# Planning & Public Works Committee - March 4, 2014 > Auto-transcribed civic record · Committee · March 4, 2014 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/3271 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/3271?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2014-03-04 - **Body**: Committee - **Last revised**: February 19, 2026 - **Length**: 16,982 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed by OpenAI Whisper-1. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude Sonnet. Speaker labels and verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Planning & Public Works Committee convened on March 4, 2014, at 1:00 PM with Farmer presiding as the meeting officer. The committee addressed five agenda items during the session, focusing primarily on informational presentations and policy updates related to planning, development, and public works matters. The committee accomplished several key tasks during the meeting, including the approval of the February 11, 2014 Committee Summary. The majority of the session was dedicated to informational presentations covering important municipal topics: homeowner rights and responsibilities, historic preservation fees, fees for planning, preservation and development commercial services, and a construction update on Oliver Lewis Way. One formal vote was taken during the meeting, and the committee heard from one member of the public during the public comment period. The meeting provided committee members with updates on ongoing municipal projects and policy matters that fall under the committee's purview, particularly those related to planning, development services, and public infrastructure projects. ## Attendance The Committee meeting on March 4, 2014 had strong attendance with 11 members present and 2 absent. **Present:** • Farmer • Mossotti • Gorton • Ellinger • Ford • Lawless • Beard • Clarke • Akers • Stinnett • Scutchfield **Absent:** • Kay • Henson **Late:** • None No members arrived late to the meeting. ## Votes and Decisions The Committee took one formal vote during the March 4, 2014 meeting. **Approval of January 14, 2014 Committee Summary** [timestamp: 01:03] - Motion by: Gorton - Second by: Beard - Outcome: Passed unanimously - Vote count: 9 ayes, 0 nays, 0 abstentions The following members voted in favor: Farmer, Mossotti, Gorton, Ellinger, Ford, Lawless, Beard, Clarke, and Akers. No members voted against the motion or abstained. ## Public Comment The Committee received one public comment during the meeting on March 4, 2014. Thomas addressed the Committee regarding homeowners association (HOA) benefits, specifically focusing on concerns about Masterson Station [timestamp: 02:30:00]. He expressed skepticism about the actual benefits provided by HOAs in the area, questioning whether the perceived advantages of HOA membership align with the reality of what residents receive. Thomas raised concerns about the gap between what HOAs promise to deliver and what they actually provide to homeowners in the Masterson Station community. ## Contested Items The Committee meeting on March 4, 2014, featured one significant area of contention during discussions of homeowner rights and responsibilities. **Homeowner Rights & Responsibilities** A heated discussion emerged regarding HOA foreclosure rights and homeowner responsibilities. Committee members expressed differing opinions on two key aspects of the issue: the appropriate role of local government in HOA matters and the fairness of current foreclosure processes. The disagreement centered on fundamental questions about government oversight and homeowner protections. Some participants argued for greater local government involvement in regulating HOA foreclosure procedures, while others maintained that such matters should remain outside municipal jurisdiction. The debate also touched on whether existing foreclosure processes provide adequate protections for homeowners or if reforms are needed to ensure fair treatment. The contentious nature of the discussion reflected broader policy tensions between property rights, homeowner protections, and the scope of local government authority. Committee members appeared divided on how to balance these competing interests and what role, if any, the local government should play in addressing HOA-related disputes. The meeting materials do not indicate a clear resolution to these disagreements, suggesting the issues may require further discussion or study before the Committee can reach consensus on potential policy recommendations. ## February 11, 2014 Committee Summary [timestamp: 01:03] The committee reviewed the summary of their February 11, 2014 meeting as the first agenda item. The discussion involved three key speakers: Farmer, Gorton, and Beard. The committee members examined the written summary that documented the proceedings, decisions, and discussions from their previous meeting held on February 11, 2014. This review process allows committee members to ensure accuracy of the record and make any necessary corrections before formal approval. Following their review of the meeting summary, the committee voted to approve the February 11, 2014 meeting summary without recorded objections or amendments. This approval makes the summary part of the official committee record and confirms the accuracy of the documented proceedings from that previous meeting. The approval of meeting summaries is a standard procedural item that ensures proper documentation of committee business and maintains an accurate historical record of the committee's work and decisions. ## Homeowner Rights & Responsibilities [timestamp: 01:30:00] The committee held an informational discussion on homeowner rights and responsibilities, focusing on a foreclosure case involving Ingrid Boak and examining the broader role of homeowners associations (HOAs) in such matters. Key speakers during this agenda item included committee members Akers, Billings, and Frazier, along with input from legal experts and council members who provided context on the complexities surrounding homeowner-HOA relationships and foreclosure proceedings. The discussion centered on the specific case of Ingrid Boak's foreclosure situation, which served as a case study for understanding the various rights and responsibilities that homeowners face when dealing with HOAs and potential foreclosure actions. The committee examined how HOAs operate in these circumstances and what protections or obligations exist for homeowners. Legal experts contributed to the conversation by explaining the regulatory framework governing homeowner-HOA interactions and the procedural aspects of foreclosure cases. Council members also participated in the discussion, offering perspectives on how these issues affect constituents and what role local government might play in addressing homeowner concerns. The agenda item was structured as an informational session rather than requiring any formal action from the committee. The discussion aimed to educate committee members about the intricacies of homeowner rights and the responsibilities of both homeowners and HOAs in foreclosure situations. This session provided committee members with a comprehensive overview of the legal and practical considerations surrounding homeowner rights, using the Boak case as a practical example to illustrate broader policy implications and potential areas where homeowner protections might need strengthening or clarification. ## Historic Preservation Fees [timestamp: 02:00:00] The committee examined the potential implementation of application and permit fees for historic districts during agenda item 3. Kerr led the discussion on whether the city should establish a fee structure for historic preservation-related applications and permits. The committee reviewed the feasibility of introducing fees as a revenue-generating mechanism for historic preservation activities. However, after analyzing the potential financial impact, the committee determined that such fees would likely generate minimal revenue for the city. Based on their assessment of the low revenue potential, the committee decided against implementing application or permit fees for historic districts at this time. The discussion was informational in nature, with no formal action taken on the matter. The decision reflects the committee's conclusion that the administrative burden and complexity of establishing a fee structure would not be justified by the limited financial benefits such fees would provide to the city's historic preservation program. ## Fees for Planning, Preservation & Development Commercial Services [timestamp: 02:15:00] The committee reviewed the current fee structure for Planning, Preservation & Development commercial services, with particular focus on land disturbance permits. The discussion centered on whether existing fees adequately reflect the varying complexity and scale of development projects. Key speakers Paulsen and Frazier led the examination of how the department's fee schedule aligns with the actual costs and resources required to process different types of commercial development applications. The conversation addressed whether the current flat-rate or tiered fee structure appropriately accounts for projects that require significantly different levels of staff time and technical review. The committee considered potential modifications to the fee framework that would better match charges to the actual work involved in reviewing and processing permits. This included discussion of how fees for land disturbance permits specifically could be adjusted to reflect project complexity, size, and the amount of staff resources typically required for review and approval. The agenda item was informational in nature, with no formal action taken. The discussion provided committee members with background information on the current fee structure and potential areas for future consideration regarding how commercial development fees are calculated and applied. This review appears to be part of ongoing efforts to ensure that departmental fees appropriately cover the costs of providing services while remaining fair and proportionate to the scope of work required for different types of commercial development projects. ## Oliver Lewis Way Construction Update [timestamp: 03:00:00] The Committee received an informational presentation on the progress of the Oliver Lewis Way construction project during agenda item 5. Grunwald provided the update to committee members. The presentation covered the current status of construction phases that have been completed and outlined future plans for the project. This was an informational item designed to keep the Committee informed about the ongoing infrastructure work. No specific details about construction phases, timelines, or budget information were captured in the available meeting materials. The update appears to have been a routine progress report on this municipal construction project. The item concluded as an informational presentation with no formal action required by the Committee. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (9-0): Approval of January 14, 2014 Committee Summary --- ## Full transcript They wouldn't be here, and they have to go through a rigorous series of tests and physical agility, and again, my great thanks to you and everything you do. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Next up is vice mayor. