged in February 2014. Give me a thumbnail of this consultant and this consultant's. I think if Jeff, I see Jeff in the back, Jeff Fugate with the Downtown Development Authority can help us with that. Jeff? Thank you. Absolutely. So the idea, without going too much in the professorial mode, basically the variables on getting a project done is how much does it cost to build it, how much can you rent it for at the end, how much cash do you put in versus how much do you borrow, right? So there's these sort of moving variables and all of that. What we don't have a good handle on is what all those variables are and sort of like what can the market support and what is the real gap. And so what we will do is collect a lot of the baseline data, and Brandy's already started doing that. So we have the baseline data out of the existing design excellence budget, I should say. So there's no budget request at the moment of the council. My set in right there. Thank you. Okay, and done. No, so out of DDA and the design excellence budget, we'll cover this. We'll probably engage a real estate consultant that will basically give us just sort of a quick and dirty analysis of what can the market support, what's our gap really look like, and give us a baseline to give us an idea of what the order of magnitude is to solve the problem. We very well may come to a political number that is different than that, but this will at least give us an idea of what the order of magnitude is. How long? For this very sort of cursory approach, our intention is to have it concurrent, do this concurrent with Planning Commission's work. so that in the spring when we get planning commission's comments back, we should also have a baseline for that. There may be a deeper dive that needs to come later, but we'll plan for that as we get into that for program design. All right. Very good. Thank you. And at the top of page 14, talking about the parking authority, pending parking authority board approval, RFP to be released late spring and completed plan by the end of 2014. This is for their 10-year capital development plan. Anybody here to speak to that? I just have interest since the parking authority is a... You again? While I would never presume to speak for the parking authority, I have been privy to these conversations. They have for some time now intended to do a longer-range capital development plan, which basically asks the question of if they are going to build new garages, where would they be, how would they finance them? All right. This is that activity. And we worked with them or talked to them in this context, which is that one of the items that often comes up is the need for additional parking and the drive development. So, therefore, they're going to coordinate with us on trying to get that work. Their arc is a little bit longer. It will probably take them 12 months to come back with their completed plan. Very good. Thank you on that. Anyone else? Council Member Kaye, would you like to tender a motion? Yes, sir. I move that we forward to Council the zoning text amendments included in whatever pages I just referred to. So it's 17 through? 17 through 39. So moved. I have a motion and a second by the Vice Mayor. Any discussion? All those in favor? Opposed, like signed, motion carries. Thank you very much. That brings us to item four on our agenda, the planning and development fee structure. This was placed into the committee by the vice mayor via the links from our last budget iteration. And I don't know, vice mayor, do you want to make any comments to it, or should we just go to staff? I think our commissioner can probably handle it. I appreciate that, Mr. Chair, you're hearing it in committee. Yes, ma'am. Yes. Commissioner, welcome. Thank you. Welcome back. Thank you, sir. I'll cue up the presentation real quick. I'll start off just kind of giving a little background on this. This came out of budget lengths last spring, sort of a question about where are we on our fees. And one of the things that I talked to Vice Mayor Gordon about was trying to put together kind of a more comprehensive what our fees are across the department as opposed to just within, I think we started about it, within building inspection. So what we're going to provide you guys real quick. Thank you. We'll just give you a quick overview again. This is the same presentation that's in your packet. Just a brief on the key findings, what the presentation is actually going to cover, a little bit about our fee change history, how we've changed it in the last nine or ten years, and then kind of an overview of what we bring in versus expenses and then how we stack up versus other cities surrounding. And to give you a little bit of sense, and one of the things you'll find is that it's a little difficult to do direct comparisons. So we've also tried to give some examples of three different development types and what the fees are within our department across those different development types. So the nuts and bolts of the findings are that we feel that our fees are very reasonable, very business-friendly, particularly for single-family residential construction. And the second kind of correlated finding is that these are general fund activities. in that the fees, even if we were to increase them, they'd never fully subsidize these functions of these three departments. So a key thing here is what the scope is. What is this presentation designed to cover? And what it is not designed to cover is probably the most important part. This is not a presentation on all fees associated with development. These are just the fees or the permitting fees associated with building inspection, planning, and engineering. There are other fees associated with development as well. such as exactions, which are not included here, and exactions, again, are only for parts of the county. And then there's also sewer tap on stormwater fees and other fees outside the department. So this is not a presentation of the total cost of development in terms of fees to LFUCG. This is just the permitting fees associated with the three divisions within our department. In terms of a little bit of a history of how we've changed these fees in the past, this goes back to 2004, And the fee changes have been fairly modest in terms of increases. In 2004, again, kind of doubling the fees for residential from $25 to $50, the minimums. And the minimum, again, for commercial from $100 to $200. Again, you can kind of see just various changes over the past few years, but nothing, again, too wholesale or too large around there. 