Out tonight, trouble in the heart, right? Got a hit-on collision, smashing in my guts Made a party on a crossfire that I don't understand But there's one thing I know for sure Girl, I don't go down with the same old played out scenes Baby, I don't give a damn for just the in-betweens Honey, I want the heart, I want the soul, I want control right now You better listen to me, baby Talk about a dream Try to make it real You wake up in the night When the fear is so real You spend your life waiting for a moment To just Thank you. Good afternoon, everybody. Looking at our time and our committee members, we do have enough committee members to go ahead and get started. So I would like to call to order the February 7th, 2023 meeting of the Environmental Quality and Public Works Committee. So welcome, everyone. I would like to first thank you all for electing me as chair of this committee, and I would like to thank Councilmember Legree for agreeing to serve as my vice chair. And I don't see Councilmember Fred Brown here quite yet, but I do want to also extend my thanks to him for his service and leadership as the chair of this committee for the last two years and vice chair for the four years before that. I really value his experience and institutional knowledge that he brings to this work as a council member, but also as a committee member. And I look forward to leading this committee. The work that we do on the Environmental Quality and Public Works Committee has wide raging impacts on our community. And I am eager to work alongside each of you as we continue putting the needs of Lexington residents front and center. So thank you. The first item on our agenda today is the approval of the November 1, 2022 committee summary. Are there any additions or corrections to that summary? Okay, seeing none, is there a motion to approve? Motion to approve. Second. I have a motion by Vice Mayor Wu and a second by Council Member Gray. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Okay, and that motion passes. Our next item is the Capacity Assurance Program Audit Update. This is an update provided to the committee every two years to review the results of the audit that is required. This will be presented by Chris Dent with the Division of Water Quality. And Mr. Dent, I will turn this over to you. Thank you. I appreciate you all letting me come up and talk about this today. I'm the engineering section manager over in water quality as it relates to the sanitary sewers. So the CAP program is one of the programs of many that are underneath me. over there in water quality. So I wanted to give you just a little bit of the agenda, what I'm going to talk about, what is the CAP program or Capacity Assurance Program, a little bit of history on the task force, the requirement that dictates that we go through with this audit, and then as well the findings that came out of the audit itself. And if you all have any questions, just let me know anytime through here. So the sanitary sewer capacity assurance program was brought about because of the consent decree back in 2012. So it's one of those things that has been here for a couple of years. As you all start to deal more and more with the water quality and learn, you'll start to hear the consent decree as being a normal phrase that's tossed out there a lot for what we do. It's a driving factor because of what the EPA has said that we needed to do on things. As it relates to the capacity of our system, we don't want any of the pipes or anything else to be overflowing and causing manhole surcharges, which is a detriment to the environment. And as well, we also get fined for any of those overflows. So we want to make sure that our system has the capacity that it needs. And with that, we have the system, the Capacity Assurance Program, that is pretty much like an accounting system where it has deposits and withdrawals. So when we fix things, we add more capacity to the system. When we take and we give new developments or a redevelopment that happens out in the world, that then takes withdrawals away from the program itself. So the program itself does have a website. It's listed on the bottom there, and this is sort of our lead up. So feel free if you all ever want to go out and look at it. It's out here. and as one of the items that you see in the blue there, it's the capacity tracking map. That's acronym that we use for that is CTIMS and the next couple of slides I'm gonna have on that show, this is a public facing webpage that we've got on our, based off of Lexington's website to where anybody can go out and look at this and actually take a look and see either in their district, in their, where their house is, if they're a developer, where you're looking to develop or not to develop. It's one of those things that's out there, allows everybody to go out completely open for the public. So this particular one, I'm just showing, it's the bank itself that is referenced in this is the CR3 underscore 51. I believe this is in Council District 1. So it's one of them that we're looking at. If you notice that there are some color changes there, green is we've got plenty of capacity yellow is we have to look at it if we get a large development coming in then we might have to do some things in order to get a little bit additional capacity and then as well there are i think there's one that we might have in some red but it's we get out of those fairly quickly with different projects that we do but if you look at the overall