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thanks to those who came to speak. I wondered if there's anyone either in our law department or. I see Todd Johnson here who might want to explain. I think that the developer creates the HOA before they. I could be totally wrong, but it's not at all like a neighborhood association. They're very different. And can you tell us the differences? I'll be glad to give you my thoughts. And then Mr. Billings may have further thoughts because he's probably done more work in this area. But a neighborhood association would not necessarily have the right to foreclose upon someone. As a homeowners association would, because that's part of your deed when you, when you sign a deed to take possession of a house. So neighborhood association wouldn't have that power unless they somehow had a property interest and could deed over properties. So is the HOA created by the developer beef and then turned over to the owners or how does that work? Do you want to address that? Because that he may have better, better view of that. Sure. Thank you. Vice mayor for the question. If I could maybe rephrase the question, which is the difference between a neighborhood association, a homeowner association differ between a voluntary association and an involuntary association. And the difference is involuntary associations are what we typically call homeowner associations. But when a developer forms them, he can name them anything. For example, Masterson stations, formal name is Masterson station neighborhood association, but it is a required mandatory association. So for example, across the street, you have McConnell's trace neighborhood association. It is also a mandatory association, but you have other areas which are voluntary, which we would normally consider as a neighborhood association. So the question is really a voluntary versus involuntary or a mandatory and mandatory can have homeowner association, condominium association, maintenance association, townhouse association, community association, residential association. There's probably about 15 or 20 different names that a developer can call them. Inside of a voluntary association. For example, Greenbrier is one of those there is no right of foreclosure because there is no right to assess dues and assessments on the owner in a required or mandatory association. When the dues are mandatory, that is when the right of foreclosure or the right of collection exists. Hopefully that helps give some context to the discussion. Okay. If I could ask a couple of questions then. So are the rules of the mandatory association created by the developer or by the association? They're really created in a couple of different ways. First, an association is controlled or governed by what are called the governing documents. And those governing documents break into four categories. The first is called the articles of organization or articles of incorporation, depending whether it's a nonprofit corporation or nonprofit LLC. That's the association. Those are filed by the developer and those create the homeowner entity, the homeowner association entity. The second is the set of restrictions that are filed in the county clerk's office. Just like a deed or a mortgage, a mechanic's lien, a will. Those are filed in the county clerk's office in the chain of title before a lot is sold to either a builder and Mr. Johnson could talk about, or to an eventual homeowner. The third are the bylaws for the association. So the first two have to be done by the developer. The next one down is the bylaws. Normally, but not always the developer puts in place the bylaws. For the association. Those are the rules that are governed by corporate law that control how the association operates and runs. There's some gray areas about property rights inside of that, but generally the developer does that. But even if the developer doesn't adopt bylaws, the board of directors of an association can also adopt or amend the bylaws. And then the fourth line down is what's called rules, regulations, policies, procedures. And those are the rules that are governed by corporate law. And then the fourth line down is what's called rules, regulations, policies, procedures. Those are items that may change on a daily, weekly, monthly, yearly basis that the board can set forth to generally set forth the policies, procedures, certain rules, or regulations under the restrictions or under the bylaws to further enumerate or delineate those. So in one level, the developer has to do two of them. The developer can do all four of them, but the board of directors can also do two. Now within the restrictions, there's usually an amendment provision. And the amendment provides that the restrictions can be amended in various ways. And it would be unfair for me to try to summarize one way to amend it because some developers have unilateral control, some say it's 50% of owners, some say it's 50% of owners subject to this condition. You start to get into this various nuance of contract law. Additionally, you have a number of Kentucky revised statutes that control associations. For condominium regimes, there are two specific statutes that control, in addition to the governing documents. You also have corporate statutes that control the corporations running or operations. And then you have, which we're sort of dealing with today, foreclosure or real property interest statutes. So it's not a real clear answer about is this just under restrictions. There's a multifaceted approach regarding any type of issues you're dealing with. So if you're dealing with an election of officers, you may have to look at the articles, the restrictions, the bylaws, and then go to KRS 241B and then start looking at corporate law. So that's why it's not a simple answer. Mr. Chair, if I could just put out two more questions and then I don't need to change anything. I have a point of order question. If we have legal questions, should they not be submitted to our legal department instead of any other outside counsel? You know, I guess we could do that or she may opine on it. I mean, that's fine. I just thought, I just thought Mr. Billings, because he does a lot of work in this area would have some expertise to land, but I'm happy to answer. I think I just fulfilled some of my continuing legal education right here. I mean, he was just answering a question. I think it's okay. I think if the vice mayor wants to follow up, it's part of a discovery for us. I don't, there was no problem to direct these questions to the law department within the parameters of what they could opine on. He may be a unique opportunity for us at this time and place, but unless you want to move to kind of cut him off, I'd rather finish with her than move down the list. Yeah. That was not, that's not what I intended. I just, that's, that's fine. Okay. Thanks. Yeah. And I, I understand. I appreciate that. I was just wondering who decides whether there's an HOA. Does the developer decide that whether to create one or not? And when does the buyer of the home find out that they're getting into an HOA and what the rules are? We're going to give you another three minutes. Okay. You can cut me off whenever. For context for the committee, I represent about 70 or 80 associations in central Kentucky. In a legal capacity only? Yes. Okay. And, and context, because I deal with this three or four nights a week, I decided, and I would respectfully disagree with the gentleman said he couldn't find a property in Fayette County. It's not an association because I deal with this three or four nights a week. I moved to an area that doesn't have an association. Well, that speaks volumes. Doesn't it? I mean, I deal with it every, you do it. It's like, it's like I deal with this four nights a week. I don't want to deal with it on the weekends. To answer your question, the developer decides there's an HOA. There is no requirement that there be one put in place. There are significant studies, the leading one of which is by the community association Institute, which puts forth guidelines and principles for common property regimes about the benefits of HOAs. And it provides a significant benefit to county and city governments because it can provide for things like city road infrastructure, parks, recreation areas, property. I'm sorry. I'm going to reinforce what council member acres. This is now an opinion about the value. And I think that that's not a legal question. I just asked, okay. Yeah. I got out of the confines of the question there. The last question you had was not about the developer, but was who decides. When does the buyer find out and read the rules and get the information that they're in an HOA? That, that is a, that, that is a question that plagues everyone legally. Um, Kentucky law provides that a person who purchases property is put on notice that they are buying into a property that has restrictions on it. So it may be that they don't learn until they, for example, get a notice in the mail to pay dues. It may be legally that they are, um, notified by a closing attorney, by a realtor. There is no legal principle that provides that they be provided. What's called the actual notice. Kentucky law deems them to have constructive notice. And there is no law that requires closing attorney and realtors and the neighborhood association, et cetera, to do that, to make that disclosure. That's correct. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good. Thank you, sir. Thank you, vice mayor. Next week, council member Senate. Thank you, chair. I guess for the purposes of the issue being in committee, I know we have a specific example in the packet. That's probably the exception rather than the rule and what that goes on is actually in the committee. I think that's the question I'm trying to understand. Is there an ordinance that you're proposing customer rakers? Are you proposing? We petition the state legislature to change the KRS. What is the desired outcome from, from this conversation? Well, I have been in talks with, um, some senators and representatives that represent this area specifically. Um, because I realized that most of the law, as, um, as the chair noted, as far as changing foreclosure procedures would take. State action. Um, however, when I put this into committee, I asked our law department to provide. Um, a summary of HOA specifically in Lexington and how that may or may not be regulated by the city. And we got back. We received this statement from Jim Frazier instead of anything from our law department. So what I would again, go back to is that I don't necessarily intend or need to see the foreclosure laws changed. I just would like to have in place. Maybe it's a requirement of the realtors to notify, to have a signed form at the time of closing that they have received a copy of the deed of restrictions and that they know that they're a member of the HOA and they're required to pay these dues or at the time of foreclosure that we require that they take one additional step to make sure that the homeowner is made aware that they're about to lose their home. I don't have an ordinance drafted. I could possibly get one. Um, but that's where I was hoping to go. Commissioner Graham. Did you have a follow-up? Thank you. Council member Akers. Yeah. I just wanted to clarify that, um, we approached him. Frazier with the law department did because he's the master commissioner here in town. He sells every piece of property at foreclosure. I would call him an expert in the area because I kind of wanted to see what other folks thought. We, we think this area is preempted by the general assembly and state law. It's a comprehensive scheme of law, but I did want to see what he thought about it. And so he was nice enough to give his opinion free. And so you all have that in your packet. So the law department's opinion is that really because of the comprehensive nature of judicial foreclosure process and the fact that it's governed by state statute and the courts court rules, um, we don't believe that, uh, you can enact a local ordinance that would deal with this area. Yeah. And I guess to those, um, comments, I would like, you know, maybe we could have a council put this on our legislative agenda for next session to petition the state or resolution in support of that, looking at our foreclosure. If this is indeed an issue. And obviously we don't have hundreds of these happening in our community. And this is one of the unfortunate ones that if you just open one piece of 30 pieces of mail, we probably wouldn't be talking about this today in all, in all honesty. So I don't want to give, you know, all the HOAs in town a bad rap. Also, we don't see in the audience, every member of an HOA that pays dues and expects those services to be performed by the HOA that have put full faith and credit in their HOA and want to live there. They want a nice entrance. They want nice mowed grass. And those people are paying the dues and to claim ignorance on the case. And as what got it here to say, I didn't know is not a legally defensible, uh, argument in my opinion, and probably a lot of others in the community. This is unfortunate that we're talking about today, but maybe there is some good out about it. And extra notices sure won't hurt the process. I don't think I know we do it when we want to evict someone from their house with the seven day notice. All we have to do is tape it to the door and then a constable will deliver. And so maybe that that's necessarily not a bad way to go and petition Frankfurt for some change. But this specific, specific situation, Um, I feel bad for the, for the lady who lost her home, but at the same time, an HOA has an important role in our community. There are dozens. So it's not tens of hundreds of homes in our community. They don't in HOAs. I got half my district. That's not an HOA city outside of new circle road. So there are plenty of places to live in our community, whether it be an HOA or a neighborhood association. Um, but they all have a purpose and, um, I would just remind us to be aware of that. And a lot of HOAs do a lot of good. Thank you, chair. Very good, thank you very much. Council member Masadi. Thank you, chair. And thank you, council member woman, I'm sorry, acres for bringing this to our attention. Um, I do do this as a living and, um, I will tell you if