2009, changes in terms of penalties for building without a permit was instituted. And I think that was probably the biggest change we've seen in the last few years. In looking at permit revenue versus personnel expenses, again, you can see this is something that we're not really going to cover. And in terms of building inspection, it's probably a little inflated due to the park fee that's included in it. It's probably about $200,000 higher than it may actually be just to the other permits. So it kind of inflates it, but we are not going to bring in enough money to subsidize them. Again, these are general fund activities. As we were discussing a little bit earlier before this presentation, the activities that are done in permitting and ensuring that we have fully permitted structures, it goes beyond just the service to the developer. Yes, the developer gets plan review, gets permits, but there is a lot that also goes in. and it's beneficial to the community that we have fully permitted and well-documented structures. Just kind of combining them all there, again, you can see the discrepancy or the disparity with the personnel expenses versus what we bring in in terms of our licenses, permances, and other charges. We're going to get into now the permit fee comparison, and we've done, again, three. The first one is a 30-acre site, 90-lot, single-family, detached development. And one of the things I want you to see or one of the things I want to explain right up front is that direct comparisons are not perfect. You really can't do a very good direct comparison. And it's kind of like comparing one of the things that I think a good analogy is compensation study. I mean, just comparing one person's compensation at one company versus another company, there may be other things included. One company may provide health insurance, may provide more vacation. You can't just look at salary versus salary. I bring that up because we cover things in different fees that other communities may combine. So we have, if you notice, the paving permit curb cut. Other communities don't have that. They may have it rolled into a different fee, and so that's really the thing. We've done our best to do the most direct comparison, but what you find is different communities have different, you know, the fees cover different things. So we've done the best we can for comparison. Again, Louisville, Richmond, Scott County, Woodford County, and Jesmond to Lexington. And what you see here is at the end, the very bottom line is the total fee per lot, which we think is probably a good way to look at this. And we are pretty much dead on with Louisville and a little lower than, in some cases, considerably lower than Richmond, Scott, Woodford, and Jesmond. And, again, some of that is probably due to just the volume that we see versus the surrounding counties. They don't have the amount of staff we do. It's easier for us. We get some economy of scale there in terms of review. But they're not drastically under. In terms of permit fee comparison for a separate example, this is the 20-acre site, 360-unit apartment complex. Again, very similar total fee per dwelling unit or apartment. We are below the other surrounding communities, again, in quite kind of a little bit higher discrepancy on this one or disparity. And the last one is our commercial example. Ten-acre site, planned shopping center, about 150,000 square feet, three out lots. And we are, again, much lower on this one. And you can kind of, again, see some of the differences across in terms of the curb cuts, in terms of building permits, final subdivision plats, and those different fees. We are much lower here in terms of the commercial permitting than we are in other communities. But, again, we feel that we are provided a good service, and it's, again, quite business-friendly in terms of that. There are a lot of other costs, and I think that's the thing to remember, in terms of new construction that are not included in these fees. Again, we are just looking at the permit fees associated with this department, not other fees that would also be associated with new development that are, again, not included in here. The final recommendations, from a residential permitting standpoint, we do not feel that any change is recommended at all, no change is needed. When you look at residential development right now, it is not quite back. back. Permit fees or permits, single family permits, we're down 6% in 2013 versus 2012. Our subdivision plans were down or just about even, very close. And our new lots created is down almost 26% in 2013 over 2012. So we're about stable. We're just not going gangbusters. And I don't think increasing fees at this time will be a wise decision to the residential building community, particularly with other fees out there as well. Again, we are only looking at the fees associated with this department. There are other fees out there that also would be included in new development. From a commercial standpoint, though, we think that we could possibly look at some of those fees a little more in depth in the future. And I will leave it there, particularly when you look at land disturbance fees, Our land disturbance, to give an example, is only $25, which is the same that it is for residential. So it's one of those things that is not. There is no real differentiation between commercial or residential in terms of land disturbance, and I will leave it open for questions at that point. Very good. First up is Council Member Massadi. Thank you, Mr. Farmer. Dr. Paulson, you