community of lexington it is one there almost all of it is green right now so we are actually doing pretty well with the capacity that we've got. When you can click on a couple of those links, it'll actually take you over here to a ledger table. So if you're in accounting, like to look at numbers, like to look at everything, dive down deep into it, we do have that on there as well. So every single transaction that goes through the Capacity Assurance Program is documented here and it is out there for anybody in the public to take a look at. Same thing here, it's an additional one. Now on this one, you can see highlighted in yellow that this does have about almost 20,000 gallons of capacity in it. So we still do have capacity. Now, as you know, in that section of Council District 1, that's fairly well-developed. There's not a whole lot of new development that's going to go on out there, so it's not an area where we're too concerned about it right now. Plus, we are continuing to do some work out in those areas, so we'll be continuing to add more credits to that bank. Here is the website itself for just the map. This is the CTIMS website, so you all can go out and take a look at that as well. And the task force. This is sort of the history of where the reason why I'm sort of standing up here in front of you today. The task force was formed as part of the consent decree to take a look at how we deal with capacity within our system. It began work in 2012 and it had a lot of input from different people including Councilmember Blues, other council members and the Commissioner of Planning which was Derek Paulson at that time. Stantec which is an engineering consulting firm actually facilitated a lot of those meetings and I'm giving you this as a history that I have learned as well because I was not here at the time doing this. However, the task force completed all the work in September of 2012 with 19 recommendations. And sure enough, number 19 is that there is a program audit in order to make sure that things are fair and equal to developers, to different parts of the community, to make sure everything that's supposed to be as part of this program and have its intent to make sure that it is doing what it's supposed to, and that there's nothing nefarious that's going on behind the scenes on anything. As part of that, and as I'm going to say this, it was not part of the consent decree to actually have this audit. This was something that was decided out of that task force. So they codified that with the ordinance that I'm showing here, 16-307. So this is in here that we have to do an audit of our program every two years. So this particular audit itself was from July of 2019 through June of 2021. Through the procurement process, through purchasing, Bell Engineers was able to come in and do the audit. we did 18 random they came in they picked and choose just randomly how whatever particular edits and better in the program itself in order to be able to just choose it this was not anything that we chosen internally and it represents 10% of the total applications that came through so the final audit was submitted back to us in November of 22 and here's a couple of the pieces that are coming out of it and I've got a copy of it here as well that you all can if you're ever interested and need some something to put you to sleep at night sometimes that helps out a little bit but this is sort of the capacity assurance flow chart of exactly from the first time somebody questions as to whether or not we have capacity or they're looking to do a development in the community they go through this whole tracking and it's the flow chart of how it goes through there, and that's one of the pieces that they put in here as well. So out of the findings of everything, they pretty much said that everything is in compliance with the intent of the ordinance. So that sort of gives you just a brief overview. A lot of this document is appendices where they went through an individual things, so there's not a whole lot of meat to it, but they did do a very thorough job with it going through, looking at those individual things. And just to wrap things with historically how they've looked, you can sort of see the number of applications that have come through. That's not an indication that development is slowing in town. It's just sometimes they're bigger, sometimes they're smaller, and it's just the way it has worked out of how those have come through. and as well the number of banks that we have in that CTMs program, which is the areas in which we look at to try to gauge where our capacity is, we've been able to reduce those down. So during some of the major projects through the remedial measures program and other major capital projects that we do, we're able to reduce those banks down to get a more holistic look at our overall system so we're not micromanaging every single bank on there. so the banks have dropped so we're reducing those down as we have these projects and continue to move forward and then this last bullet on here is essential services this was put in place as well if there was a school a fire house a police station that needed to be put in they could sort of go around the capacity assurance program if they needed to and that's an essential services facility and to date we have had zero times where that has needed to come into play. They've been able to go through their normal capacity assurance program just as any other normal developer would and