you, uh, are selling a house or buying a house with a realtor. Um, it is not on the sheet that you are the information sheet that you are given that there is a place there for homeowners associations, how much you pay, uh, whether it's annually, quarterly, monthly, and what does that cover? What does it cover as far as like maybe possibly maintenance, uh, some type of amenity package or whatever. But from, from my understanding as a realtor that, you know, this is a corporation, uh, an HOA is a corporation and it's owned by each individual resident. And that, but they're paying for is for some type of, whether it's retention pond, landscaping, common area maintenance, as I mentioned before. Um, as far as notification, I don't know if these were certified letters or not that were sent to this individual. Um, I don't know if you can answer that or not. And she just chose, wasn't there or whatever, maybe that enhancing that. So it's a certified letter to be received because again, a foreclosure is, is a huge, uh, obstacles I have to deal with. Um, however, I think, uh, being state, uh, law and being mandated by state, we have to be very careful as on a local level because there are several different HOAs that all have different, uh, amenities packages. Um, there's a lot of neighborhood source, uh, organizations that, um, have different quote packages, uh, and they all serve different areas. And, and there is a vast amount of areas that are not covered by HOAs. And there does tend to be, uh, issues. Um, as you said, there was the one with the clubhouse. There was one, um, that I'm pretty familiar with, with, with the, with the garage that was built and had to be taken down about five years ago. So, um, you know, there are rules for a reason, but I do think, um, that, you know, a lot of people who are potential buyers, they're dealing with, um, a realtor know ahead of time that they're going into a deed restricted community. In fact, many neighborhood associations even have that on their, on their main entrance. So I would say, um, as far as knowledge, they probably know that. Um, I've been at several closings where that's been discussed. And also what has been given at a closing is a copy of the deed restrictions so that they're aware of that. And typically they're given to him prior to the closing. So they know whether or not they want to even go into this neighborhood. So I think that kind of thing is being done, but that doesn't mean that there's, when there's transactions between homeowners that don't use a, a realtor, or maybe just don't know that they exist, that could fall through the cracks. So I think notification could be, um, certainly, uh, enhanced and I don't think it would be hard to have a certified letter if, if someone can't go to the door and knock. I think a certified letter would be an easy fix. Okay. So is it, may I ask you a question? Absolutely. So when you're, when you make a presentation, is it part of a checklist of things? Sure. Because you have a multiple listing sheet and on that multiple listing sheet, it tells you everything from what kind of, uh, heat the house has, electricity amps, um, you know, whether it has X amount of bedrooms, X amount of bathrooms, square footage, um, you know what the acreage is of the lot. And then it will have HOA. Okay. Right on there, whether it's a mandatory association, non-mandatory, how much the fees are quarterly, annually, and what is that for? As I said, whether it's for common area maintenance, insurance, swimming pool, um, it's all put on there. And that wouldn't be necessarily unique to your organization, would it? No, probably most multiple listing services across the country. Okay. Very good. Thank you for that. You're welcome. Uh, last up, last signed up is Council Member Henson. Thank you, Chair. I had a question, Janet. I know when we foreclose on a property, LFUCG, and it's through code enforcement, or, um, doesn't it have to be a specific amount of incurred cost on the government? And we, we sort of set our own thresholds, but there are certain thresholds to get into circuit court, which foreclosures are always done in fed circuit court. So to get the jurisdictional amount, you do that. But, but generally we have to know that if a property sells, that we're going to recover our costs back and what we have in it. So most of our levels are done by thinking, you know, for example, with code enforcement, how much are our code enforcement liens? How much is the property worth? Because we don't want to sell a property and not get our money back, you know, that kind of thing. Right. And I know that those costs add up, but I was just thinking that perhaps if you, if I understand the homeowners associations and the dilemma they're faced with, because they do have common areas that need to be maintained and, um, but maybe it shouldn't, they shouldn't be able to foreclose unless it reaches a certain percentage of the value of that property. And that, that certainly could be pursued as a state law change. You know, if, if the General Assembly were to want to encourage that, they could certainly pass, but I think it would have to be done via state law. You know, and maybe that's something we could ask them to look at. But for $800 in, in dues that went unpaid for a $120,000 house, but she did get her money for, you know, but still, um, I think we could do better than this, but I, and this is just one situation like Council Member Stennett said. So there may be others that we're not aware of, but I, I can certainly see both sides, but thank you. Thank you, ma'am. Council Member Akers, you're, let me see. You're up. Council Member Clark's up. I will come back to you first, if that's all right. I would go to him. Council Member Clark. Yeah, let me just say, I think there is a disconnect here somewhere in Council Member Mazzotti. I, I understand exactly what you're saying and I just wonder how consistent it is. Um, as, as the former president of the Harrods Hill Neighborhood Association, I still get calls. I don't know why they call me, but, but, um, realtors want to know how much a particular house is in arrears or, and if they are. Now we are, Harrods Hill is a, is a neighborhood association, so it's not mandatory. But for some reason, the realtors simply don't know that. And so I'm wondering how this disconnect happens. If, if a realtor does not know that Harrods Hill is not a homeowners association, where is the disconnect here? So, uh, I'm, I'm not asking anybody in particular, but I do think there is a, a disconnect and people are not simply not getting the information that, that they need. And I think that is part of the problem here. Thank you, chair. Very good, sir. I want to go to Council Member Beard next. Thank you. Uh, let me ask Council Member Massotti a question. Um, at the time of closing, in this, uh, homeowners association's situation, uh, does the, uh, new owner pay ahead of time or? Uh, the potential seller and buyer are both contacted to find out how much dues have already been paid. And then it's prorated at the time of closing. So it's on the closing statement that X amount is paying this much because they lived in the house for six months and they've already paid so many dollars towards their association. It's just like taxation works. Exactly. So everything's prorated on a closing statement. So it would show up on a closing statement. So the, the question about not knowing that there was going to be a new owner So the, the question about not knowing that there was such a thing, um, isn't necessarily valid in this case, maybe? I think it's all about due diligence. Um, I think anyone that's, as again, unless they're not, uh, fulfilling the, their obligation will, typically a buyer will ask, you know, is this have a deed restriction or is there an association fees? Cause they want to know at the bottom, what the bottom line is. It's not a big dollar amount in this case, but, um, you know, you're right. I would think that they would want to know. I was afraid that maybe they were paying, uh, you know, arrears constantly. Um, no. And, and usually before the closing, like I said, the parties are, uh, the buyer and the seller are both contacted by a paralegal to find out just, you know, what association fees are and who paid them. Who's paid what and so forth. Okay. Fine. Thank you. Thank you, chair. I didn't realize, but I guess, uh, council members didn't said that there was notification by certified mail to this particular, um, homeowner. Is that correct? There were certified letters mailed to her, but they were returned. She never opened any. I didn't know. I mean, I, I, that this is a terrible thing, but I, I hate to say that this is because of one issue that we would have to revamp the whole process as far as, um, I know anyone who's been in charge of a neighborhood association, um, to go have to knock on someone's door and maybe not find them home several times. What do you do? And then if you sign, send a certified letter, what do you do? I mean, I'm not sure what else that we can do to enhance the process to make it to work. And in this particular instance, it looks like the homeowner just chose to, to ignore. I, I don't know that for sure, but it certainly seems, appears to be that way. So if there were, um, certified letters sent, and if someone tried to reach this person several times and couldn't get an answer, what do you do? Well, no one actually tried to reach her though. They mailed, everything was via mail. There were letters mailed and there were certified letters mailed, but no one actually went and knocked on her door. No one tried to call. No one asked neighbors if she was okay or if she was there. That's, that's where I just wondered if maybe somebody had knocked on her door several times and not found her home because they said that in the article, she traveled a lot. So I just wonder if that became a point of frustration, maybe with the neighborhood president or the homeowner's president saying, you know, we've attempted six times to reach this person. No one was there. I just didn't know the specifics. Very good. Council member Ellinger. Thank you, chair. What about the, and this, once again, it's, it's determined by state statute. So I, if we want to do something down the road with them about putting the lien on the property, is that a possibility instead of taking their property? Well, I, that's, that's potentially a thought. I don't know that the homeowners associations currently do liens, do they? I'm sorry, but I have to, I have to look behind me. You can build this among your 80 accounts. Um, if I understand the question correctly, is could the association place a lien on the property? And the answer is yes. That's in fact, how you foreclose is you already have a lien on the property for the unpaid dues. That's how the foreclosure process happens. The dues aren't paid. The unpaid dues create a lien on the property. And then you foreclose on that lien. Right. I guess, where do you, where do you make the determination and where do you stop and say, we're going to go on through with the, the foreclosure then. Different associations do it different ways. There is no Kentucky law that specifically addresses that question. Some associations pay monthly dues, condominium associations, townhouse associations. They may have dues of a hundred, $200, $300 a month. Other associations like Mashton have them of approximately $50 a year. And so in this case, it was about six years old and she never paid any dues. With other cases, another board may say there's a dollar threshold limit. Another board may say after this amount of time, there's no, there's no Kentucky statute specifically on point about that. There's actually a statute in the condominium regime that says if you don't foreclose within two years, you've waived your right to get the money. So there's actually a statute under the new, it says two condominium statutes, an old horizontal property regime and a new condominium. And it provides, if you don't start your foreclosure within two years, anything older than two years, you can't get, which says you better file it in two years or your money's gone. So that's the only standard one that's the, is with condominiums. That's correct. That's the only, there's, there's two condominium statutes and those are the only two statutes specifically deal with common property regimes. There are other treatises, et cetera, but those are the only two KRS that deal with those other than general principles about foreclosure or corporate law that we discussed earlier. Okay. Thank you. Okay. So rakers, I think since you're not a member of the committee, your options are kind of limited here right now, but, uh, there's room for more exploration or for legislative advocacy. Um, we'll just turn to you for commentary. Well, first I just wanted to say, um, that I