said the commercial fees that you were going to look at, Do you know specifically which ones you're considering? I think the one that we look at that is a bit low is the land disturbance permit within engineering. It's $25 for residential and commercial. So it doesn't really matter. A land disturbance is a land disturbance. So I think there is a little bit more review and a little bit more that may go on with a commercial. And I think that's what we'd like to look at a little more closely is at least a minimum land disturbance fees and then possibly some other fees as well with it. Aren't the lot sizes, though, bigger on the commercial lots typically? Typically, yes. So would this not cover it? You know what I'm saying? How are we equating it to the residential? And that's what I think we need to look at a little closer and see what other communities have done, if there is a real differentiation between the way they do residential permitting from a land disturbance to a commercial and come up with some possible recommendations. Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? Councilmember Clark. Thank you, Chair. Commissioner, in these charts, have you made a comparison between these other sites, other counties, cities, about land value? We have not. And I think that's one of those things. Again, if we go back to what the scope is, we're really just trying to look at permits. If we were to do kind of a broader what the cost of development is versus these counties, I think we'd see very different. And, again, we would also then include other fees that are collected within LFUCG. I think when you do that, we start to see that the costs do go up dramatically here. And we know land values are higher in Lexington than they are in surrounding communities. So I think if we really were to do a presentation on the true cost of development, we would be including fees outside of the Department of Planning, Preservation, and Development. But we would also be having to look at what those land values are and how they impact development as well. Yeah. I would suspect that that would be a major impact. It will be. Yeah. All right. Thank you, Commissioner. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, sir. I would just ask the Vice Mayor, in placing this in the committee, I would suspect we'd want them to, since it came from a link, we'd ask for them to make whatever measurement or work product to bring back to us in time potentially to be part of this next budget. Would that not be the follow-up? That makes perfect sense. And also, I think the commercial piece, we want to see the commercial piece, the recommendations. So you want to come back to us in 60 or before that? Or what's your turnaround, you think, here? We could come back no later than March. All right. Well, that's what I'm thinking. Now we give us time to look at it as part of the budget conversation. Okay. I'm good with that. Any other questions or comments on this issue? Thank you, sir. We appreciate it very much. Thank you. All right. That brings us then to our committee referral list, which is on page 52. Since we have ample time, we'll take a moment to run through it here. And I'm not really asking for any designations here, just trying to get squared away on where we stand for upcoming committee opportunity. Councilmember Clark, the first couple of years, would you like to make any commentary, and we'll go from there? Yes, I would. I think both of those we can eliminate from the committee. We've talked about utility poles and solved that in a very special way, and the repaving program I think is self-explanatory, so I don't think it really needs to be in committee. We had a great discussion there, and I think we've come to some understanding based on that one and the one further on down here, maintenance of major roadways. And if you're comfortable, we would remove both of those. So I have a motion to remove the first two items from committee from Councilmember Clark. Second. Second from the vice mayor. Any discussion? All those in favor? No. Opposed, like side. Thank you. All right, next was one that came out of the environmental equality link that was about working with county public schools to sustain road salt services. And that has a date of 6-19-11 and 11-20-12, and I don't have any other discussion points to go with it. Vice Mayor. Thank you, Mr. Chair. This, I believe, had to do with our discussion of whether Fayette County Public Schools could help us finance the SALT. And I think the answer that we got was no, that they can't pay for things that aren't on school property, which would be salt. I mean, I think it's a moot point. They could leave something else for us to pick up or something. Yes. All right. So I feel you're telling us that there's no viable follow-up here, so we should remove it from committee. And I would ask for a motion to that end. Second. Motion and a second. Any discussion? All those in favor? Thank you. All right. Reviewing the street tree and tree protection ordinances. Now, this just has a series of dates and nobody's name, so I'm not sure. This is actually yours. Oh, this is mine. That's great. That's great. I was going to have to talk to Tim Query about this. You and I talked to him. So there's a period for discovery here. I will take care of this. Thank you. We'll look forward to an update there next month. All right. On the possible revision of the sign ordinance, This is one of the largest untouchable areas of our ordinance. And I have talked with Director King about my, I have a very specific change I like to make to the sign ordinance, not trying to revise the entire thing because it's a very dense subject. I just think there's a way to make Lexington look better by somehow making reservations for signs rather than have their disembodied guts remain as part of the landscape for months or years until a new sign goes in their place. That's the only revision I want to see. So I think we're going to make some headway there and bring that back to the committee. All right. We have