# Environmental Quality and Public Works Committee - January 20, 2015 > Auto-transcribed civic record · January 20, 2015 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/3564 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/3564?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2015-01-20 - **Last revised**: January 20, 2015 - **Length**: 15,840 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed with OpenAI's open-source Whisper large-v3-turbo model, run locally by The Lexington Times. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude. Verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Environmental Quality & Public Works Committee met on January 20, 2015, at 1:30 PM with Chair Farmer presiding. The committee addressed nine agenda items covering a range of transportation infrastructure and environmental quality matters. The meeting included seven motions and votes, with committee members approving meeting summaries from previous sessions and a no-through-trucks designation for Columbia Heights. No public comments were heard during the session. The committee's work focused primarily on transportation projects and studies, including informational presentations on Woodland Avenue pedestrian enhancements, traffic studies for Ferndale Pass and Buck Lane, and speed limit analysis for West Second Street. Members also received updates on the Todd's Road Widening Phase II project and reviewed the Division of Water Quality Projects Report. The session concluded with reviews of monthly financial reports and items referred to the committee for future consideration. ## Attendance The following members were present at the January 20, 2015 meeting: • Farmer • Stinnett • Kay • Moloney • Ford • Gibbs • Evans • Brown • Mossotti No members were reported as absent or late for this meeting. ## Votes and Decisions The committee took action on seven motions during the January 20, 2015 meeting, with all items passing unanimously. **Administrative Items** • **Approval of June 24, 2014 Committee Summary** - Motion by Mossotti, seconded by Farmer. Passed unanimously. • **Election of Committee Chair** - Motion by Brown, seconded by Lane. Passed unanimously. • **Amendment of October 14, 2014 Committee Summary** - Motion by Ellinger, seconded by Henson. Passed unanimously. **Fee Structure Review** • **Annual Review of Electrical Inspection Fee Structure and Schedule** - Motion by Gorton, seconded by Henson. The committee approved the annual review of the fee structure and schedule for electrical inspection fees. Passed unanimously. **Zoning and Enforcement** • **Amendment to Resolution 343-2012** - Motion by Kay, seconded by Lawless. The committee voted to amend Resolution 343-2012 to include zoning enforcement activities. Passed unanimously. • **Mobile Food Unit Vendors as Accessory Uses** - Motion by Kay, seconded by Mossotti. The committee approved allowing mobile food unit vendors as accessory uses. Passed unanimously. **Planning Commission Referral** • **Text Amendment Initiation** - Motion by Gorton, seconded by Mossotti. The committee voted to initiate a text amendment for the Planning Commission's consideration. Passed unanimously. All seven motions were approved without opposition, indicating broad committee consensus on the items presented. The meeting addressed both routine administrative matters and substantive policy changes related to zoning enforcement, mobile food vendors, and fee structures. No transcript timestamps were available for the specific vote timings. ## Appointments The meeting included appointments to committee leadership positions. Two individuals were appointed to serve in key roles: • **Farmer** was appointed as Committee Chair • **Stinnett** was appointed as Committee Vice Chair Both appointments involved leadership positions within the committee structure. The specific committee name and additional details about the appointment process were not provided in the available meeting materials. ## November 18, 2014 & January 13, 2015 Environmental Quality Committee summaries The committee reviewed and approved summaries from previous Environmental Quality Committee meetings held on November 18, 2014 and January 13, 2015, as well as a Planning & Public Works Committee summary from November 11, 2014. Stinnett served as the key speaker for this agenda item, presenting the meeting summaries to the committee for review and approval. The committee proceeded with a standard review process of the previous meeting documentation. No specific concerns or issues were raised during the discussion of these summaries. The outcome was approval of all three meeting summaries as presented, allowing them to be formally adopted into the official record. ## Woodland Ave. Pedestrian Enhancements The meeting included a discussion on pedestrian enhancements planned for Woodland Avenue. Gibbs served as the key speaker for this agenda item. The discussion focused on proposed improvements to pedestrian infrastructure along Woodland Avenue, though specific details about the nature and scope of the enhancements were not detailed in the available materials. This item was presented for informational purposes, with no formal action taken by the governing body during the meeting. The discussion appears to have been part of ongoing planning efforts to improve pedestrian safety and accessibility in the area. *Note: Specific transcript timestamps are not available for this agenda item.* ## Columbia Heights - No Through Trucks The council considered Resolution 3, which would prohibit through truck travel on certain streets in the Columbia Heights Neighborhood Area. Gibbs served as the key speaker for this agenda item, presenting the resolution to restrict truck traffic from using neighborhood streets as pass-through routes in the Columbia Heights area. The resolution was approved by the council, establishing new restrictions on truck traffic patterns in the Columbia Heights neighborhood to address concerns about heavy vehicles using residential streets for through travel rather than sticking to designated truck routes. *Note: Specific transcript timestamps are not available for this agenda item.* ## Ferndale Pass & Buck Lane - Multiway Stop Study The meeting included a discussion of agenda item 4, a multiway stop study for the intersection of Ferndale Pass and Buck Lane. Akers served as the key speaker for this agenda item. The item was presented as an informational discussion regarding the traffic study conducted at this intersection. The purpose was to evaluate whether installing multiway stop signs would improve safety and traffic flow at the Ferndale Pass and Buck Lane intersection. This was classified as a discussion item rather than an action item, indicating that no formal vote or decision was required during this meeting. The outcome was informational, suggesting the presentation was intended to update attendees on the study findings and potentially gather input for future consideration. No specific transcript timestamp was available for this portion of the meeting, making it difficult to provide detailed information about the specific findings presented, any concerns raised by other participants, or the scope of discussion that took place regarding the intersection study. The multiway stop study represents a common traffic engineering evaluation used by municipalities to assess whether installing stop signs at all approaches to an intersection would enhance safety conditions and better manage vehicle movements at locations where traffic patterns or safety concerns have been identified. ## West Second Street Speed Limit Analysis The council reviewed an analysis of the speed limit on West Second Street during agenda item 5. Speaker Akers presented information regarding the current speed limit conditions on this roadway. The item was designated as a discussion item for informational purposes, indicating that the council was receiving data and analysis rather than taking immediate action on any proposed changes to the speed limit. No specific details about the analysis findings, methodology, or recommendations were provided in the available materials. The discussion appears to have been focused on presenting the results of the speed limit study to inform council members about current conditions on West Second Street. The agenda item concluded as an informational session without any formal action taken by the council. This suggests the analysis may have been part of ongoing traffic safety evaluations or in response to community concerns about vehicle speeds on West Second Street. *Note: Specific transcript timestamps are not available for this agenda item.* ## Todd's Road Widening Phase II - Update Stinnett provided an informational update on the progress of Todd's Road Widening Phase II project during agenda item 6. The presentation served as a status report to inform the meeting participants about the current state of this road infrastructure project. As an update item, no formal action was required from the body. The discussion was informational in nature, with Stinnett delivering the primary presentation on the project's progress. No transcript timestamps are available for this agenda item to reference specific portions of the discussion. This agenda item concluded without requiring any formal decisions or votes, as it was structured as a progress report to keep stakeholders informed about the Todd's Road Widening Phase II project status. ## Division of Water Quality Projects Report Agenda item 7 consisted of a presentation providing an informational report on the current status of water quality projects under the Division of Water Quality. This was a standard reporting item designed to update the meeting participants on ongoing initiatives and project developments. The agenda item was structured as a presentation format, indicating that staff members likely provided prepared remarks and updates rather than engaging in extensive discussion or debate. As an informational item, no formal action or decision-making was required from the meeting participants. No specific key speakers were identified in the available meeting documentation for this agenda item. The presentation would typically have been delivered by Division of Water Quality staff members or department leadership responsible for overseeing these projects. The report covered the current status of various water quality projects, though specific details about individual projects, timelines, budgets, or performance metrics were not captured in the available meeting materials. Such reports commonly include updates on project milestones, regulatory compliance status, funding allocations, and any challenges or delays encountered in implementation. Since this was designated as an informational presentation, the outcome was to provide meeting participants with current information about the division's water quality initiatives rather than to seek approval for new projects or policy changes. No concerns or issues requiring further action were documented in the available materials. The absence of specific transcript timing information suggests this may have been a brief, routine reporting item that did not generate significant discussion or questions from meeting participants. Water quality project reports are typically standard agenda items for government meetings involving environmental or public works departments, serving to maintain transparency and keep stakeholders informed about ongoing public health and environmental protection efforts. ## Monthly Financials The board reviewed the monthly financial statements during agenda item 8. This presentation was informational in nature, providing members with an overview of the organization's current financial position. The financial review was conducted as a standard monthly reporting item, allowing board members to stay informed about the organization's fiscal health and performance. No specific speakers were identified for this presentation, and no transcript timestamp was available for this portion of the meeting. As an informational item, no formal action was required or taken following the financial presentation. The review served its intended purpose of keeping board members apprised of the monthly financial statements and maintaining transparency in fiscal oversight. ## Items Referred to Committee Agenda item 9 addressed items that had been referred to committee for further consideration during the January 20, 2015 meeting. This was designated as a discussion item to provide information about matters requiring additional review by relevant committees. The agenda item was structured as an informational discussion rather than requiring formal action by the full body. No specific speakers were identified for this particular item, suggesting it may have been handled as a routine procedural matter or brief informational update. The item served to formally acknowledge and document which matters from the meeting would require further examination by appropriate committees before returning to the full body for potential action. This process allows for more detailed review of complex issues that benefit from focused committee attention and expertise. The outcome was informational, meaning no formal votes or decisions were made regarding this agenda item itself. Instead, it functioned as a procedural step to ensure proper tracking and follow-up of items requiring additional committee work. Without specific transcript timing available, the exact duration and detailed content of any discussion on this item cannot be determined from the available records. However, such items typically involve brief acknowledgment of the referral process and confirmation of which committees will handle the referred matters. This type of agenda item reflects standard governmental meeting procedures designed to ensure thorough consideration of complex issues through the committee system before final action by the full governing body. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approval of June 24, 2014 Committee summary - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Election of the Committee Chair - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Amendment of October 14, 2014 committee summary - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Annual review of the fee structure and schedule of electrical inspection fees - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Amend Resolution 343-2012 to include zoning enforcement activities - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Allow Mobile Food Unit Vendors as accessory uses - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Initiate a text amendment for the Planning Commission’s consideration --- ## Full transcript Shoot, shoot, shoot Thank you. ¶¶ ¶¶ Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon, everyone. I want to welcome you to our first official environmental quality and plant, well, I guess it's our second, excuse me, our first complete meeting of environmental quality and public works. I believe almost all are here. Certainly there's enough to take action. As you begin to look at the packet, what you have over the first eight pages or so are notes from the previous meetings of the two groups that have blended together to become what is now environmental quality and public works. I spoke with Council Member Stenet, who he had presented these first sets of minutes at the planning, planning, what is it, planning something, planning of public safety. Public safety. And then I had made presentation of the minutes that start on page five. And so unless there are, you know, further additions or corrections, everything in here has been reported to the council. I don't think we need even to take a motion on it. Any thoughts or comments there? Agreed? Onward. All right. Now, on Woodland Avenue pedestrian enhancements, is there someone from the Department of Law here that wants to make a little comment, if you wouldn't mind? This is something that was going to come forward, but I will just let you make comment. Welcome. Hello. Andrea Brown in the Department of Law. Welcome, Andrea. I did not previously work on this matter, so I will have to check with someone in the Department of Law to give you further feedback. Okay. I think that's good. Okay. Just for the next, you think, by next meeting? Yes, I will have something to you by the next meeting, and I'll email it to the entire council. Excellent. Thank you, ma'am. Any questions? Appreciate it very much. Thank you. All right. Third, Columbia Heights, no through trucks. This begins on page 13 and runs through page 15 of the packet. It is an issue that began with Councilmember Lawless and has been turned over, at least for purposes of this agenda, to Councilmember Gibbs. Would you like to make some comments to it, sir? I'd like to go ahead and make a motion. Right ahead, sir. The floor is yours. Okay. I move to place on the docket resolution authorizing and directing the Division of Traffic Engineering pursuant to Code of Ordinances Section 18-46 to designate the following streets in Columbia Heights neighborhood area as being prohibited through trucks in authorizing directing the Division of Traffic Engineering to install proper and appropriate signs in accordance with the designation for McCall's Alley, Park Avenue, Ashland Terrace, Columbia Avenue between Woodland Avenue and Marquis Avenue, Marquis Avenue between Ashland Terrace and Columbia Avenue slash Sunset Drive, and Ashland Avenue between Ashland Terrace and Sunset Drive. So moved. We have a motion? Second. There is a second. We are in discussion. First is Council Member Stennett. Thank you, Chair. I appreciate the opportunity to discuss this issue in committee. Is there, in our packet, and maybe going forward, Chair, I didn't see a map. Is there not a map that we can see what streets we're talking about on all these, actually? I agree. So we understand better the traffic patterns in the whole area and what this will affect? I think that would be very helpful just to see on the overhead for the public watching, because it's hard when someone reads to really see a visual of where we're talking about and the impact. So if Mr. Roger, if you want to, Commissioner, you want to address it? Thank you, Mr. Committee Chair and members of the committee. I'd like to invite Sally Warfield to speak. She might have a map that's more helpful in explaining this situation. I've actually got a map here. It's a JPEG. It'll just take a few minutes to come up. Good. Thank you. But while there's a pause, I do agree. For future packets, we have something that involves a place. Let's have a map to go along with it in our packet. Please proceed. Can you see the highlight, the green highlights? If we can get the lights, maybe we can see a little better. I don't know. Is this a connected dot? What is that? Can you see that a little bit better? Yeah, okay. We'll... Oh, thank you. That is so helpful. Thank you. All right. Is that any better whatsoever? So what we've got here is we have Sunset Drive, which is currently no through trucks, and that was made no through trucks because there was a decent amount of traffic that was cutting through there. Oh, there it went. Where'd it go? Okay. And so basically what we would like to see happen and what Traffic Engineering has said is a good idea is to pull this all the way through to Columbia. Now, why is that important? That's important because up here on Woodland Ave, and you would have heard about this already, it's actually the first thing that we were talking about, is that we are going to be putting in, Traffic Engineering has recommended a series of pedestrian enhancements up here, mainly because there's going to be an enormous new dining facility coming in with UK. Panera Bread, huge things. There's new dormitories up and through here, Woodland Glen, and so they're anticipating a real increase in pedestrian traffic. So what we're liking to do is with all this coming in here, Kroger, we want to make sure that the pedestrian traffic in here is not impacted should the trucks behind Kroger attempt to exit this way. So we're taking the already existing Sunset no through trucks, pushing it through to Columbia to sort of keep the pedestrian area safety up and through here. So what that means is, is that if a truck were to get here on park, because it's one way, it would automatically end up on Columbia and be forced out in a no through trucks area if we did that. So it's sort of dominoes backwards, if you'll notice. So we're cutting out park so that Nobody will accidentally turn in here and end up on this area that we're trying to protect. And also the same for the alleyway in through here, which is also one way, which would basically be one way, one way, and then we're right back in the same position. Now, these two, and the same thing for the stretch of marquee. Now, these two, the Ashland Terrace area and the South Ashland area, we requested because of there's already a decent amount of traffic in through here because of the Chevy Chase traffic in the commercial area. Also, there's a retirement home here. It means that there's a lot of student housing in through here. So there's a lot of pedestrian traffic, as well as traffic coming in off the commercial area, that there's enough congestion in there that if three trucks were to get back in through there, the larger trucks were afraid it could cause some problems. The roads back here are really narrow. And so if anybody got back up in here, it would be a bad idea to begin with. But on top of all the other pedestrian issues that we're going to see coming from the U.K., as well as some of the congestion that's already in existence, we just really think that no three trucks would be the right way to go. Council Member? Thank you, Chair. So has this, as a neighborhood has requested this, this has been an issue, there's been trucks stuck back here? Yes. Well, yes, as far as I know. The neighborhood association requested it is Columbia Heights, but also the retirement home in that area has requested it. So this is coming from a couple different angles. Thank you. This has been very helpful to understand the whole situation. I guess my question is for traffic engineering. Yes, sir. So if we pass this through, no-through trucks, tell me, so more burden will be put on Euclid, and did you look at that, the impact on Euclid as well as Woodland Avenue? because obviously they can't get around any other way except those roads, apparently. Yes, sir. We did look at that. Euclid Avenue is very much able to maintain the truck traffic that it has and any additional truck traffic that may be coming about through more trucks going to Kroger and the developments on UK. We want to keep that truck traffic on Euclid Avenue and on Woodland Avenue. They're more commercial. there's more ability for trucks to travel on those streets. The streets we have listed up here are very residential in nature, have a lot of on-street parking. It would be very difficult for a truck to pass through those streets, so we took all that into consideration. So with the recommendation, you did take into account the new development coming on UK's campus as well as the new Kroger. Do we anticipate there will be more truck traffic or less? I can't say that there will be more or less, but we did look at this whole area, and we would like to keep the truck traffic on Euclid Avenue and Woodland Avenue because those are where it was meant more for the truck traffic in that area. Okay, very good. Thank you, Chair. Council members, before we proceed, we need to go back with the maker of the motion and the seconder. We can only refer this to the full council. We cannot refer this item to the docket. So if you would accept a change just to refer this to the full council, I would appreciate it. I accept that change. Sir and sir? Yes, sir. Thank you both. Next is Council Member Lane. Okay. Rose Street, what's the status on Rose? Rose Street wasn't looked at in this particular study. Rose Street is a little bit out of the project area. Well, I mean, Rose runs into the campus and will be going down to where those new facilities are at UK. Okay. So my question is, can trucks get on rows or not? Yes. Okay. All right. Now, the other question I had is, what is your definition of a truck? I'm thinking of a delivery truck to Kroger. It could be a big rig. I don't have a specific definition, but generally speaking, any sort of truck making a delivery outside of what could go down a residential street. A UPS truck, a FedEx truck, a mail truck delivering, or even a moving truck delivering to a place within the restricted area is still permissible. It's a truck meant for commercial purposes, not going to a residential area. That is, through trucks trying to get to UK or to Kroger, we want to limit those trucks to the major or minor arterials or collector routes, that is Euclid Avenue, Woodland Avenue, and Rose street in that area. Would it be possible to put a weight restriction on to define what a truck is? It has to be in a no-drive area. It has to weigh more than so many