do understand HOAs. I've lived in one now for over 12 years. Um, I live in this one, um, in Masterson. So, um, and most of my district actually involves neighborhoods of HOAs. All new development pretty much has an HOA. And I understand why they were established when new developments go in, they want to protect future developments. And so they don't want one section that's completed to start deteriorating future values on future developments. And, um, so it protects the developers. It protects the current homeowners. And he also mentioned, um, some of the benefits to the city. Um, so I, I understand the HOA and those regulations. Um, and, but I also, since I do represent thousands of homeowners that are in HOAs, and since this has hit the media, I have become, you know, the HOA, um. Something. Yes. So everyone with an HOA issue, um, has an HOA issue. Um, and that's me. And so part of, I guess my question is also, if someone has sought, you know, has a disagreement with their HOA, um, has any disagreements with them, disagrees on how much they owe, disagrees on whether or not, you know, they owe this fund for their trash can setting out and they disagree. Where's their next recourse. And that's where I feel like the local government should play and possibly could play a role. And that we have a lot of HOAs in this city. Especially with all the new development. And so, I just really wanted to pose that question. And I believe that I did. Um, of where's the recourse for citizens who feel that they have no voice, no representation in their HOA. If they feel that they're being, um, misled or abused or taken advantage of or whatever. They feel like they've paid the fine and HOA says they haven't. Where do they go? I mean, is it always going to be they have to hire an attorney and sue and that sort of stuff. I don't know that all that should be necessary. And that's one of my concerns, but, um, I guess. Finally, I will, I mean, I appreciate the discussion today and. I will take all of this in and maybe work with. Law and see if there's something that we could do on the local level. Um, and really just to be an assistance. To the citizens, to the homeowners, um, to help facilitate the process and prevent foreclosure without someone knowing about it. Really. And, and like you said, to facilitate better communication between homeowners and their HOAs. Very good. Very good. Thank you. Thank you. Catherine Rosati. I'm sorry. While we have, um, Mr. Billings here, could you respond to council woman acres question about what kind of redress does the homeowner have? If they feel like they're aggrieved. If I understand the question correctly is what can a homeowner do if they don't feel like their voice is being heard or they feel like they've been wrong by the association. Right. Um, the same thing that any citizen can do if they feel like the city government has aggrieved them or doesn't listen to them. The same thing that any shareholder of corporation can do if they feel like they've been aggrieved or the board of directors hasn't listened to them. Um, they do have the right to hire an attorney. They have the right to speak to board members directly. They have the right to call up city council. They have the right to call up the mayor's office. Um, they have the right to file a lawsuit. They have numerous rights, but here's the key of all those rights. They have to do something. They can't sit at their house, get upwards of 30 pieces of regular and certified mail. And at the end of the day, claim I've been wronged when they don't take action, they have to do something. If they feel like they've been aggrieved or they've been wronged, there are several methods. They may not agree with them. We live in a democratic Republic, which means that things are run by elected officials, both at the city level at the HOA level. And it doesn't mean that everyone likes or agrees. I mean, there are people who pay their dues who don't like what, what the board did with respect to the BOAC case. There's individuals of Fayette County who don't like things that the city does. But at the end of the day, we've agreed as a society to accept some of those things. And sometimes we get the result we want. Sometimes we don't with no respect at all to miss miss BOAC in this case. Um, I don't believe that from what I'm hearing today, I don't believe that the issue is what can be done to allow HOAs to redress citizens who think they've been wronged that there's a very, very clear process ultimately called the court system. If they want to do it, um, they can also like new directors of their association. They can motivate and encourage other people to run for the board. There's any number of things they can do outside of the legal process to, um, there are mechanisms available. It's just a matter of availing themselves of the mechanisms. There's no lack of, of possibilities. It's a lack of action. Very good. Thank you, sir. Was that good, ma'am? Yeah, that's, um, pretty much summarizes my thoughts were, I mean, um, I do feel foreclosure is, is by all, uh, you know, something that's something no one would want to have happened to them. Uh, unfortunately it looked like in this case that the, the homeowner chose to ignore, um, the notices and, and I hate to have that reflect back. I think that there's a lot of uncertainty on homeowners associations just because of one specific incident. And I think if we get involved at a local level, it, uh, I'm not sure if our law department would agree or not dealing with homeowners associations and rules and different amenity packages. Is that something that you'd want to be involved with and have to, to, uh, to basically, um, take care of? Um, I think the point is well taken. I think in many cases, this is a private matter between homeowners associations and, and their, uh, residents in that association. I think the most, if the council didn't want to do something, I think what I would recommend would be some resolution directed to the general assembly. If you wanted to, to try and encourage some different action, but for the most part, um, we get a lot of calls sometimes into the law department that relate to private legal matters that really aren't city law department or urban County law department issues. And I would view this as being very close to that. Thank you. You still up? No. She got it. Okay. Thank you for those comments. I, I think that, well, we'll let council members explore a little bit more. I'm sorry. There was a resident that wanted to speak again. Would that be allowable? Mr. Come again for three more minutes. Won't you. Thank you, Thomas. I'll check again. And I, I had asked Mr. Acres because I feel like, um, um, Mr. Uh, uh, lawyer representing masters. The station was not a disinterested party in this issue. So I think some of the, uh, some of the things that come from him and in the real estate industry, you have to understand are disinterested, are not disinterested parties as a homeowner and people, you know, somebody that works with a lot of homeowners. The homeowners association does not tend to offer a lot of benefits in the masters of nation. I can tell you that I'm not saying other ones do, but masters of station, there are really no benefits other than maintenance of the townhouse. And, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and, and. And I apologize. I'm not a good public speaker at all. I'm an engineer and a scientist, so I really don't like dealing with people. Computers are wonderful. Anyway, um, but my point, my point being is I'm maybe a little bit less, uh, happy about the HoAs even existing and whatnot. And that's probably obvious. But I am very concerned that you have, you have HoA boards which are in neighborhoods where, honestly, most people aren't that interested in the HoA because there are no benefits for them. You know, the benefits that they would see are maybe a swimming pool in some neighborhoods. Now in Masterson, that's not the case. But in some neighborhoods, there are some tangible, you know, recreational benefits. Not the case in Masterson. So people in general aren't necessarily going to be interested and active in areas where they're not seeing benefits for. I think you see, you know, more interest in local and community government because people are interested in roads. They're interested in, you know, the municipal services and whatnot. And they see a tangible benefit. In Masterson, for example, there are no tangible benefits as far as I'm concerned. Now, not everyone would agree with me, but there are, there are not any studies, and I, I'm sure that, uh, a lawyer funded study in an area for lawyers might find this. But if you go do academic research and governmental research, there are not studies to state that HOAs provide tangible, tangible, sorry, tangible benefits in terms of monetary neighborhood upkeep and whatnot. I, I don't see those. I, I would love to see some. Um, you may be aware of one and please get that to me. But I, I've done much research on this and, and those benefits are often more perceived than they are reality. So I just want to make sure that that, that's understood. I just wanted to make that clear. And again, thank you for, uh, taking time to listen to me and my poor public speaking. I apologize for it. Pleasure to have you here, sir. Thank you very much. Uh, if it would, if it's all right with the committee, I'll spend some time with council member HO Acres on this and we'll see if there's something in terms of advocacy or resolution that might want to come back to the committee. I would just, uh, leave that for an indefinite period. I don't think there's something, there's not a, a, a rush to action here, but perhaps an opportunity to take some, some ownership. Is there any, any other comments or thoughts on that? Council member Acres, thank you for bringing that to us. We look forward to following up on it. Thank you. Next up on our agenda is historic preservation fees. This is a, an item that has come to us through the links discussion, which are our budgetary breakdown groups. And I guess this came from, uh, last year from looking at the, at the notes. And I don't know. Betty Kerr, how are you? Good afternoon to you all. Thank you. Uh, you all had asked for, I'm Betty Kerr, director of historic preservation. Uh, you had asked for an update on a couple of topics, um, really coming out of, I think our link committee review and discussions and so forth. Um, and so I have put in your materials, I think you saw a summary, a memo, uh, that is just, um, about a week ago written. And also some background materials consisting of, what was a PowerPoint presentation made with some base data and a couple of, uh, memos, which were generated, um, back when we did some pretty in-depth research on all this, uh, in the late 2011 and early 2012. Um, we have, so that just is for base info. I didn't bring an additional presentation today in terms of things. We have done some more recent, uh, double checking into and revisiting some of that data just on a spot kind of basis to be sure that it, uh, continues to be, uh, current and applicable and find that it, uh, in large is. Um, so that's on the, uh, I'd put in my memo the first piece since it was the shorter, uh, summary of reporting to you, uh, about another topic, the board of architectural review training. But I'll hold off onto that for a second since I'm sort of started on what was in your pack. Um, because the larger part did reflect the information relative to application fees or permit fees for, um, the historic district process, uh, that is of course in historic preservation. Um, essentially what was the outcome of all of that research and, uh, about other cities and comparables and what other programs are doing about fees was that it's, uh, the board of architectural review training actually did a study on all of the cities and you'll see in the materials didn't have any fee application at all, uh, any permit application and, uh, fees and then others had some fees but they were pretty limited. And so when we shook it all out and had discussion with at that time the budget and finance committee, um, we found that the sort of amount of dollars that could be reasonably charged to property owners and, um, property owners versus contractors on big commercial projects or something like that was pretty, pretty limited to a 20, $25 range for that, which would be things handled by the staff that we are empowered by the Board of Architectural Review to handle and issue permits, review and issue permits. And then the other possible fee amount looked at as the process of looking into this evolved was a $50 fee for things that do go to the Design Review Board that are your more complicated projects. So a considerable amount more time goes into the review and processing and considerations of all that. But the catch to