we've been fine with those developments going through. And one of the last things I've got on here is just for your information the last four audits from 2016, 18, 20, and 22 all of them in compliance. So give you all confidence that we're doing what we're supposed to do to give the public the confidence that we're doing what we're supposed to do on it this audit has been in place and has shown that we are doing what we're supposed to so and just to make sure that I bring recognition to those people who have done the majority of the work on this our current cap manager is Chris Bagley former cap manager Craig Prater we've got tap on desk which is people who are the front-facing people who actually go out and inspect work they've done a great job and then as well our consultant is Stan tech as I said they were they've been here since the beginning during the task force and they're all the way through to the end so does anyone have any questions thank you and committee members if you have questions or comments please sign in. First on our list I see Vice Mayor Wu. Thank you for that presentation. My question about the audit, you said the audit is not directly tied or ordered by the consent decree, is that correct? That is correct. And it was a recommendation from that task force basically? Will these audits continue after the consent decree is gone? It is codified in the ordinance, so until the ordinance has changed we will be doing this. Gotcha. Okay. Thank you. Council member. Sure. Thank you so much chair and thank you for this presentation. Following up on or to build on the question from the vice mayor, it sounds as though these two-year intervals were established by the initial committee and that for these four we've been in compliance completely every time. Are there any additional reasons other than the language of the ordinance that we would need to do it every two years rather than, say, every three or five? Is there something that I'm missing here? It's, like I said, it's codified in the ordinance. That's going to be a decision that you all have to make. Obviously, it's the council members. We would write up the documents if we got guidance from you all to change it if need be. Personally, and I can look over my shoulder to Director Martin here, I don't necessarily see why we're doing them with the frequency that we are, but that's a decision that you all would have to make. Thank you, Director. Thank you. Thank you. Yeah, you know, the frequency was chosen because when we started down this process, there was a lot of fear on the part of the development community that we were going to use this as a weapon to potentially put parts of the city on a moratorium. You know, because the first time we'd ever really kept track of capacity the way we had. And so they really wanted to make sure that it was fair and it was as transparent as could be. and so to your point i think we're wondering the same thing is that the well-intentioned idea of having it every two years whether or not now 10 12 years later that may be backing off that frequency is warranted because we've demonstrated that we're able to to do it and also would save us some money because it does cost about 30 000 every time we do these okay that's helpful context thank Thank you. Thank you, Chair, that's it for me. Councilmember Savigny. Thank you, Chair. Thank you very much for the presentation, Chris. And I just have a, I'm trying to get a quick understanding of two things. When it talks about the number of banks, and they also talk about deposits and withdrawals in here, so I'm assuming that there's something to do with that. I just kind of I'm trying to understand why a the decreasing number of banks is a good thing. I think it's decreasing if I remember right, isn't it? We had certain points within the system that were sort of choke points that until we upsize those lines or did a particular project, that certain section did not have capacity. Once those were done, then we were able to then look at it more holistically because now that section, their choke point was no longer there. so then we're able to look at it. Ideally we'd be able to look at it as, when we look at the model that goes through this because there's an engineering model that goes through and looks at the capacity within these systems, we're looking at the whole system as a whole also. But just for the credits and everything else, ultimately we'd like to potentially get it down to either the major pump stations or just the two major treatment plants that we've got in in town. So advantage or not, I mean, yes, we could keep them as very small banks, but it becomes tedious on looking at every little piece of it when we can just look at it as one overall community since it is all one system going to treatment plants. Okay. I'm going to make one correction to Mr. Martin. It was about $13,500 audit this last year. Okay. And then my second question, I think when I was in your office before or Commissioner Martin, we were talking about, you said kind of where we were in the whole process. Like we're, I know we're 10 years in and just kind of getting an idea of how much longer we have with this. Do you feel? We started out with 111 reoccurring sanitary sewer overflows, which those locations defined a lot of the cat banks that Chris was talking about before. We have abated 84 of those 111. 