thousand pounds or whatever. Because, I mean, if you're a trucker, I mean, you may be new on the job. You don't even know whether this is a no-drive area for trucks of certain sizes. Are we going to have signs on all these streets saying trucks are prohibited. So, I mean, there are a whole lot of ramifications of doing this. We intend to install signs that say no through trucks at all the entry points of the listed streets from where trucks are permitted. So it's clear and evident to truck drivers that a through truck is not permitted on beyond down the street. Don't you think it would make sense on the sign to put trucks that weigh more than so many thousand pounds are prohibited? I've seen those frequently, and we'll look for a weight limit that works for the description of what Roger was talking about in terms of UPS is okay, but, you know, 18-wheel or isn't kind of thing. We'll come up with a weight limit to put on the signs. because you know if we're going to pass restrictions i think it needs to be clear what is the restriction what it applies to and consider the ramifications because it could create another problem in that people would have trouble getting deliveries or the streets that are allowed to carry trucks will be over congested with trucks i mean it's a it's a problem we have because there are so many cars in Fayette County and trucks too. I worry about passing legislation, and then it creates more problems, and it's not really solving the problem. So that's why I'm asking these questions. Will you be coming back to the committee with a more detailed plan so you have real specifics that we could evaluate at that time? We'll try to get you a weight limit, and emailed everybody on the council before Thursday's night meeting so you could make an amendment if you chose at that time. If not, you can wait until later to make your decision. But we'll try to get you a wait limit. Okay. All right. Thank you very much. That's all I have, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, sir. Could we have the house lights back up, please? Thank you. Next, Council Member Massadi. Roger. I think it was at Carpool was the last time I saw you. Welcome aboard. You know, as far as the weight restrictions, I'm not sure how we're going to do that. We've got no through truck signs all through this city. So are we going to revamp all those signs for weightage requirements? That's something that we can investigate. Typically, so far, my knowledge of weight restrictions has been limited to bridges, weight limit restrictions over bridges in the county. And we only have a handful of those signs that are on our roads. A lot of the signs you do see that have weight restrictions on bridges are on state routes. That's regardless, but that's normally where you see weight restrictions. Right, that's what I thought too. And also, I'm just curious, has anyone had any conversation with Kroger? I hate to do all this without them having been notified that this was all done. I'm in support of it, but have we let Kroger know what's going on? I'm not personally aware of that. Sally? Sally, maybe you can answer. As far as I know, no one has actually contacted Kroger about this. The idea, though, is that this actually won't have a significant impact on Kroger. because on Kroger's development plan, would you like me to bring it up? I've got it here. That's fine. Okay. Could you bring up the development plan, please? All right. If you'll notice back there, there's an entire loading bay there for trucks. So they can pull in on Marquee, come back around on Ashland Terrace, and pull in literally to the area at Kroger. So it shouldn't impact their ability to load and unload. and then they can pull back out onto Euclid either via marquee or on the other side there. I think we at least ought to drop them a letter and let them know what this is in case they do violate it and they're unaware of it. So I think just notification is really important. Yes, ma'am. Thank you. Council Member Bledsoe. Thank you, Chair. I just have a question. Is there a difference between a through truck and a truck with a destination? Excellent question. Mr. Mulvaney? Yes, ma'am. Thank you. Typically, the idea of a through truck is a truck that's going through a neighborhood. The restrictions are usually meant to keep commercial trucks from going through a neighborhood area, residential area. Trucks going to residential areas, moving trucks, FedEx trucks, that have an intended destination within the restricted area are permitted because they're not through. That's their destination. and they're allowed to reach their destination and then return. Okay, so does the Kroger not have a destination? The Kroger is a destination, but with the existing city road system, Euclid Avenue, Woodland Avenue are connected to many other roads in the county that the trucks would be using. The residential area behind Kroger wasn't deemed as necessary throughout to get to Kroger. most of those trucks will be coming off Euclid Avenue in that first part of Marquis. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, ma'am. Council Member Evans. Welcome. I have a question to follow up on what's already been asked, and I'm sorry. It's more of an education for me, I think. So trucks like Council Member Lane was talking about, like the UPS or FedEx, those won't be precluded from going through. That's correct. If they're making a delivery back into the Columbia Heights neighborhood, that is a permitted truck. Okay. Okay. Just wanted to clarify. Thank you. Thank you, ma'am. Council Member Gibbs. Thank you. I've made the motion, so obviously I'm supportive of it, but I do want to point out if you're not familiar with that area, the streets are very narrow, and it'd be a disaster to bring trucks down there. Most trucks, if they went down there once, they wouldn't want to do it again. I live in a Bell Court neighborhood. We have no through trucks. No weight limits, by the way. But it says no through trucks, and occasionally someone doesn't see it or ignores it, and they regret it. They end up hung up on a corner. They end up knocking down wires, things of that sort. We're doing these trucks a favor, really, by warning them not to go down there. So it's good for the residents. It's good for the trucks. It's good for the best trains over at U.K. It's good all around. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Councilmember Maloney. I support this motion. The question I have is, Markey, last week they had an incident with one of the trucks coming out of Kroger going up Markey. Well, they will no longer be able to go up as this turn around and go up to Euclid, or are they going to be able to go up to Columbia Heights? Because from what I read this, they call it just a backup because they tore up electrical poles, and then woodland, it backed all the way up to woodland and places like that. So this no-through truck, instead of taking a, if you're coming out of Kroger's, you won't take a left. Is that what I understand? That's correct. They won't be able to leave the Kroger lot turning left. They'll be able to turn right to get to Euclid. Yeah, because last week they said they shut down Woodland all the way because that truck was going to go all the way up to Columbia Heights to go out. So this is going to help prevent all that from happening. Yes, sir. Thank you. Is there anyone from the neighborhood to speak to this? Any others to comment? I would ask the vice chair to take the chair for a moment so I can make commentary. Councilmember Farmer. Thank you. I'm not all the way there on this. I don't doubt that there's probably some good work to be done in terms of placing some no-through truck signage up through there. I would like to have seen it better represented in terms of the memorandum, as well as the map or a map that would show this a little more accurately rather than the one we had shown here to us. And then two, I appreciate the concerns of the Neighbor Association, and truly I'm surprised someone's not here to speak for themselves on their own behalf. And I just consider this a lot of moving parts for what, at least me, sitting here looking out or not reading emails or not seeing input on it, it's a lot of change without a lot of backing. And that's just my personal opinion on this. It's just how I'm viewing the legislation. So if it were broken down more or presented a little bit differently, I think we could get through it. And there are probably your votes here. I don't know how the votes are going to go. We haven't taken the vote. This is just my comments about it. And I'm done, so I'll take this back if you're good. Any other comments? Anyone? If not, then we will proceed with a vote, which should come up on your screen. So this is to forward this on to the full council, not to place it on the docket. And we are complete. Congratulations, Council Member Gibbs. Well done. Next up, item number four, Ferndale Pass and Buck Lane, multi-way stop study, it says. Council Member Akers. Thank you, Chair. This was a request from the neighborhood in Masterson Station. It's actually adjacent to Masterson Station, not technically the HOA there. While during the last year of campaigning and walking that neighborhood, several residents along the Buck Lane there complained to me of speeding cars. And the intersection with Ferndale already has a two-way stop. I guess one. It's a three-stop intersection with only one stop currently. And so at the request of several residents, I asked the Division of Traffic to look at that area and do a study, and they did, and submitted this report. And I wanted to ask Roger, because I don't see it in the report, of do you have speed data for Buck Lane? they did recommend i will say that they did recommend the addition of two stop signs on buck lane to slow traffic because it is a collector street and the amount of traffic that comes enters into the neighborhood from ferndale pass ferndale pass continues on i don't have a map i'm sorry but ferndale pass actually turns into mercer road so a lot more people are probably familiar with mercer and then as it enters the neighborhood it turns into ferndale pass. So it's a pretty large collector street and entrance to the neighborhood and pretty busy. And so Buck Lane being a very long through street, it just makes sense to put a stop sign there to slow the traffic in the neighborhood. So Roger, I'll turn it over to you next. Thank you, ma'am. This report does not have speed data like you indicated, but I can get that to you as soon as possible. Okay. And if I don't have any, I'll apologize and we can try and get it as soon as possible then as well. Okay, but can you just state then why you did recommend still to install this stop signs? Yes, ma'am. Like Council Member said, the intersection of Ferndale Pass and Buck Lane is a T-intersection, and both Ferndale Pass and Buck Lane go to the east of the Masterson Station area and will connect very shortly to Citation Boulevard, and then beyond Citation Boulevard, they currently connect to Greendale Road. A lot of the traffic coming from Greendale Road and in the future Citation Boulevard will be using Ferndale Pass and Buck Lane to proceed on to the Masters Station neighborhood, Blue Seal Drive and beyond. We feel that Ferndale Pass and Buck Lane are collector routes. They're not technically considered collector routes currently, but they function as them. That is, the drivers drive on the collector routes, and then they go on the local streets to the private residential homes. Because they are collector routes, we do anticipate an increase in volume. that a multi-way stop at the intersection of fern and el pass and buckling is something that we can be on board with in the future there will be more traffic it'll be better for the maintaining control and traffic in that neighborhood and i know that in the future we'll have a map in here won't we i can yes that'd be a great thing council members tenet thank you chair i had a couple questions and this kind of goes back to our whole process of when a councilman requests or a neighborhood requests a stop sign or some type of traffic control, whether it be for speeding circumstances or accident history or whatever it may be. And it seems like when I first got elected to the council, I know you weren't here, Roger, but more oftentimes than not, traffic engineering recommended against putting in a four-way stop or additional stop signs versus in the last several years, it's always recommending four additional stop signs. So I have a couple