this is that when you figured approximately how many applications that the process receives annually, which is in the 450 to 500 applications a year at this point, and that dollar amount, then the Director of Revenue counseled us that the problem is that the processing, taking in and processing expenses to the LFUCG essentially result in that whole thing being a wash because it doesn't generate more than $10,000 or $12,000 a year potentially in income and therefore it really didn't behoove anybody to go through and establish such fees since it didn't seem as if it was possible it was going to help the bottom line. So that was the status back when Budget and Finance spent considerable time on this and I think some of you may remember those discussions. The committee reported out to the full counsel just what I've summed up. So more currently when we double check back in and be sure that the comparables we were finding continue to be accurate and so forth, it results in our recommendation being the same as it had been in the past, which is that it really doesn't make much sense to try to initiate a permit fee for historic preservation process at this time in that it doesn't generate enough to be a moneymaker, if you will. So certainly if you have questions available, I'm glad to answer and I hope the materials were of assistance to you. So there are one, two, three, there are four pages of examples in here that were I guess part of the original PowerPoint. And so I'm just asking, so you don't charge any fee for any of those things as sampled here? Currently the process never has charged the historic preservation, historic districts has not charged a fee. And what this was, the PowerPoint sort of shows you the ranges of what we found in the comparable cities research. What we came down to, and then there are two pages of the kinds of categories of application topics that those might be applicable to, but what we came down to after the first of the budget and finance committee meetings where we had substantive discussion, they asked us to go back and look more closely at putting, and this is reflected in that January 24th memo of 2012, at putting a, looking at it with a set $20 application fee for permits that would be reviewed and acted on by staff and a $50 permit fee for those that would go to the board of architectural review. And that's about 65% of the applications that come into historic preservation are handled, reviewed and handled by staff as empowered by the board. And that's driven by the nature of what they apply for. And then that remains your balance, 30 to 35% being such that goes to the design review board and would be at the $50 level. And then that's how we arrived at the annual income from those tentatively thought through permits of the $10,000 to $12,000 per year, was based on those numbers. All right. Thank you. Are there any questions for Ms. Kerr? Vice Mayor, I know this, this was placed in committee by yourself based on the links report. I mean, unless there are specific advocacy for this or some of these changes, per council commentary, I might move to remove it from committee for lack of, oh, I'm sorry. Yes, ma'am. Vice Mayor Gordon. I have a question. Yes, ma'am. Thank you, Vice Mayor. And I think this is, I may be sure this is in your materials here. On page, well, actually, this is not part of your presentation. It's part of the next one. It's the next one. Okay. We can reference it if you like. I think that, no, our link, which Council Member Clark chaired, simply wanted to review the fees to be sure that they were paying for the services. Right. Okay. And, which is also the case with the next issue. Right. All right. And, because I think frequently we set a fee and then, you know, 20 years later we realize that the cost of the service is way more than the fee. And so that, I think Council Member Clark may want to add something, but I think that was what we were interested in. Very good. Thank you, ma'am. Thank you. Council Member Clark, do you care to make, as chair of that link at that time? No, that's exactly, that was exactly the discussion that we had. I would agree with the Vice Mayor that that was where we were going. So thank you. So if we were going to potentially take, to take action on that, we might look at page 18 as a possible structure if we choose to act at all, or we could keep this in committee or dump it over the back porch. I mean, it's just all in what, I think there's, there's a merchant part of me that says if you give them something for free it has little value. Everything has a cost and a price and they vary. I'm not specifically advocating for these fees or these amounts. I'm just making a kind of a statement, but I would just turn it, return it to the committee for consideration. If there is a motion or an action that you all would like to take, that's fine. If we wanted to let it lay, that's fine too. I think we've had the report as it was placed from the link. Seeing no appetite for action on this, I'm just going to move on. I'm going to leave it in committee for now. We'll see if there's others who want to come back to it later. And that'll move us to our next similar, similar type item coming from the same conduit, fees for planning, preservation, development, commercial services. And that begins, I guess, is it page 23? Yeah. Okay, it is. It's Ms., it's Ms., okay, on page 23 of the packet. I guess you're off the hook for now, it looks like. Well, the only other thing that you had requested about is in writing in the materials that was relevant to the BOER training. The quick update is that we're planning that in late April, and thank you for the increase in the funding amount, because as it notes in the memo, previous wasn't adequate. We now have enough funds to make this viable, and we're carrying that out in conjunction with the state. What form does it take, just to know? It'll be a seminar. Okay. It'll be on Saturday, probably about six hours. And a couple of people will come in from elsewhere who are highly involved as attorneys and design professionals in doing current training for design boards. So that would then be a mandatory thing for members of? We need to do it annually, and both by our ordinance and by our certified local agreement. We are what they call a CLG community with, don't you love it? I do. With the Kentucky Heritage Council, which is essentially in agreement with the feds through the state to this community. Thank you, ma'am. Thank you so much. Other questions there? We're good? Appreciate your time. Appreciate it. Thank you. Commissioner, you want to take up the next issue for us, please, sir? Thanks, sir. We are back, coming back after a presentation in January that we talked more generally about permit fees overall. And out of that presentation, there was an ask to come back and look a little bit more specifically at the land disturbance fees. Overall, our fees, both residential and commercial, are quite reasonable. We think quite business friendly. As was mentioned before, and I think was mentioned somewhat last week at the Home Builders Association presentation by their economists, the market is still, it's coming back. It's still not quite there. Our permits are still down compared to even last year or the previous year. So 2013 residential permits and commercial permits are kind of a little bit down from the previous years, but they're nowhere near as bad as they were a few years ago. But our market is still recovering. And then in terms of our land disturbance permits, they are a flat rate. And that's what we'll talk about now. They are a flat rate for residential and or commercial. It is required to have a land disturbance permit for any clearing, grading, excavation, any filling activities whatsoever. The actual requirements for a land disturbance permit will vary based on what you're actually doing. And that fee, no matter how large or how small, is $25. In last year, we had 91 commercial land disturbance permits were issued for the city. And we've got a quick kind of a little comparison. So as a comparison, this is what the fees are. And they will vary. Each city will do them a little differently in terms of what's required, what's in there. And obviously in some cities, you know, in some developments, some of these areas, Jessamine County, Woodford County, they may see a lot less work. They may have a lot smaller engineering department. They may be in a much smaller. So getting that service done will cost a lot more, in a sense, than it would here. Again, very quickly, when we're just looking at land disturbance, it's a pretty quick discussion. And I will leave it open to questions after that. But our land disturbance fees, they do vary greatly between communities. We looked at Louisville. We'll try to get something back from Louisville. The metro area does not have a direct fee, but does have a site disturbance fee, which will vary, again, depending on what is actually done. And then we'll look at other areas within their MSD. One of the things to remember in dealing with the permits here is that that is one aspect of the cost that's associated with these developments. Two things that are constantly kind of brought up are the consent decree, stormwater fees as well that are also within there. So at this point, we are not recommending any change in the fee structure, but we are willing to answer any other questions. And a simple little thing, just that we did kind of, we didn't put it in here, but Jonathan was able to calculate it very quickly. If we were to triple our permit fee for land disturbance just for commercial, it would have only brought in $4,500 more last year. So I mean, to really, again, it gets back to the purpose of the fees at this point. We know that the fees are not paying the costs of the inspectors, the engineers. But if we were to try to get it to where they could, we would have to raise them at a very high rate. And again, I'm willing to answer any and all questions. Thank you for the background and the example. I have Council, or Vice Mayor Gorton signed up. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Commissioner, for your report. When I look at page 26, you know, I think of that old children's theme, one of these things is not like the other. $25 would buy you a good meal in Lexington. And I know that we try to keep our fees low so that cost of development is not, you know, that we can keep it reasonable. But I guess I would like to know, you said that even if we tripled our fee, it wouldn't pay for our inspectors. I think the idea may not be that we totally pay for our inspectors, but what is it that we do in the service and how much does it cost? Right. And again, one thing I think we need to discuss is currently we have one land disturbance fee. So if we increase land disturbance fees as it is right now, we would increase it on residential as well. So that $25 fee is for residential, it's also for commercial. So I think while we're talking about it in the context of commercial, unless they were to be bifurcated as a residential land disturbance fee and a commercial land disturbance fee, any increase in that land disturbance fee would be reflected back on the residential development as well. Why can't we? And I can have Director Frazier come up and discuss a little bit more in terms of what's done in the review of the land disturbance fees if you would like. I think it would be really helpful to know when a land disturbance permit is applied for what exactly does urban county government do then and how many hours do we spend doing it and how much does it cost? And then just can we? I think we can get a sense of this one thing and I think this is going to your point. I don't think we have a direct comparison and this is what we were trying to get across here is that there will be different between each location in terms of what's required, but I think Brad can give a good understanding of what's done and it may, it will vary by the type of land disturbance as well. And then one more thing, you mentioned bifurcating the residential and the commercial. Is there a reason we couldn't do that? I think that's a question for law, but I would think there wouldn't be as far as I know, but I would defer to law to say whether or not I'm assuming that could be done. Okay. Welcome. Vice Mayor, to try to answer your question as best I could, I'll just go ahead and give you some background on what actually happens. Anyone wishes to obtain a land disturbance permit based on the criteria the commissioner was just talking about, basically they would have to submit an erosion sediment control plan to division of engineering. We have two engineers, one that oversees commercial permitting, it goes through the division of planning process. And then we have a similar engineer that also does it for residential. In the residential