11. So we're getting there. We still have some really difficult projects to do, but we're making progress. I think I've said this to previous councils, probably had not introduced us to the new council yet, maybe during orientation, but we're supposed to be done by December of 2026, and we've already basically put EPA on notice that we're not going to make that. we were really we were going well we were struggling a little bit but when the pandemic happened that really kind of was a game changer really for all of us but we continue to manage projects and work on them right now but 2026 is probably not it thank you that's all council member fogel thank you madam chair um i just would like to say thank you for the the accountability, the transparency that you present at your presentation. First district looks, we are so joyful for the projects that's coming down the pike. And I just wanted to reassure you that we will have boots on the ground to make sure we inform the community, the residents, the seniors that live in the area that you will be completing projects on. It will be right there beside you and thank you so much for your presentation. Thank you for your help. I'm seeing no one else send in, I just have a couple quick questions. First, I also want to thank you for your presentation today and for the public transparency that you offer through the website. I think there's a lot of good features there, not only for residents in the community, but for developers to show where the capacity is. And, of course, all of your work to increase the capacity where needed. I would like to go back to the audit. So I understand currently that the ordinance says that we should do this every two years. but we've had a little bit of discussion about whether that is still appropriate at this time over a decade later. It looks like to me that the audits are always coming back saying that we're doing these evaluations accurately and fairly. We're in accordance with the ordinance. Do you have a recommendation if we were to extend the time between audits on how many years between if we weren't doing two? Would it be three, four, or five? Do you have any sense of that or what might be a best practice? As I mentioned to you earlier, I think I can toss out there maybe five years. I think it would probably be a good next step, and we could then reevaluate it maybe after another ten years. That would be my personal. Seeing a nod from Director Martin here. So that would be sort of my recommendation. You could go all the way out to ten years. I mean, as long as I'm here, I'm going to continue to try to make sure that it's open and transparent and everything else is possible. But for your comfort levels, I'd probably say maybe a happy medium would be about every five years. I would agree with that, and it also just dawned on me, too. I mean, you know, if we get into a situation where we have to start telling people no when they want capacity, that will be an audit in itself. So sometimes the demand will be able to create that. and that I think that backing off to a five-year thing is probably reasonable because if there is a problem that develops itself during the course of that, there will be a check and balance in place brought about by our customers. And could you talk a little bit more or just give us a little bit more details of what other reporting you have to do? I know you mentioned that you do quarterly reports to the EPA. So what other capacity reporting do we rely on? The quarterly reports aren't really about capacity. They want to make sure that we're making progress on the projects that were mentioned earlier. We have a very defined schedule that has milestones that we have to meet. And if we don't meet those, we're subject to stipulated penalties of escalating from $2,000 to $30,000 a day. I mean, they're steep. So they want to make sure that we're making progress, and we use those quarterly reports for that very same reason to gauge our progress based on those schedules it doesn't really talk about capacity in the consent decree it says you shall have a capacity assurance program that assures that you're not making connections to the system which are making the problem worse instead they gave us this mechanism where we use this banking system where we make deposits and we make withdrawals and as long as the deposits were greater than withdrawals, you didn't shut down the economic engine of the community, but at the same time you were fixing things as they went along. So a lot of the early projects that we did, building the big tanks, that gave us instantaneous capacity that we didn't have before. So we built a tank at Town Branch, at West Hickman, out in Coldstream, and that gave us a lot of relief. When Chris was showing the number of cap applications, how it's decreased over time, I think we had a lot of cap applications early in the process because number one people were afraid they were afraid they weren't going to get it plus at that time we were still kind of coming out of the recession that happened so 10 years ago or so so you had a lot of projects that had been sitting and waiting on the launching pad for the economy to get better and when they did the cap program was in place and they bought in at that point in time and what is the timeline for when the next audit would start when you would have to contract with the group again? The next audit itself would be another two years. So we had this one in 2022. Early in 2024, we'd probably start, I think, with the current contract that we had with Bell Engineers, it allowed for one renewal