of questions. First of all, in the information in our packet under the MUTCD, it says there's two criteria, traffic volumes and collision history. And in the packet, it says neither one of them are met. The warrants are not met that we consider a traffic signal. So tell me how we get from both of those criteria not being met to recommending doing a stop sign. Thank you, sir. That's a great question. Indeed, the first two criteria are volume and crash history. At this location, we do not meet Iowa Lewis's two criteria. I can't predict in the future that we would meet volume, and hopefully we don't meet the crash history. However, if you go down under the option, other criteria that may be considered in an engineering study, item number D, an intersection of two residential neighborhood collector through streets of similar design and operating characteristics where multiway stop control would improve the traffic operational characteristics of the intersection. That item there under option D is where we're justifying a need for a multi-way stop at this location. And in fairness to Council Member Raker, I've been in her shoes, and when a neighborhood comes to and says speeding's an issue, what do we do? I mean, what's our first thing? Because putting in a stop sign can't always be the solution to speeding. There has to be other things in our toolkit. So what other options are there besides putting in a stop sign every time, everywhere, which in some cases in my district I know has caused more accidents because people are frustrated having to stop so often. Typically, we don't like to use stop signs as slowing traffic down. This is more of a traffic control issue than it is a speeding issue. However, to answer your question, there are other means we can try to slow down traffic. If the roads are local roads, we recommend that the neighborhood or that street go through our neighborhood traffic management program, and there are three tiers of solutions in that program. Tier 1s are specialty signs that remind drivers to check their speed, drive 25. Tier 2 solutions are like speed tables or speed humps, which we used in the past. We try to attend more to go to speed tables now. And Tier 3 are things that typically, as far as I'm aware, the city has not done that, is road closures for the sake of traffic calming. So typically we're looking at Tier 1 and Tier 2 solutions through NTP to mitigate traffic speeding issues, that is. Well, thank you, Ann. I think I would close by saying, I think, Chair, this is an issue we need to have back in committee, our whole traffic management plan, because obviously you listed a third tier that we've heard time and time again the policy of this government is not to close roads but to open them. So I think we need a review of that because we see some neighborhoods with speed cushions. I see some neighborhoods with lighted stop signs, whereas other neighborhoods do not have it. So I think a good review of what options are available would be helpful to all of us, because I know Councilman Akers is trying to support our neighborhood and slow people down and do a traffic control, which is probably justified, but it doesn't meet the warrant. So I want to make sure our policy is sound enough so that we can make these recommendations and make them so everyone's safe and our traffic is efficient. So if we could do that at a future meeting, I think that would be very helpful. So that's a presentation, not about this item of business, but about the tools available when we have this kind of discussion. Right. All right. We can make that part of a future committee discussion. Yes, sir. Thank you. Thank you, Roger. I appreciate the information. Council Member Maloney. I do want to agree with what Council Member Stenis said. I'm also concerned about Council Member Acres. I've been over there. I know what you're going through, and there is an issue. But going back to procedure and policy, I've been here longer than all of them. I don't mean to brag about it, and I don't want to brag about it. But it just seems like it's not as consistent like it used to be. Because I remember police had a recommendation on this, fire would have a recommendation. There would be about five criteria before, and then it would come to this committee. But now, when I was a commissioner, I had problems with our traffic engineers, and I met with them. And they couldn't give me a – these were the kind of examples that would give me a headache. Because it wasn't right, and it wasn't wrong. and it's got to be a yes or a no. And to me, when you leave question marks out there, I've got a problem the way that's handled. So where Kevin has come from, I agree with the policy and all that, but do the police and fire, do you all have that anymore? Do you just use what their records show? And the reason why I ask that, if you use the record, a lot of these folks here have clear units in their districts. They know, those officers know that area better probably than any of the council members do because they are over there and see those, and they'll make a recommendation. Maybe we need a four-way stop there. Maybe we don't need a four-way stop. Do we get recommendations like we used to, or are you all just using the status report that comes out and says how many cars go through and how many wrecks? To answer your question briefly, no. We don't usually refer to police or fire. Now, we may at times recommend to the Division of Police as a type 1 type of traffic calming solution for speed enforcement or stop sign enforcement, things of that nature. If the police come to us with something, then we do work with them. We're not trying to exclude or not work with them. I hope that answers your question, sir. And that goes back to where I used it a long time ago. And I think that's where Councilman's tenant is going that we put some kind of. I would like the input from a police officer, especially if he's in that neighborhood, if they have a clear unit, because they can give us the real good feedback. Because when I was a council member, we had a four-way stop in. The Juke's traffic engineer at that time, Andy, known as Dr. No, said no, but the police said yes, so we were able to have a reason. But we don't have that yes-no policy anymore, and I really would like to go back to that. And I think that's something we may have to bring up in another committee. But I'm just curious. Thank you. You were referring to Andy Terwilliger, correct? Yes. Thank you. Thank you. Just for those playing along in the home version. Okay. Council Member Brown. Thank you, Chair. Two or three questions. Was there any neighborhood input into this at all? Usually I can recall some time ago I always had a petition before I even even come to the council because I wanted to make sure the neighborhood was really involved and they really had a serious concern. So my question is, was there any neighborhood input or petitions? I would defer to Councilmember Akers. Yes, this actually brought this forward at the request of the residents. I mean, several people complained. It was on the Master Sensation Facebook page about speeding and collisions in the area. And while I don't dispute Roger's data collection of wrecks, I think that not all wrecks are really reflective in these reports. A lot of people have accidents that maybe they don't file reports, the police don't come, there are minor collisions that don't get reported. There's a house, as you see at the dead end of this street. This is also on a hill, so oftentimes in the winter, that mailbox and that house and yard has been run into. I don't know that that would show up in this collision report, But, yes, this was at the request of the neighborhood is why I brought it forward. And I will say, back to Council Member Stenet's question also. You've got to order. Okay, sure. Sorry. Council Member Brown, go ahead. No, I'm not done. Go right ahead, sir. On the neighborhood input, I would like to see something. If you do have a petition, I'd like to see it in writing along with your motion to do something in the future. And this is for everybody. I'm not chastising anybody, but I would hope that that would give them more credence to the fact that you need this particular thing. Those two roads, now, and I had to look at it a little bit. This is just a three-way stop sign. This is not a four, right? Yes, sir. And my history tells me three ways was one of the hardest stop sign locations to get in the history of this urban county government. Maybe that's changed. The speed limits, those look like the width of the roads are the same. Is that correct? I can research that data really quickly. As far as the speed limits, I am positive they're both 25 miles an hour. They are? Yes, sir. So you've already got to slow down. They're both 25? Okay. With the road speed limit. I kind of agree with, I don't kind of agree, I do agree with Council Member Stenet in that we just need a little bit more policies and procedures on this to get our ducks in a row. And I'm not completely opposed to this, but I'm going to vote no on it. Simply, I think we need more information, and we need to address it a little bit more as to how this is consistent with what we might do in other areas of the city. Thank you. Thank you, sir. So Councilmember Akers, have you spoken already? I've forgotten. We'll go right ahead. Then I'll go down to Councilmember Scutchfield, as Councilmember Evans has already spoken, I believe. You have it on this one? Then we'll come to you after her then. Okay, thank you. I just wanted to quickly respond to Councilmember Stenet's question earlier about what else we have done before. What do we do before we do the stop signs? So this has been an ongoing issue for, I mean, since I've been in office, I guess I've heard about it multiple times. So we've had the radar stands set up in this area, both on Buck Lane as well as on Lucille Drive, which is the approach onto Buck Lane from the other end of the neighborhood. We've also had officers stationed on both streets, Lucille and Buck, to give tickets to try to slow traffic and dissuade speeding. So this was not my first attempt at slowing traffic. And I will state or restate what Roger said, that in option D, the intersection and the fact that these two streets are collector routes in the neighborhood and that they're 30 feet wide streets. And if we can zoom out on this map, it will show you how long Buck Lane is and how it is basically a speedway through the back of that neighborhood. So that's all I will say to support my rationale and request. Thank you. Thank you. And I do, if you could back out that photo for us a little bit, that would be great. Council Member Evans. Yeah, I'm all for process and procedure. And that's what I've been saying from the day I got here. And that's the world I came from. I guess it's more of if we're going to, I feel it's a little unfair to new council members that we are, There's apparently a discussion, a desire to change how things are done. And in this scenario, I think it's a little unfair to Councilman Akers to change something that's been going on apparently for years. I'm all for reviewing how it's done because clearly there is some confusion and we do need more information. just to look at these initially, because based on some questions that have been brought up, I do have some additional questions, and a map would be helpful. I very much agree with that. But if we're going to review it, I would say request that that be done much sooner than later, because I do feel it's a little unfair to change things right now when we haven't had a discussion about what kind of information we want now that it is a new council. So I would be in favor of this because it's gone through the regular process of procedure that has been in place before, and it is coming from the neighborhood. There is some justification. We've had questions answered. But again, my request would be that if we're going to review things, that we review this process much sooner than later. Excellent. Suggestion and commentary. Thank you very much. Council Member Scutchfield. Thank you, and thank you for recognizing me. I don't serve on this committee, so I appreciate it. Obviously, I think all of the neighborhoods that are bustling and opening and growing are having these issues. Did you all submit a petition, the postcards, to be returned by the contiguous neighbors that were affected by this? Not in this particular case. Can you tell me why? because every time that I've requested a stop sign in my district, I'm told that I have to have that. The process normally for a multi-way stop study is we get a request from either a council member office or via through the LexCol system. Typically, then from there, we'll consider whether the neighborhood needs to submit a written petition, not a postcard petition, if an engineer visits the site and does not determine that there's an immediate need for a multiway stop. If an engineer does feel that there may be a safety concern, sort of a potential, not necessarily a slam dunk, but a potential for a concern of whether of traffic control, speed, whatnot, then we may go into doing a study. It's really a case-by-case basis. There is no guidelines. It's just visiting a site, determining if it's warranted or not. As far as a ballot petition postcard ballot, that's usually reserved for NTMP type 2 discussions. I know there was one case, yes, in your council district where we resolved to do that at a multi-way stop. That's not normally a situation where we do a petition ballot for a multi-way stop study. And I guess this is an example of why we've got to, I guess, be educated a little bit more for a council because it does sound, it sounds like we're having different priorities being pushed in different districts and neighborhoods. And I think we need it to be uniform. I think we've had commentary to that end in terms of education. For those not familiar, please define NTMP if you would, please, sir. Yep. Neighborhood Traffic Management Program. It's the program through which the Division of Traffic Engineering works with neighborhoods, council members, and whatnot to look at traffic calming issues in residential settings. That's good. I appreciate it very much. Thank you. Council Member Gibbs. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll keep this very short because it's not directly about the stop signs, but it has to do with the safety of that. The way that's been designed, I view it as a disaster with the curve. I think we should, again, it's a planning issue, but just briefly, those things, if they were right angles, it would slow people down. That's an invitation to run that stop sign right there, and I would like to see the city move in general to making things right angles. But I just want to point that out. That intersection would be a lot safer if that was a right angle and not a curve. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Vice Mayor Kay. Thank you, Chair. It seems pretty clear that it would be useful to counsel. maybe a couple things. One is to have the traffic engineering provide us with a clearer description of what the process is under various circumstances. Secondly, the council may want to indicate to itself what you'd like a particular council member to bring forward when they bring one of these requests, whether it's maps or whatever. But I would agree with Council Member Evans on the question at hand. And because Councilmember Agers is not a member of this committee, she's not put a motion forward, but I want to make a motion to move this onto the council docket so that we can vote it up or down, and I'll be in favor. Thank you, Chair. Second. So this is to move it forward for consideration by the full council, correct? Yes, sir. We had a motion. Who was a second? Thank you, ma'am. All right. We have a motion and a second. We're in discussion. Councilmember Massati. I hate to beat a dead horse here, but obviously there's a consistency issue here. So before, I would suggest that for the next whatever comes next, we need to follow some kind of policy. Because, again, it's not fair to you all, it's not fair to us, it's not fair to the neighborhoods on how we do any of this. So let's get something moving and get it in writing, get it codified, whatever we need to do, but not have this happen again. Thank you. But some elements of this meeting are still a shakedown cruise, and I think that we can remedy this at the beginning of our next meeting in terms of a presentation for not just this committee but the entire council as far as that's concerned. But thank you very much. And now, Council Member Stenet. Thank you, Chair. So are you saying putting on our next agenda, the NT management plan, NTMP? Well, I think you talk about that by way of education as well as the other tools. I mean, he was talking about things and options A, B, C, and D, and we hadn't really reviewed that. I think you need to get in contact with the universe of what we can do because some of these conversations used to be that traffic always said no and council always said yes. And now we're kind of in a situation where traffic is saying yes and we're kind of saying, uh-oh, what do we do? And I think we need to kind of work through that a little bit. Obviously, the process needs to be honed up and improved. But I want to thank Councilman Akers for allowing us to have this session because I think there's going to be some good results. And we understand the spot you're in. in terms of trying to address the neighborhood needs. So I also want to thank Roger. Thank you for coming today. I know this is not your normal role, but when we asked you to do these in the past, you've been very supportive and helpful. And so thank you, and hopefully going forward, we'll get just as good product going forward and some more consistency as we move forward. That's the big thing we're all looking for. So thank you for the job you've done in your department in addressing our needs, because we get the phone calls, you help us address them, and we appreciate that. I just didn't want that to go unsaid and unnoticed. So thank you. You're welcome, sir. Thank you, sir. Mr. Plenty, thank you. And next up, Council Member Lane. I just wanted to reiterate what Kevin Stinnett said. We sort of picked on you a little bit today with a lot of questions and stuff. But I think people appreciate the responsiveness that you've had. And we're just trying to get the system a little cleaned up and more organized. So I don't take it as a personal matter, okay? Thank you. Thank you, sir. Anyone else on the motion? And this is a motion to move forward to the full council, a multi-way stop installation at Ferndale Pass and Buck Lane. If you all want to please vote accordingly. And it looks like we are there. We have seven in favor, one abstention, and one eight in favor, and one abstention, one night. So that motion passes. Then next up on our agenda is West 2nd Street Speed Analysis. Council Member Akers, welcome back to the spotlight. If you want to tee this one up, we'll go from there. Thank you, Chair. Hopefully this one will be much easier. So part of my district also includes downtown, and I have the west side of downtown, including West 2nd Street. Currently, West 2nd is designated as a 35-mile-per-hour speed limit. And at the request of residents along in that area, again, traffic did a study, and we are requesting that the speed limit in that neighborhood corridor be reduced from 35 to 25. Seems pretty reasonable, but again, you know, we'll open that up for discussion. So we have Council Member Maloney up first. Thank you for the presentation. Thank you. I make a motion. We go ahead and approve that. Make it from 25 miles an hour. Motion by Council Member Valoney, seconded by the Vice Mayor. We're in discussion. There was someone signed up. They have since expired. There is the attempt at a map in here, so if we could just expand that for next time or make it usable because it's in its current form and in its printed version, it doesn't really do the issue justice. All right. Now Council Member Brown's up. Thank you, Chair. Yes, sir. I guess a couple questions. One is, is there a map? We don't have a map on this. I see an arterial of West 2nd Street vicinity, but I can't read it. That's on page 21. Can you bring us anything? It's not a very good map. Or show us anything with a boundary to it, perhaps? And is this actually on 2nd Street, a portion of 2nd Street, which is a one-way street, right? Yes, sir. It's West 2nd Street from Limestone all the way to Newtown Pike, I believe is the project limits. From Limestone, Broadway? North Limestone to Newtown Pike. It's all of West 2nd Street. North Limestone. Okay. That's a narrow, 2nd Street's a pretty narrow street. There's parking on both sides, isn't there? There's parking on the city side, the downtown side. The out-of-town side is restricted. Okay, and what about the other streets? We've got streets running one way, third and second. What are those streets as far as speed limits? Several of the streets in that area are 35 miles an hour currently. There are a lot of 25 miles an hour streets. To answer that question, I believe second and third are currently 35. A lot of the north-south, if you will, like Limestone, Broadway, those are also 35 in that area. Okay, so this would be a little bit inconsistent with our traffic pattern there, and you all agree with this? Traffic engineering agrees with this? Yes, sir. Our justification is that West 2nd is almost a residential street in its entirety. There's some commercial businesses closer to the limestone side, but generally speaking, due to its narrowness, you have one lane of parking and then two through lanes, and then you have residential areas on both sides of the road, we felt that a lower speed limit would be more suitable for that street. Did we have a petition, a neighborhood petition of any kind for this? No, sir. It was based on a neighborhood request. It was based on a request through Lexco, I believe, was the initial request for a lower speed limit. So we don't even know if the neighborhood agrees with that or not, which, you know, sometimes they don't. Sometimes they do. So we don't have that information. I'm a little leery of 25-mile-an-hour speed limits unless they're actually in a residential street that connects a collector street. And I think it has always been our policy in the past. And I view Second Street as more of a collector street than a residential street, although there's residents on there. I don't disagree with that. So I'm a little bit mixed up as far as our policies and procedures, like, you know, we're talking about putting something in this committee that maybe straightened some things out, and this might be one of the items that we would want to look at. So I just have – I'm not opposed to it, yet I am opposed to it. Does that make sense? You're of two minds, it would sound like. Yes, that's right. So, you know, when in doubt – Leave it out. Keep it out, Matthew. Thank you. Thank both of you. And Council Member Gibbs. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm very much in favor of this. I ride that road pretty frequently, and it's a little bit scary. It needs to be 25. And if you look at the crash data that Rogers Department supplied, 27 crashes over the last three years, I think that's very telling. And thank you. Very good, sir. Thank you. And Council Member Bledsoe. Thank you, Chair. This is just a semantics question, so humor me. Is there a difference between when you say at the bottom, traffic recommends and traffic does not object? Yes, ma'am. It goes back to Councilmember Maloney. Basically, traffic engineering, yes, no, does not object is more. We don't have our typical criteria met, but we see a big picture where maybe in the future or for some less tangible reason, reason we feel that what was asked of us by council or the neighborhood was something we could agree to, or at least not object to. That was a really great question. I'd love the option to answer it in private several different ways. But for today, we'll just leave it at this. Thank you very much. Any others? Council Member Akers. Just one last comment. But West 2nd Street, between Newtown and Market, thereabouts, is primarily residential, all residential. There's about one block or half of a block that is commercial near Limestone. As you get into, it's like behind Lucy's, I guess. But otherwise, it is all residential. So, thank you. Very good. Thank you, ma'am. And Council Members of Tenet. Thank you, Chair. I know, Roger, you may not be able to answer this question, but when we do change the speed limit and post the new signs, what kind of time period does the Division of Police give for enforcement so that people can get used to the new speed? Do we know what that is? And that's going back to what Councilman Maloney said. They used to be involved in this, so they would be notified. I assume you'll notify them, and they give, what, a 30-day? I can't remember what it is, but I think it would be helpful for the new council members, I understand, because the last thing we want is to change it overnight and start writing tickets tomorrow. To answer your question, no, but can I have some comment? Yeah, if you can just send it to us. As you may note on the copy part of this letter, I did copy Lieutenant Chad Bacon with the Division of Police. It's more of a courtesy, heads up, you know, this may be coming. Once that change goes into place, I will follow up with, if there is a change, I do follow up with the police. How will they act beyond that, I don't know. I can't usually give a specific date for when the signs go in, but we do try to let the police know that there is a change coming. Yeah, if we can do that and let the council know what the normal time frame is for a kind of amnesty time frame from before, or if there may not be one. I thought in years past there was. And also make sure that is in our weekly traffic report that Dottie Bean puts out so that the whole city knows there's a traffic change coming. I assume you do that, correct? Any traffic changes, new stop signs going through the weekly? Yeah, usually changes in traffic patterns go through Dottie. This is something that I'll make sure that does get included that hasn't been in the past. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Anyone else? Council Member Mazzotti. Thank you, Chair. I know we've been talking about consistency and process, and I think you've gotten the message. But I think one thing we all have to think about is we have to defer to that council member. Nobody knows that district better than that council member. So in this respect, I'll support your motion, Council Member Eckers. Thank you. Anyone else? then we have a motion tendered to forward to the council changing the speed limit on west second all those in favor signify by saying aye aye opposed like sign motion carries council makers congratulations you've gone two for two today all right this brings us to item six in our agenda todd's road widening phase two this is an update asked for by council member stennett and if do you want to do a lead-in before we have any commentary, please, sir? I do. I guess Keith and Brad are going to tag team, but I think the importance of this project is it actually guaranteed a hit construction phase sometime this spring. I know neighborhood and residents get excited, especially on a day like today, that it's going to happen tomorrow, but if you can give us an update on utilities and then also what the anticipated let date of the construction, because I know Council Member Evans is starting to get the calls, too, now. Thank you. to know when this is going to happen tomorrow because they see it being tore up right now with utilities. So that's why I asked this because everyone's getting excited. Also, can you address Polo Club because that's a major connection into this district or into this project? Sure. Thank you. Okay, but first, is there a map? Did you bring a map? No map? I didn't know I was doing this until Friday. This is my map thing. We'll service it next time. Please proceed. Well, this is an update on the Liberty-Todds Road project, which is just an extension of the improvements that we did in the past couple of years. But it goes from Andover Forest Drive to just east or just west of I-75. I'm sorry, just east, where the new Polo Club extension will be at the intersection of Todd's. The designs for both Todd's and Polo Club are nearly complete. The only changes that we are making right now are we had submitted the plans to District 7, and they have some comments, and so we're making those modifications. We will be submitting the plans to Frankfurt by February the 13th, so the design is basically done, and we're just waiting for approval. We are currently in the utility relocation phase. Kentucky American Water has done all of their relocation up to Cypress Way, and they were waiting until KU got finished in that area. They're going to start doing their last relocation in March and it's going to take them three to four weeks to do that. So they should be out of there by April. Kentucky Utilities has set all of their poles and they have notified all the other overheads, Time Warner and Windstream, to go ahead and do their transfer. So that work is ongoing. Columbia Gas is going to be starting back up again in March, and they should be completed in May. That's the utility relocation part of it. The right-of-way phase, we had 75 parcels to acquire. We closed on 36 of those parcels. We are sending three to condemnation, and the state is handling that. And the remaining 30 parcels that we need to acquire, we're having to get a partial lien release. And that has slowed down because we are dependent upon the bank and the lending institutions to get back to us to release the liens. And the lending institutions are telling us this could take up to 75 days. So that is right now is interfering with our having all of the right-of-way acquisition completed in time for the currently May letting. So we have, we're contacting the banks on a regular basis just to try to get them to respond, but they pretty much operate on their own schedule. All right. All right. Very good, sir. Did you want a follow-up there? Just two things. One, so May is the current lead date for sure? Right now we've got it tentatively set for May, but we are having some issues with the lending institutions that could force us to push that lending back. The lending institutions. And there's just, what, three of those? No, 30. 30? 30. So who is somebody working on it? Yes, yes. We're also looking at another option. And rather than getting the complete deeds is to get a right of entry, but that causes us to go back to each of the property owners where we've already got an agreement and ask them to go ahead and get just permission to allow the contractor to get onto their property and basically tell them that the check's in the mail, but we need permission now. And so that's going to be a time-consuming process because we have to go back to each of those. So we're looking at it from two different angles. We want to go ahead and try to get the easements in hand, but if we can't, then our fallback is to get a right of entry. So assuming because of the May start date now, the new elementary that's opening up in August that's really going to depend on this project getting done, we'll still be working on the road when the elementary opens up at this point? There is a possibility that that could happen, yes. Council Member, if I could real quick, There was a meeting that happened this past Friday with the District 7 office. A lot of these issues were talked about. Walking away from that design meeting is that the state wants to go ahead and shoot for that May letting at this point. The right-of-way acquisition component, some lending institutions have been spectacular as far as going ahead and getting us information for these lien releases. Some of them is by their right, taking their time as far as what's required by their own protocols. As far as our response, trying to assist with that, we've actually taken additional staff that dedicate one-on-one with these institutions, trying to respectfully request them to please hurry so that we can go ahead and hit those deadlines. to what Keith was saying as far as that May letting, one of the things that we will need to bounce off the state, and just FYI, especially for the new council member in District 6, that construction actually goes through the state. It's not managed by us. It's actually managed by them since it's there right away. So in response to that, we know that that seems to be as far as the critical path, and that's where it needs a lot of attention and that's what we're trying to do to be available for them, as Keith was saying. Have you all met with the school system and apprised them of our deadlines and what may or may not happen on Pogo Club intersection? We actually meet with them, I say, about once every three or four months. They are aware. We are aware of their schedule. The state is aware of their schedule. Yes, sir. It sounds like you're on top of it, Brad. Thank you, sir. Well, we're trying to. Thank you. And Jim Ray, I know he's not here, but he's been working hard on this right away, and he's doing a great job under the circumstance of 80 different parcels. That's a big challenge. Yes, sir. Thank you all. Thank you, sir. Any other follow-ups there? You're good? House Member Evans. Thank you so much for your all's work on this. Yes, I will be getting all the calls and questions about it, so thank you. I did have one question since you mentioned it, and I pray it won't have to be used as an option, but you were talking about the right of entry. Could you do that by block, or would you have to have all of the individuals signed off at the same time, or could you do it by section? I'm going to see if Keith smacks me when I respond to that real quick. I'm sorry if it's an inappropriate question. No, I think by right. You'd have to have each individual owner, if you will, to grant that permission. And so, as Keith was saying, you would have to approach each one of them. That is time-consuming, but the important point is what Keith has pointed out and what Jim Ray is doing. We're trying to explore all options because, quite frankly, with the 30 parcels that Mr. Lovin was talking about, in the hands of another party, different lending institutions. It's not even one institution. It's multiple institutions. And each one of them has their own different set of response criteria. So we are exploring all options to go ahead and try to hit the date that, of course, the state, ourselves, and council would like to have for that project. So that's our goal. And I guess what I was just curious about, not so much, yes, everyone would have to sign it, but could you start with House A through D first, like geographically blocking them if all of them said, okay, could you go that route? I think we can. I think we can look at it that way as far as instead of trying to. Again, worst case scenario. Right. But instead of group, you know, with commonality, go ahead and group them. So I understand that. Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you, ma'am. Anyone else on this topic? We look forward to another update sometime soon, gentlemen. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. Item 7, Division of Water Quality Projects Report. This is on pages 22 and 23 of the packet. Dr. Martin, welcome, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I handed out a larger version of this to everyone. I'll get the staff, committee staff, his afterwards here because I didn't get yours, but it's in larger print that you can kind of see it. My apologies, Mr. Chair, I do not have a map, but it pretty much covers the whole county. So for folks who haven't seen this before, basically this is kind of what's going on in water quality summary. The way it's set up is that the green would be the front page of it, and it shows basically what we have completed over the last six months, and then it transitions into the yellow area of what's currently going on. And then in the end, when it turns into the type of tan or brown, that's what's coming down the pike. So it's a look back, current, and forward as we move forward with all the projects we have going on in water quality. You'll see a lot of numbers there in each one of those shaded areas, the green, yellow, and brown have summary cost information relative to expenditures. you notice that there is some of it has red font and some of it has black font the red font would indicate that it is a consent decree related project just to remind everybody obviously in water quality we have a lot of stuff that's going on it's not necessarily related to the consent decree it's just part of doing business and then lastly I will point out that the far right hand column lists the council districts that would be impacted by that so I'm sure a lot of information for folks to absorb here right now. I don't usually go through this one by one. I usually pick out highlights of one that I think are of most interest to the committee, but offer to extend the invitation to contact me or someone on my staff as far as if you have particular questions about ones that have your council district by it. I'd be happy to get out the individual maps and walk you through what's going on. But to pick on a few of them in particular, I will go to number 16. It's the relocation of the Vactor Uploading Station. And I only point