setting, that also includes the single lots as well. So basically you have to submit an erosion sediment control plan, and then have that accepted per our manuals that are in place. And once that occurs, then they can go ahead and get their permit. From there, it actually goes to another division, the division of water quality, where the actual inspection occurs of that plan. That is the background, that is the process at which it is followed. As far as man hours, the way that it's set up, it's very subject to the economics of the time. We can have a whole bunch, or we can have very few. As we recall back in 2008, it took a significant drop. As Commissioner Polson was talking about, what we're seeing is a steady climb, definitely in commercial, which is good for Fayette County. So that's kind of it in a nutshell. As far as... I'm sorry to interrupt you, but can you just tell me, once the application is received, how much time would we, the government, spend reviewing and inspecting? As far as what we're obligated to give back to these folks, you're looking at a 10-day window. We shoot for half that, about typically five days. Again, as far as the time, it's just based on the fact of what the workload is, what the submittal is. Single residential lots, which is your sixth of an acre, quarter of an acre lot, is very straightforward. It can be fairly quick. Something that is extremely large and complex, if you have a residential subdivision that comes in and it's 100 acres, multiple pages, other things to look at, sediment trap controls that we have to check against, our standards, things like that. As far as a typical time, I would need to get with our reviewers before I get real comfortable in giving you a direct answer on that, because I apologize, there's a lot of variability. I realize that. I don't know if we're talking about an hour, 10 hours, five hours. Just based on experience, not just an hour. I think it goes beyond that. We checked it for acceptance. We don't actually nosedive directly into the design itself and pick apart the analysis, but we do have checks and balances. We do have checklists to make sure that we have the correct submittals. If we do have any questions, we have to get back with the designer, then they're supposed to go ahead and resubmit this information. Consultants that's been in the game for a while and very familiar with the process, it could be a quick turnaround. Others that are learning, say for example, the first time, it could take a lot more time back and forth, which then in turn eats up our time. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. My time is gone. Thank you, ma'am. Next is Council Member Misati. Thank you, Chair. Derek, or Brad, either one of you, when you did these comparisons between Lexington and Scott County and Northern Kentucky, Woodford County, Jesmond County, et cetera, did you use the same criteria? Because right here it says that the requirements vary depending on the nature of the project, which is exactly. Every project is different, as Brad alluded to. But when you made your comparison, did you kind of compare apples to apples, or just you did? We did. And again, I think some of the... We've seen this when comparing the residential fees as well earlier, that what you'll see is with smaller divisions in other counties, with fewer people, they may increase the fees to try to pay more of their salaries. But we did do an apple to apple comparison on these. And I think Brad's point is well taken. You've got a residential permit on one side, a residential land disturbance versus a large commercial development, or even a subdivision. It's going to take a lot more to review. And I think that's what some of these other counties are covering in that. Okay. Then do you feel yourself that the fees are justified or not? They are where they should be, or you're in power hours and so forth. I'm just wondering what your feeling is on this. In terms of the fees, I think the best we would recommend at this point is, and this is a tough discussion, because the way that it's structured right now, residential, there is no bifurcation between the two. And when you've got more work, it's generally on the commercial side. So if we're going to be looking at, I think those are larger changes than just a fee. I mean, I think that gets down to a little bit more about what all the work is that's involved with it. And it gets back to, in terms of what are we, what is the goal with the increase in the fee? We know that our fees do not, at this point we are supplementing, you know, our fees are a supplement, are supplemented by the salaries that we already pay through the general fund. So if the goal is to try to make them conditional upon the amount of time that they take, I think we'd have a very different look at a lot of other fees as well. I think because of this, and as Brad alluded to, it starts with engineering, but it also goes over to water quality. I think it's just a little bit bigger. At this point, I would say that I have no real concerns with the fee. But as things tick up, I think we may see other increases that we may have to deal with. I think it'd be nice, though, to have the division between the residential and commercial fees. And that's something we can look at. Thank you. And again, I think the big point to come back to is, when looking just at the land disturbance fee, we do not have that as a, it is simply that, it is a single land disturbance fee at this point. So any changes to commercial would be reflected in residential, unless we go forward and make that split. And then attempting to determine those cost differences is a much more complex thing than what we were asked to come back for at this point. All right, good. Let me just, before I pivot, any of those other municipalities operating under a consent decree? No, not that I know of. All right. Council Member Akers. Northern, I'm not sure. We looked at Louisville. Louisville has got one, again, our, we could not do an apple-to-apple comparison to get back to your point. That's why we did not put Louisville in there. But Louisville does have a consent decree as well. I'm not sure if Northern Kentucky does, but I don't believe. Brad is telling me Northern Kentucky does. All right. Thank you, sir. Council Member Akers. Thank you, Chair. Derek, is the cost the same, the $25 fee, is that the same for, if you're going to build one house versus 5,000 houses? It is, yes. Or 1,000. It's a subdivision versus, and again, I think the comparison is a little bit easier to make is a residential versus a commercial. At this point, a center point would cost the same as a quarter acre lot. For an entire neighborhood development plan that someone would bring forward would cost the same as one single lot. I'll let Brad discuss it, because there are some intricacies with the subdivision plans versus the single family. The requirements as they're set right now, if a developer wants to develop a piece of property per division of planning guidelines, they can come in. If it's 50 acres, 100 acres, they're going to create lots. That's one. So yes, a land disturbance permit would be needed, $25. Each one of those lots created has to have its own individual erosion sediment control plan, so its own land disturbance. That's also $25. Okay. Sixth of an acre, quarter of an acre. Okay. Center point. Its own, $25. Okay. Thank you. And then, Derek, you note on here that 91 commercial permits were issued in 2013. Do you have the number for how many residential permits were issued? I do. We have 455 residential permits and eight subdivision permits. That's all I have right now. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, ma'am. Council Member Kaye. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Derek, in bringing this forward or providing some information. I guess I'm still not clear about some things. The division between residential and commercial doesn't necessarily track the scale of the development. Is that correct? That is correct. So residential could be a single lot. It could be, as people have said, a large residential development. We do track between subdivisions, but the fee is generally the same. I'm sorry. It does? We do have, again, we had eight subdivision permits, 91 commercial land disturbance permits, and then 455 residential permits, which are generally considered more on the lot level. In each case. But the fee is the same. The fee is the same, one lot, one residential lot, or one commercial development. The fee comparison that we have had up on the screen, do those other municipalities make that distinction? Are these numbers about their land disturbance permits, are they for single residential? Are they for commercial? What are they? I'm going to get Jonathan to come up, since he was the one who did the heavy lifting on the individual comparisons between counties. You can get a little more apple to apple comparison discussion here. So the other counties predominantly, there's a little bit of nuance in every city in the way that they do it. Some of them have an exemption for very small land disturbances where they don't charge you a fee at all. But one important thing to remember, in a lot of the counties, they don't even have full time staff at all. So they pay private engineers by the hour for the review of some of these plans, because the volume is so low. So that accounts for a lot of the difference there. Also a lot of these are run through sort of their version of the water quality process. And there's a lot of water quality things that go on in Lexington that are very different here at a much higher level than they are in some of these other communities as well. So they are the same fee, but there is some nuance to how they are applied. So they're comparable, but they do not account for the sum total of the cost to develop in Lexington. I guess what I'm interested in is if I look at those numbers, start at the bottom, Jessamine County, is that, do they have a flat fee that covers residential, commercial, small scale, large scale, and that's it? Jessamine County's, if I remember correctly, the $200 is their flat fee for everything. They do have, in addition to that, a small fee that is per hour of review time. So but that is because they are paying outside staff to do that. So it does account for the scale of the project, but there's no differentiation between residential and commercial. Okay. So I don't know where exactly we want to go with this, but my sense is that there's a real difference in scale and the amount of time required for a residential development or a commercial development. Well, and I'm not, I'm still stuck on, I'm not sure that that distinction between residential and commercial is the important one as opposed to the scale. So it may be that for a center point, it's one block and the amount of time needed to ensure that they're complying with the regulations is pretty simple as opposed to a residential development that over time requires, I presume, a lot more oversight, et cetera. So I'm interested at least in thinking about some differentiation so that the larger scale developments, whether they're residential or commercial, at least we ought to think, we ought to look at what we think it's costing us and see if there's a way that we could recoup some of those costs. And if I could, and we'll be happy to come back with more information about how we could split those out. And I think an important one, which we did on the residential, was more of a cost of development where we looked at kind of larger fees. Because again, I think to Jonathan's point about the trying to do our best on comparisons here is looking at, you know, if we're going to look at commercial, looking at the cost of development on commercial in terms of all the permit fees that are associated with the commercial development. Because again, at this point we're seeing the $25, but there are some fees in commercial development that are much higher than a residential development in terms of inspection. So I think we can come back with trying to get a better overall cost of that and do our best to try to come up with a, you know, what it costs us on, again, with the scale of the development. They are very difficult. I mean, it's, they're, as Brad alluded to, some are going to be a little bit easier just with who you're dealing with and with the size of the project and where the project is located with all that needs to be done. On some, it's, a land disturbance permit on some is much easier even if it's large. So, but we can come back and try to, try to put some of those variables into play. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, sir. I'm going to go first to Councilman Revere, then to the Vice Mayor. Thank you. I got you up there, Commissioner. And I'm getting back to Scott County again. Toyota's over in Scott County, and it's like a small state unto itself. Shouldn't the, the size of the lot have some element of the disturbance and how much the disturbance they're talking about, as opposed to a residential, which is maybe an 80 by 150 or whatever? I think it can. I think that, I wouldn't want to say that that's the only part that has a play in it, though. I think. Well, my guess is probably Toyota didn't pay anything, but. It could be. I would venture to say you're probably correct. But I think what, what the engineers will allude to is it's not always just the size of the project in terms of what makes the review complicated. Right. It can be, going out to a green, a green field development, two, two subdivisions can be very different. One has much more water issues, a lot of other things that need to be taken, grade changes that can take the review a lot, a lot longer. So I think there may be some other factors that we could look in besides size, because it can be a smaller plot, may, may be more complicated in terms of its review than, than a larger plot. So I think size may have, be one of the factors to look at, but I think we'd probably try to add some others in there as well. But again, trying to, trying to build that into a fee may be very complicated. Acreage or their footage, whatever you want to call it, is available on every piece of property already. So you could, it'd be, I would think it'd fairly easily come up with a number. And again, I agree that the size is important, but I think there's those other factors that may, that complicate the review that may be more difficult to try to put it on. We've got fixed and variable costs, I understand, yeah. But again, we'll be happy to take it back and look and see what we can, what we can come up with in terms of that, as well as a more comprehensive cost of development from a commercial perspective. All right. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. We'll go next to Council Member Clark and then to the Vice Mayor. Thank you, Chair. It seems like to me that the complications involved in trying to make different prices for different projects is more than we really need to deal with right now. The Council wants to increase the price. Maybe that would be okay, although I'm not particularly in favor of it. But I think if we do that, we ought to keep the same fee across all developments. And it's very clear to me that we can't divide commercial and residential based on anything other than the size of the project. So I think it would be kind of silly to try to do that. So I think the idea of a single price for both residential and commercial makes a lot of sense to me. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, sir. Vice Mayor. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Commissioner, I have a question for Jonathan, but while he comes up to the podium, my mind was wandering to parks. You know, we argue all the time that parks don't pay for themselves. And isn't that an interesting argument in the context of this, which I think this, I don't know what all these fees are supposed to pay for, but I think we would do well to get to a point where we are at least paying more for the service than not paying for it. So anyway, just some random thoughts, but I wanted to ask Jonathan, you mentioned some towns or some cities give a waiver to very small properties. Do you remember if they are based only on the size? Those were basically, it was done in square footage, so those would be disturbances that are literally a piece of a residential lot, so not even an entire residential lot, so very small disturbances. That might be something like the installation of like a septic system or something like that. Okay. Okay. Do you think that might have some applicability to Fayette County, either of you? Very small waivers, and that's brought Charlie Martin out of the back. Uh-oh. We have to ask a couple others to see what all that weighs up to. Charlie, maybe you're the person I should be asking. Since I played an intimate role of writing the current ordinance we have, I knew this one off the top of my head. There are already waivers in place for small disturbances such as landscaping. We don't want to have to issue a permit or do an inspection if you're wanting to redo your yard. That at the same time doesn't allow somebody to pollute. The whole thing that's driving this thing was the consent decree, was erosion and mud down the street into the storm sewers. And so we had to revamp the ordinance, I believe it was back in 2010. That was one of the drivers or one of the requirements of the consent decree in the stormwater component of it. We're required, the Division of Water Quality is required to inspect 90% of active construction sites once a month. Failure to do that exposes us to stipulated penalties. That's one of the drivers I think that's behind this is while engineering is going through the review process because we didn't want to shift that to water quality. We didn't want to uncouple it from all the other permitting activities that go on over at the Phoenix building. But once they're done with it, my folks are on the hook for as little as 60 days, as much as a couple of years depending on, like I said, the degree and complexity of the project. Some require more frequent inspections if they're adjacent to sinkholes or other natural features. And like I said, all of this is driven by the consent decree. Okay, if I could, while you're here, Charlie, if I could ask you, and this is just generally speaking, when you get one of these and look at the plan, can you sort of on the surface tell if it's going to be complicated and require a lot of time or not? Or do you have to actually go out to see? Can you get a sense from just looking at an application? My experience with this, and again, the review of these things is in Brad's shop, so he's probably more qualified to comment on that. But from my vantage point is the larger site, the subdivision which has yet to go into the lot phase, if it's got a lot of streams, a lot of ravines, it's hilly, it's got a lot of contours, yeah, that may require a site visit. Likewise, a commercial development that is within the urban area that maybe they're not showing all the storm sewers or showing all the infrastructure in place. Those can be complicated. The individual home lots, which oftentimes generate the largest number of complaints for us because as those lots get built out, some folks are living there now, and then the rest of the lots are still being built, the noticeability of mud in the street and things like that become more apparent than they are in the early phases of home building. We tried to streamline those. We actually have a very boilerplate type of erosion and setup control plan that we can have the builder fill out. We're trying not to make it hard for them because those are a little bit more cookie cutter. Get that black fence up around the lot. Have a construction site entrance so you can knock some of the mud off before you start driving down the street. Very, very basic as opposed to the large site or the intense site within an urban area. Okay. I just wanted to, in my last two seconds, make a motion to ask the Commissioner and Brad and Charlie and Jonathan to put their heads together and bring us back a proposal that we could discuss which would look at the bifurcation not based on residential versus commercial but simple versus complex. Charlie's already said a list of things that automatically would trigger him to think this is a more complex permit that needs to be issued. So I just want to put that in a formal motion to be sure that we get back something that can tell us whether it would be worthwhile to look at this fee again based on complexity. Motion by the Vice Mayor. Motion by Council Member Beard. And you're looking for a framework? Say it again. Well, a proposal to bifurcate this fee based on size and complexity. All right. Can you work with that? We can try. All right. We're in discussion. We'll work on, again, as both Charlie and I mentioned, there are a lot of different things that make it complex. Some that are fixed, like the size, but all the others that are a bit more variable. We will do our best to come back with an attempt at how we could try to put that into a workable fee. All right. Discussion on the motion? Council Member Kaye. Thank you, Chair. Yes, I'd like to suggest a friendly amendment. And that is not a bifurcation necessarily, but maybe a stratification. It may be in two part, but it might be in three, four, five. Accepted. Stratification. I'd like that. A request for a proposal which would look at land disturbance fees on residential versus commercial, simple or complex, for discussion, including stratification? Is that what we're, I mean? Actually, I didn't want it on residential versus commercial. Commercial could be smaller than a residential. I think it's, I mean, size might play into it, but it might not be residential versus commercial based on what you all have said. Well, if you'll look on the screen, I think what we're debating is this verbiage is my thought. Maybe we should change it accordingly. Based on size, I would take out residential versus commercial. Okay. Size and complexity. Uh-huh. Size and complexity. All right. It doesn't mean a residential could be quite large and a commercial could be quite small and simple. So can you remove that from this for purposes of our discussion? Yes, sir. No, no. I'm asking her, not you. Oh, I'm sorry. Not you. You're great. You're the vice mayor. Take out residential. I removed it in the notes, but it's not removing it on your screen. I don't know if that's the timing lag, but I haven't noted the change. This is another demon of the upgrade of this system, vote cast by Granicus. Not well done. Thank you. I would say this would give us something to discuss. I don't know what it will look like or whether it's something we would want to do. If what it sounds like, this is what I think I'm hearing, is trying to get a sense of the different variables that go into making something more difficult in terms of review time, making it more complex, the easier ones, the harder ones, and kind of looking at a graduated scale in terms of costs rather than just a residential commercial. Does the word stratification appear in yours? Yes. Okay. Very good. So, we have amended the motion. We didn't have a vote on that. All those in favor of the amendment? Aye. All right. Now, any more discussion on the motion as made or altered? Then all those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Like signed? Aye. We've got four or five. Yes. All right. Motion passes. Council Member Kaye, did you want to make further commentary? Please, sir. Thank you. I don't know who this question is for. It could be anybody who's been at the podium so far, but I think it starts with Charlie Martin, if I can ask you to come back up, because you started to say a little bit about what it really means when a permit is issued, what the obligations are and how those are inspected and so on. You mentioned this, I don't think you actually said silt fence, but that's what you said, the black plastic. Could you tell us a little more about what really is required when there is land disturbance? And the reason I ask is because this has been an issue for this community for quite a while, and I'm going to ask for your opinion, or maybe that's the commissioner's, about whether we really have made significant improvement. So what does it entail? Well, I'll try to be brief about it. You're right. There was a historic problem of not complying with erosion and sediment control standards that are established by the state and the federal government. In the aftermath of the consent decree, this community essentially revamped its erosion and sediment control ordinances. We've had a lot of partnering work in shops with the development community. I can say that I think it is much, much improved than it was before. The development community, the private sector have been great partners. They recognize the importance of this. Do we occasionally have the hiccup? Yeah, we still do. Because active construction sites, especially ones that are very intense, whether they're on a large site or a small site, there's just so many different things that can go wrong. One guy shows up on a muddy day and then tracks it all the way down. Everything you've done to that point is completely blown. And so on the home building sites, because the lots are very small, there's not a whole lot of room to work with in there either. So it's an ongoing effort on my team's part. The Home Builders Association, they've worked very closely with us, trying to educate their membership or folks that they reach out to because the costs of us running this program are directly coronary to the level of effort that they're putting forth when we're not inspecting it. I think we're making progress. We're still not there, and I don't think it's ever going to be able to go on autopilot despite the nature of the beast, but it is much improved from what it was in 2007. Okay. And is it fair to say in maybe oversimplified terms, the intention is to keep the land where it is, and that is not track it into the street onto other property, contain as much as possible the actual dirt. Is that correct? That's basically it. Basically it, yes. Okay. Thank you. Dirt is pollution just the same way trash is, and so you have to keep it on your site. Thank you. Very good. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, sir. Anyone else on this issue? Thank you very much. Then we'll move to our Oliver Lewis Way construction update. Mr. Grunwald is here. We're glad to have you by way of update, but just to see you nonetheless. Thank you. It's good to be here. I'll be brief. I think I've only got about 15 minutes. Go ahead. I'll be much shorter than that. What you're looking at here, this is, of course, the whole project. Usually this map is about three feet by six feet. It's kind of hard to see. The area in yellow is, of course, Phase 4. That started at Main Street, went down to Versailles Road. Of course, that is constructed. Our current areas of work are Phase 1 and Phase 2. That would be the red area, basically in the Davis Bottoms area, and the blue area. I'll start with talking about Phase 1. I was just wondering if you could move that up a little bit if you can. Okay. Well, there we go. We'll take that. Here's kind of an aerial photograph. I'm sorry, Chair. Yes, sir. Andrew, could you just orient us a little bit? A little bit more? Streets and, yeah, that would help me anyway. I'm challenged when it comes to maps. If you could go back to the first slide real quick. We can give you turn-by-turn instructions. The red button. Well, at the top is Town Branch Distillery. I'm getting blinder in my old age. Okay. Right here, this is, of course, Main Street. This is Ruff Arena. This is the back parking lot. This is the big bridge on Oliver Lewis Way. This right here is Manchester Street. Of course, this is Versailles Road. Phase 4. Of course, this was completed in 2010. Out of Phase 1 area, which is down here, this is where we're going to begin to build the residential homes. This is McKinley Street, Versailles Road. Right here, it runs underneath Versailles Road, underneath that viaduct. Phase 2, which will begin at Versailles Road. This is Patterson Street, and it runs up to the back of the parking lot. Okay. Large parking lot. It will run through, I'm sorry, this is South Broadway. Of course, there's Patterson. This is the Lex, a very large building. That's Baldwin. And, of course, this is Phase 3, which will come over from where we intersect with Patterson. It's called the Scott Street Connector because it will bridge South Broadway. Thanks. And it will tie into Scott Street and run down to the front of the University of Kentucky. This is Limestone. This is Upland. This portion of Upland will be curved and turned into limestone. The limestone will be two ways from the intersection of Scott Street and South Island up to the intersection of Oliver and South Island. Is that a little bit better? On to the Phase 1 portion. Again, here, this is the Versailles Road Viaduct. It's McKinley Street. This was the south end park where our temporary housing area was. This was the PDQ market, the Nathaniel Mission. Harry Gordon Steel would be over in here. Of course, we have been working on this area exclusively. We have purchased all of the property in this entire area. We have demolished all of the structures in this area. We have refilled it. We have rebuilt it. It has all new storm sewers, all new sanitary sewers. All of the utilities have been buried. And with a few small exceptions, all of the utilities are almost in the right places. We still have a few to move around and to readjust to make sure that we don't build houses over them. This is very important because the next thing I'm going to discuss is all of this land, which was purchased in the state's name, has now been, a portion of it, has been transferred to the city of Lexington. This portion will be consolidated and it will be replatted. Of course, these are a little bit too small. This wasn't in our packet. You didn't provide anything for our packet. No, sir. My worry was that if I provided it for you, by the time you get it and it prints out, you couldn't read it anyway. Proceed. Proceed. If anybody on the committee would like, I can actually produce the actual documents to their actual size, because I think you can actually read them at that point. Let's just keep moving. Essentially, what will happen is we, the city of Lexington, will receive a large chunk of property. We will consolidate it. We will then reconfigure it, replat it, and then we will give it to the Lexington Community Land Trust. That is the position, or the point we're at right now. Once the Community Land Trust gets it, they're going to partner with a company called AU and Associates. AU and Associates is going to build our temporary, or not our temporary housing, I'm sorry, our final housing. Once the final housing is constructed, we will move the people out of the temporary housing, the pre-manufactured homes, into the final housing. To give you a rough time schedule, our hope is to have that housing built by the end of this year and to have those people moved out. The Community Land Trust, an organization that was created by this project, we have completed their offices in the Carver Center. They have moved in. They will probably be there for a limited time. I would say about, I don't know, three to four years, depending on how long it takes them to get their feet off the ground and to produce their own structure within the area that they're going to own. A couple of other little facts. We have sold five of our temporary manufactured homes. We sell them by auction. That money is collected and it's given to the Community Land Trust. Phase two, as I mentioned earlier, from Versailles Road to South Broadway, what you're looking at here, this is what we call a right-of-way strip map, and it contains all of the parcels that we are currently buying, well, let me rephrase that, that we have purchased. The Transportation Cabinet has bought all of the total take parcels for this. I think there were about 21, and they have contracted with Strand & Associates to purchase the temporary construction easements as well as some of the smaller parcels that we're going to need, partial takes. This process is ongoing. It's the Transportation Cabinet's hope that it will clear up by this summer. They would like to have this portion bid or out to bid by mid to late summer. Now, that doesn't mean that you'll see construction start right off the bat. We are going to let the project with what we call utility notes. There will be a considerable amount of utility work that has to go on at the intersection of South Broadway and what will be Oliver Lewis Way, basically where Bolivar ties in. There's a car wash there, the Lex. There will be significant utility work that goes on along there. So that will be the first thing that you'll probably see would be that utility work. I can say the only other thing that I would like to bring up is Phase 3 of the project. That's the Scott Street connection. We have not begun drawing up any of the right-of-way plans or the final development plans or final construction plans simply because that construction is still deemed probably about two to three years out. Unland acquisition? Correct. We don't like to draw those up because so much stuff downtown can change. Before we get there, then we'd have to pay for it twice. All right. Agreed. With that, I'll conclude and I'll take any questions. Any questions for anyone? I'm sorry. Council Member Clark. Thank you. All very interesting and I've been watching it happen. And I'm still concerned about the connection into Bolivar because even though we're coming to South Broadway and that's kind of the terminal of that phase, but that traffic is still going to go across Broadway over to Upper. Yeah, I think it's Upper. That's still going to be a problem. And is there any plans for some redevelopment of Bolivar for that two, three blocks into Upper? Because that's going to be heavily traveled, I suspect, and right now it's fairly small in terms of width and excess. Currently, there are no plans for improvements on Bolivar. We can look at that internally and probably make recommendations. If we were to do anything like that, it would not include any, my guess is, any hard redevelopment. We might restripe, adjust some of the parking so we could have more volume. But those are things that we can look at doing. I would appreciate that because I brought that up before and I do think it's going to be an issue in terms of access. It would be nice to think that people are going to turn on South Broadway one way or the other. But I think a lot of the traffic is going straight on Bolivar into Upper, and I think that intersection at Upper then is going to become a whole lot more complicated as well. So I would really appreciate if you all could look at that and see what could be done to make that more accessible and would fit better into the project. Yes, sir. Thank you, sir. We can look at that. Thank you, Council Member. Council Member Beard. Thank you, Chair. Andrew, just off the top of your head, and I'm going to hold you to it, but how much have we, the state and the city, spent and the projections going forward? A rough number off the top of my head, the last time I added up the figures, the state has activated or authorized approximately $70 to $75 million. A good deal of that was in right-of-way and, of course, construction. We have spent probably almost $50 to $55 million with the majority of the money that's left right now waiting in queue for that construction. And, of course, those are real rough numbers. I don't understand. But I'd say about $70 to $75 million is what they've authorized and about $50 to $55 million is what we have actually spent out. $125,000 to $140,000, in that range, I would guess. You know what? $125,000 million, I mean, $125 million. Oh, the total cost of the project? Yeah. Right now, our estimates are right at about $100 million or just underneath. Some of that probably could change depending on the bridge over South Broadway. If that bridge follows the same type of construction or the same appearance as what you see at Oliver Lewis, the Oliver Lewis bridge is about $4 million. So we should, as long as that bridge is pretty much the same, we should be within our $100 million. The hope is we won't overrun. Okay. I was just curious because that number over the last 50 years has changed considerably. Yeah. Anyway, thank you so much. Thank you, Chair. I want to return briefly to Councilman Clark's point. Is it anticipated that once the south, the Scott Street connector is done, that people would use it rather than go across to south upper on using Bolivar? Yes, sir. The expectation is if you have, I think the number was about 30,000 to 30,000 cars a day, 45% of it had an orientation to go to south Broadway. Okay. About 55% it was expected would go over to South Lime. All right. With the Scott Street connector, you would cut off, I think, two lights to get over to South Lime. So it would be the short circuit. Understood. Exactly. Do you want to follow up? Are you good? Yes. Let me ask this question. How much time between the, I can't remember which phase. Phase two completion and phase three completion. Yeah. Between where we are now and Scott Street, how much time in between those two projects? My hope, if we're under construction in phase two is two seasons. You're probably three years out, another two years. I'm going to say four to five years. You would see. That's longer than I thought. Yeah. We would be doing construction on phase three. That's a super rough number, unsubstantiated by the state legislature. Yeah. Thank you. We'll just look forward to another update. Yes. All right. Yes. Any other questions for Mr. Grunwald? Thank you for taking your time with us today. We appreciate it. Yes, sir. Members of the committee, our meeting in April is going to be busy. We're going to be dealing with the affordable housing issue that was placed in the committee last week. We're going to be dealing with the design excellence update that was placed in here several months ago. And we'll be taking up the residential parking procedure to see if there's anything the council wants to change about that. So, I look forward to entertaining all those at our meeting on April the 8th, I believe. I'd ask for a motion to adjourn. So moved. So moved. All those in favor? Opposed, like signed. We are adjourned. Thank you.