explored the use of alternative fuels, and I think we've done a great job there. And I think we're about to have our own compressed natural gas fueling station, and we'll be using those on vehicles that are ours. So that's an issue. I placed in committee, and I believe we've taken care of it. I would ask for, unless there's other discussion topics there that I've left out, I'd ask for a motion to remove. Motion and a second. All those in favor? Opposed and like sign. Thank you. All right. Private streets enforcement, maintenance, and specifications. This was placed in Council Member Massadi, and we have talked about it once, but I suspect we'll talk about it again would be my thought. It's already been referred to the Planning Commission, as I recall. Yes. All right. That's correct. All right. Very good. H1 notification process placed in by Council Member Myers. I would just rely on a conversation upcoming with him about that because I don't have anything on board about it right now. Council Member Stinnett had placed the maintenance of major roadways. We've heard that a couple of times. The notes reflect a really good discussion in our packet today. Council Member Stinnett, do you want to make any comment there? Well, I would just ask if we could have it on next month's agenda to give a final closure to this issue and a price tag of what we're talking about as we prepare this year's budget. That could be a number that could be useful to the council or the mayor in plugging it in somewhere and seeing how we're going to fund that if we choose to fund it separately. That's perfect. I think it's great. Let's do so. All right. Thank you. And then we did hear your issue of performance bonds and letters of credit. Do you have any other follow-up there? Please remove it. I can't make the motion. You can't make the motion, but I rely on the vice mayor and Council Member Henson for a motion and a second. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed, like, signed. Thank you. Greenway Manual and Plan. Council Member Massadi again. I believe that's due probably next month for us to have in committee. And can we dial back to the private streets? Chris, could you come to the podium, please? Happy New Year, Director. Likewise. Welcome back. Thank you. Chris, I know we had that meeting at the Home Builders Association. Did it go straight to the Planning Commission? I thought that you were going to review it a little further. No, I think as I understood the committee's action, you all have made a recommendation, I thought in committee, that you wanted to remove private streets from residential developments. However, you have not initiated a specific text amendment and sent it to the Planning Commission. That's what I thought. So I think the way it is that the matter is under discussion, and I think the outshot of our meeting out at the Home Builders was it will continue to be discussed. And I assume if you have referred that to the Planning Commission, you would then be looking for the Planning Commission to initiate a text amendment. It's a little unclear at this point. That's why when you said that, I wasn't sure, Mr. Schoeniger, that I didn't think it went to the Planning Commission. I thought that we still had this pretty much open for discussion. Isn't that right, Mr. Johnson? Because there were some concerns about infill in private streets, and we deal with parcels that are smaller. We hadn't really made a decision yet as to how to go about excluding some residential areas as opposed to others. And we talked about commercial areas, which are a whole different animal, basically, with private streets. So I think this is basically still in committee. We need some more work on this. We do. Very good. We do. That's very good. And we'll work accordingly. Thank you. Is that good? Thank you. All right. We just removed merging streets and roads and traffic engineering. Feast offset historic preservation services. This came late in the fall, placed by the vice mayor. I think it's one of those. This was a link. recommendation along with the other fee structures. We'll just look forward to it in the upcoming capacity. And then I guess this next one is the same way. Explore providing assistance to low-income homeowners with code compliance. Then the one we talked about today, examine fee structure for planning, preservation, and development services. So those are pretty much new and under, and we're working on them. The last one was Homeowner Association Rights Responsibilities, as placed in here by Councilmember Akers, which has received a little commentary in the public, and we will look forward to taking that up at another time. She's not here, and I don't have any backup information on it. That brings us down to the four items that I've placed in here under kind of what I call an evergreen status because we look at them either quarterly or some rotational value. That is the Oliver Lewis Way update, the Todd's Road widening in Phase 2, the downtown traffic study, which to me seems overdue for an update, and the design excellence update, which we have taken today. You know, there's an item of new business in the work session that has to do with signal timing, but it's still not this traffic study. I will look forward to an update on this one next month because that was a big dollar item. It's something that's been tumbling around for quite some time, and I think we should hear some work product from it. All right. Any other comments or questions about our referrals on this sheet? Any other items to come before the committee at this time? I'd ask for a motion to adjourn. So moved. Motion and a second. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed, like signed. Excellent meeting. Thank you all very much. Thank you. Thank you. I really want you, Eleanor, near me Your looks intoxicate me Even though your folks hate me There's no one like you, Eleanor, really Eleanor, gee, I think you're swell And you really do me well You're my pride and joy, et cetera Ellen, can I take the time To ask you to speak