it out because we have a change order as a new business item for the work session. It was related to moving the existing pad that was located at Town Branch to be able to build the storage tanks that are under construction right now. Those are the $19 million, 22 million gallon storage tanks. And so I guess I'll point it out and apologize in advance. You're seeing a change order that is an after-the-fact change order. That should not have happened. And I've corrected that since then, but it's in your new business items. I think there was some confusion that they felt like this was part of the remedial measures project, the storage tanks themselves. And as you recall, the previous council had authorized us to be able to handle change orders related to RMP projects uniquely because of the dynamic aspect of them. This, even though it's related to one, it's not an RMP contract, so it shouldn't have been handled that way, but I've corrected that. I just wanted to point that out. Jumping down, though, to number 39, the storage tank itself. The gates are closed, and they are breaking ground as it is right now. We've got a webcam that is set up there right now. You have to have special rights to be able to get in there to see it. But what we're trying to do is trying to create a time-lapse situation as this thing gets built. And we hopefully will share that with folks. Once it gets built, I think it will be a very interesting endeavor of how to build storage tanks on the fly. The Wolf Run wet weather storage tank, which is number 43, it is coming very soon. There's a public meeting that has been scheduled for that here in, I think, early February. Council Member Henson is fully aware of that. I skipped one accidentally, number 42, the lower cane run wet weather storage tank. There has been some work with stakeholders trying to get ideas on how to deal with this tank. This is the one that's located out by Legacy Trail out near Interstate 75. We've got a landscape architectural firm that is working on some design alternatives. There will be a meeting with those stakeholders February the 16th to present those alternatives. The current schedule calls for us to be in front of the full council to share those alternatives with you, probably within the 10 days after the stakeholders have seen them. The council members that they have the impact in that particular district, Councilmember Akers, Councilmember Lane, we'll be meeting with you in advance, obviously, to brief you on what those alternatives would look like. The last one is kind of related to that project as well, number 60, the Coldstream Park stream restoration. We've kind of gotten stuck in the abyss with that because there was a lot of back and forth as far as stakeholder input. EPA was not taking a position one way or another, but we finally were able to get out of the starting gate on this and we've sent a new plan back to EPA expecting their approval. So we're hoping that we're going to be able to start construction of this, maybe simultaneously with number 42, the lower Cane Run tank, so you'll see a lot of activity going on in the legacy trail area starting in this summer, maybe in working through the next 18 months after that. Those are the highlights. Very good, sir. Appreciate them very much. We have engendered a couple of questions. First is Council Member Lane. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Can you tell me how much we've expended since we started the EPA project? I know we have the six months total, but what's our cumulative total? I think that would be helpful information just to see where our total expenses are. Do you think you could maybe add a little spot on this report where you could put the previous expenditures and then we could add the projects that are just completed to that plus what we have in progress? Yes, we can. One of the things I've been working on, and kind of with Fitz, since we're working on this year's budget submittal, is to try to give you that running scorecard of what did we say we were going to do, how much did we say it was going to cost, and where are we relative to that. So, yes, I think we can do that. I don't want you to make it a real difficult report to maintain, but just so you can get some idea of maybe what you originally estimated the cost and the final cost, how much we spent to date. And I guess the numbers are going to look good because the mayor said today we're beating our estimates pretty well. The other question I had, have any contractors working on the EPA project defaulted? We had to get somebody else to come in and finish their job. Or are most of all the contractors performed under their agreement? So far they have performed some better than others. Some have been a challenge. We've had, before I briefed this committee, I know I've told a lot of people about it. one that was nearly a year late in finishing it. Fortunately, we don't have an approved plan yet from an approved schedule from EPA yet, so we have some grace there, but that isn't going to cut it when we finally have an approved schedule that has hard deadlines and stipulated penalties. But to this point, we have not fired any contractors. We only fired one engineering firm, and that was about four years ago. Okay. Thank you, sir. That's all I've got. Keep up the good work. Keep it going. Thank you, sir. Council Member Stennett. Thank you, Chair. I think the mayor today said $50 million, so maybe that's the number. Yeah, I think I had reported that out to you before about the town branch bids came in much, much lower than what we had originally speculated, so that was good news. And everything in green, Charlie, just so everyone understands, that's all not consent decree projects. No, the red font is our consent decree projects. The black font are non, and in green means it's done. Yeah, so we have both totals in the future, the non-consent decree, the average things we have to do anyway, and then the consent decree. That would be good and helpful. Yeah, the challenge will be how far back we look because, as you know, we've been spending money on the consent decree since before we signed it. Well, I think we all know 08 was the day we all sat around and said we're going to start working on this. Okay. And then also on here, and who puts this together for you? Julie Mantram. Yeah, the new council member, she does this really well. This is one of the best charts we get in government. So Julie's awesome at this, and I know Charlie would agree too. I do. And then on the orange at the bottom, the projects in red, number 97 through 106, are these the ones you'll be asking for funding in the FY16 budget that we're working on coming up, or are these already funded? Some are already funded. Some are in the CIP request. I can't tell exactly which ones right now. Like 103 Rogers Road, that's funded because that's through a KIA fund, so we're still working our way through the property acquisition right away and things like that. You know, Wilson Downing and Tucson, those are still in the design phase. We obviously haven't asked for any construction money because we really don't know what we're going to do yet. Okay, fair enough. The ones that are really hard, and it reflects on our ledger a lot, is the grants. Because we give out grants to neighborhood associations or other entities, our customers, basically return to their investment in our water quality management fee. It's a great program. Sometimes it's a little bit of a challenge getting them to execute their grant in a timely fashion, and so we're left sitting holding a lot of money that is kind of tied up and is not getting used very well. One of the things we're trying to work through with the board that oversees this is trying to figure out a way to be able to accelerate that to where a grant doesn't become something that I'm just going to hold on to until I get some more money together and then I pull the trigger. Very good. And I know you can address this in our next discussion on our agenda, but I see the total of the yellow at $61 million and change. Do we have enough money budgeted and through the KIA loans, and how far does that get us? And you can address that in the next part of our agenda. but I know that's a question when I look at this chart. Do we have enough money to do all these projects this year? Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, sir. Council Member Maloney. My question is similar to what Council Member Stenet said. I just want to know how much money do you have, and I don't know if it's for this question, how much do you have now to spend for the rest of the end of this year? And how much projects do you have left you want to spend? I think Commissioner O'Meara would be better qualified to answer that than I would be, but I can tell you this. I mean, basically we have KIA loans that we have not fully tapped into yet for the projects that we have on the board. We have submitted additional projects to them that they have tentatively approved, but we haven't come forward with the loan papers for the council to approve yet. I feel pretty good about where we are right now, but the accelerated pace at which these projects are coming now behind us is eventually going to catch up with us. And I think that Bill can better articulate that better than I can. And I don't know, Siobhan may have another question. I'll wait until you finish yours. You'll probably be able to answer mine, but I think Siobhan may have something on this question on this package. I think mine was mostly on that one. I'll be glad. I don't mind if Bill jumps in and answers before I... You want me to just go ahead? Okay. Charlie, two things. A lot of this is happening in my end of town, as you know. And so there are also some areas in my district that are limited in development because of cap issues or cap numbers or all of that. So I just... And if this is something we should have a separate conversation in my office, we can just let me know. But how does all of these, like the new, will the new storage tanks at Town Branch and the new storage tanks in Cane Run, will those alleviate some of the cap issues? Yes. That was, as you may recall, that was one of the reasons why we put the storage tanks in the front end of this. The cost associated with meeting our consent decree obligation from a capital construction standpoint is front-loaded because the tanks cost the most. But the tanks give you the most bang for your buck when it comes to credits for future connections. And so Town Branch, that was why it was accelerated the way that it was, is that it solved SSO problems or sanitary sewer overflow problems, but also took pressure off of potential downtown development projects or other projects in that drainage basin. If we build 20 million gallons of storage in this project at Town Branch that's going on right now, we get 20 million gallons of credit like that. I know that that's a concern in the distillery district, and then there's lots of other land to be developed still out, Leastown and that area as well. So I just wanted to ask that. There are credits available in Town Branch currently. You just have to apply for them. The way the cap works is that if you were grandfathered with a development plan, you were allotted a certain amount. But that doesn't allow you to go to the bank and withdraw more as long as there's available credits there. And if I remember correctly from the email traffic that went on, there are credits that are available, not a huge abundance of them, but there are some available. Okay. And the second question is about the grants that you mentioned also. So is there a way that we could get maybe in a future committee or to the entire council a list of some of these projects? Like I don't have really a lot of neighborhood grant projects happening, but I would just be curious to know like what they're doing. You know, I think it would be fun to know what the Martin Luther King Neighborhood Association is doing with their 17,000 or whoever. I think some of them would be interesting, you know, and just a brief list, not anything complicated, but I just think that would be interesting to see. I think it would be great because I think it would give an opportunity for all the great things that are going on with this thing. There's been several communities that have contacted us about this program. We were the first ones to start doing this, and they realized that this was actually a good way to invest in the community and help water quality better than just giving people credits. And it might give us two ideas to take back to certain neighborhoods. I mean, I know about a rain garden, but otherwise I don't know what else people can do. And so it would be good for me to be able to recommend that to other neighborhoods, and maybe they could get some. I'm willing to bet the staff is already working on it. They'll love to do that. And lastly, as far as grants go, coming from the grant world, in my background, I would suggest perhaps a deadline, whether they have to spend the money within this fiscal year or 18 months, and if they don't, then it rolls back in and is open to applicants for the next year. because, like you said, we can't have stuff sitting around, and we're obligated to do these projects in the community, so we shouldn't allow people to just hold onto the funds for year after year. We're looking at that. You know, it's a sweet spot once you've given somebody something, you know, to take it back away from them. It's difficult. So, yeah, we're looking at very much of a sweet spot on how to try to be able to make sure that they flow properly. Yes. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, ma'am. Next up is Vice Mayor Kay. Thank you, Chair. Charlie? Just if you would very briefly kind of thumbnail, I think because whenever people hear about new developments, their first question is, well, how can they do that since we have all of these problems? Could you recapitulate what the Capacity Assurance Program is meant to do and how it's functioning? The CAP is intended to allow us to fix our problems that are driven by wet weather and not completely shut down our economic engine by putting a moratorium for future connections on the system. The way I describe this the best is that, you know, when it's not raining, we don't have a capacity problem here. It's when it's raining is when we have a capacity problem. And so it would be not a responsible approach to not allow future connections that would eventually help pay for fixing our problem when it's raining. So the cap is set up as such as that when we fix things, we get credit for that. Some portion of what we fix then is available for future connections. And the motivation of that is that if someone goes out and fixes something for us, they paid for it, they get some of the credit, but we get part of the benefit out of that as well. Many communities have what's called a developer's earned credit program. that developer A can go out and pay for rehabilitation in some area, mine the credits from that, but they paid for all the fix instead of us paying for it ourselves. But that's how it works is it allows development to continue without placing yourself on a moratorium, but they can't make it worse. It incrementally gets better because with whatever repair that you make that generates credit, you've got this much more out of the system. Does that make sense? That makes good sense. And if I can just, in terms of the questions that people ask me, I think there's two pieces. One is we're not doing any development that makes any of the conditions worse. We cannot do that. And secondly, with the work we're doing, we're staying ahead of the curve so that we're not impeding development that needs to be done. Fair enough? That's better said than I did. For example, every 100 gallons a minute that we eliminate from the system, only 50 of it is available for future development. So incrementally, you're getting better while you're still growing as a community. Great. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, sir. Next is Council Member Ford. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Charlie, thank you for this report. following up on Council Member Lane's comments earlier in regards to the cumulative impact of the projects, how much we've spent and invested to date. My question would be is, are we analyzing the level of participation of minority, disadvantaged, or women-owned businesses as it pertains to these projects? Yes. Marilyn Clark is analyzing it very carefully. Actually, we spent some time with her last week. We're planning to have, I guess, a get-together of bringing together contractors that work with water quality and potential subs that are of minority or women-owned businesses. That's scheduled for the mid or latter part of February. I just sent her a big long list this morning via e-mail so she can reach out and contact all of our contractors and invite them to participate in this. So, yes, she's all over it, and she's actually trying to initiate, Charette's not the right word, but it's a gathering, basically, in one afternoon here to where we bring those parties together so they can talk with one another and understand how they can help one another. Charlie, do we have a formalized goal? Have we set a goal in regards to how much we hope to spend with these companies, or is it consistent with the 10% goal that we've set for government? To my knowledge, it's consistent with the 10%. You know, Marilyn does such a great job with this. I mean, she's got a lot of passion for it and stuff. And so, you know, what I'm trying to do is help her by giving her the contacts and the information and also trying to create that culture within our group as far as that we want those kind of things to happen. You know, obviously what strives us is getting the job done. With the amount of work that we're going to have on the street, I've said this before, it's all hands on deck. I don't think we've got too many contractors which can do some of this work. Okay. Well, Charlie, thank you for what you're doing in regards to getting these projects online. But, Mr. Chair, I would request at, when available, if we could quantify what we've done so far with minority, disadvantaged, and women-owned businesses, it would be good information for the committee to have as we monitor this process going forward. Thanks, Mr. Chair. I'm sure we can delineate that and be glad to bring it forward. Thank you, sir. All right. That brings us to item eight on the agenda, which are the monthly financials. Which, Commissioner, do you want to start there? I mean, you had a couple of questions kind of laid in. You may have some plenary comments about the financials if you'd like to make them. But you had kind of a couple of questions over here on totals, as it were. I'll let you take it as you like. As far as the financials, I just presented them for information to the committee. I'd be glad to direct my comments to Council Member Stenet and Council Member Maloney. I think they wanted to know about totals was what I heard. The question I have is on, and I think Council Member Stenet and I looked at it, page 25, where you're starting off with $76 million, and at the end of the year you're looking at negative $64 million. How soon are you all going to hit this number, the $64 million, the negative that you're looking at? Is it going to be sometime this year that you're looking at? Well, we meet regularly with Charlie and his staff looking at their spending rate versus our funding rate. Yeah. And the wonderful thing that you all just heard about is the Kentucky Infrastructure Authority KI loans. They're at 2, 2.25%. They're like construction loans. You only pay interest while the project is going. You don't start paying principal until the entire project is ended. And we have funding somewhere around $100 million in KIA loans. So what we talk about is how fast is construction going, what's the financing source, and when will we then expand our KIA loans, when will we expand our cash, because we have a war chest right now, about $40, $45 million, and when will we need to go to the bond market and sell bonds and borrow to finish the project. And so it's a team effort. His job is to manage the projects and the spend rate. Our job in finance is then to not bring the money forward too soon so it sits idle in the bank, but to try to time when those dollars need to come forward. And that's what we're doing is we're meeting on a regular basis to see. Right now, the spend rate isn't as rapid as we had budgeted, but the summer work schedule is coming around, so we're monitoring that as we go. Two quick questions. Charlie and I went down there when I was commissioner to get this low interest rate. Is that coming back up this year again, maybe? I think I've been back there at least twice since you and I went over to the legislature that one summer day. They continue to have money that's available. We've been concerned that we might reach a saturation point as far as that we're maybe too indebted to them. They obviously don't want to have all of their eggs in one basket, but we haven't reached that point yet. I think it was $37.5 million that the board passed or awarded to LFUCG for part of the West Hickman storage tank phase. That's one of those that I haven't even brought the loan papers ahead of you. They keep keeping the door open for us, which then causes us to change our financial model, because what I was saying was going to be cash out the door as we go turns out to be a construction type of loan. Okay. Now, the other, let's go to that $37 million remaining budget that I'm looking at. You had $76 million amended in the budget. Now we're looking at $37 million. Which page? Huh? On page. 25. Thank you. 25. Does that mean right now we have $37 million? We've always, the $76 is what we started out with. Now we have $37 million. That's what I'm looking at here. Amended, we have left remaining in the budget. Let me explain. We have, if you look at page 24, is the operating budget. No, I see that. Okay. And by ordinance, any dollars that are generated from the sewer fee that are not needed for operating, immediately is allocated to fund 403, the construction fund. So the $76 million amended budget is the income we projected that would go into this fund from the sewer user fee. We've collected $39 million, so we have a budgeted remaining revenue expectation for the rest of the year of 37.272. So that's the revenue side. That's where the funding source would come from. Or if it was other funding sources, it could be bonds. But we don't have a bond budgeted in this year's. Okay, that goes back to my question. How quick is this, how soon will we know when you're going to have to come back to this body to start looking to either raise the fee or do another bond? Well, we're going to talk about both of them at the same time. It's very hard to go to the bonding market without having a rate increase to support it. And that's what I was saying. Charlie and I meet regularly to look at his spend rate, to also see the sources of the income. We want to use as much KI money as we can before we have to go to the bond market and ask this body for a rate increase. So that's an ongoing analysis. And when it looks like we will need to do that, we will come forward to the council. Let me make it easy. Is it going to be sometime this year? It very well could be sometime this year. That's why I need to know. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner. That may have answered a couple other questions. We are close on time. I'm just going to ask a quick question. I'll come back to our next meeting. Very good, sir. The $76 million, does that include any KIA money? I will look. I'm sure it does. It does? I can tell you how much. Because the math doesn't add up if you move money from the. Right. So it has to include something. I'd just like to know what that amount is. Sure will. And how much left also do we have to loan from KIA? You said $100 million. And how much of that left do we have to go get? Okay. All right. We'll make that subject a follow-up. Thank you, sir. And last up, Council Member Lane. I just have a quick question also. Can you tell me how much we constructed out of cash in the beginning of the construction period and whether that construction would be eligible for financing? In other words, we could go back and refinance something we've already built in cash and get a loan on it. Is that a possibility? I can answer that question for you. Could you look at that, too? Yes, sir. That's all. I would like to get a reporter on that. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, sir. Members of the committee, we have reached our maximum time. Part of our time at our next meeting will be spent with some of the follow-ups we've had questions about here today, and then we'll move on with issues that are on hand. At this time, I'd ask for a motion to adjourn. So moved. And a second. All those in favor? All those like sign. We are adjourned. Thank you very much. Thank you.