onto that. So they would already be on board, and we would just get them started early in 2024. Okay, thank you. Any other comments from committee members on this item or questions? Okay, then I just have one last question for you. For us to change the timeline or the time between audits, it would require an ordinance change. If we brought this back to our agenda in April, Would you be able to potentially bring us a draft of an ordinance with a time that we could discuss? Yeah, we could talk with law, but I don't think there would be any issue with us moving forward trying to that. If it ends up being where it takes a little bit longer talking with law about that, we'd move it off to the next one, and we'd let you know beforehand. Okay, then I would propose that for this committee is revisiting this discussion right at the start of our next committee meeting. So we have a little bit more time to, you know, get feedback from the community if we want on the timeline of these audits, but then also to actually review an ordinance over potential ordinance change. If anybody has any objections or comments to that, feel free to sign in. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, our next item on our agenda is the hazardous street tree cost share program. This item was referred by Council Member Plumman. So I'm going to turn this over to Council Member Plumman for any comments before we start. Thank you Chair Sheehan and thank you for allowing me to speak because I don't officially serve on this committee. We had a situation about a year ago where one of our rural neighborhoods, specifically Westmoreland out on Versailles Road, wanted to participate. And they had actually participated in the hazardous tree program. But we discovered because they were outside the urban service boundary that they were not eligible. So working with Director Jennifer Carey's office, we were able to find and redefine, I should say, a criteria so that we could include these rural neighborhoods of which there are 11. So thank you for your work and I'll let you go ahead and explain how that was done. All right, thank you, Council Member Plumman, and thank you all for having me here today to talk about street trees and the ordinance related to them as well as the guidelines that pertain to our cost share program. So I'm going to start with the proposed ordinance changes to chapter 17B, which is the street tree ordinance. And that ordinance currently provides a definition of a street tree, the requirements for a property owner who wants to plant a street tree or remove one, the requirements to maintain and protect those street trees, as well as prohibited actions that could result in enforcement, as well as the accompanying appeals process. The ordinance also, Chapter 17B, also defines the tree board and spells out the membership of that board and the duties of the board. This ordinance was last updated in May of 1994, so it has some time under its belt, and there have been lots of changes within LFUCG and how we're organized and structured. So that was certainly one of the reasons to bring forward some ordinance updates. And also just to convey that the tree board supports these changes. They were originally who suggested a lot of the changes that are included in this ordinance update. And we appreciate their input and guidance on this too. So some of the updates that are captured in the drafted ordinance are the height designations for how a small, medium, and large street tree are defined. And basically the reason for doing this is to make sure that street trees that are planted in underneath overhead utility easements aren't going to hopefully be in conflict in the future once they grow and mature and require some of the drastic pruning that we have seen done throughout Lexington. And by keeping that to a narrowed small tree definition, which is a tree that doesn't grow higher than 15 feet at maturity, we feel like we can avoid a lot of those conflicts and avoid some unnecessary pruning. Another update is based on the location of the urban forester position within government. Tim Query has been with the city for many years now. He's our urban forester. He started out in the Division of Planning and then moved to Streets, Roads, and Forestry when that was the name of Streets and Roads. And now he then transferred to a Division of Environmental Policy, which is now a Division of Environmental Services. So just to kind of keep things more consistent and update it to where things are now, including the division of environmental services as often as possible in the ordinance instead of spelling out the urban forester in hopes that, you know, if there are shifts in the future that they can be addressed through this updated ordinance. And then, like I said, there's been lots of reorganization within government. Department titles have changed. Divisions have changed. So capturing where we are at this point in time. Concerning the tree board membership, it is currently comprised of eight staff members and seven members of the public. And the tree board felt, and this goes back years, so like previous iterations of the tree board felt that it was too heavily staffed and asked that the balance be changed from eight staff and seven members of the public to eight members of the public and seven staff. And staff does not have a concern with that. And then the other item that they asked for was to not so narrowly define the members of the public who can serve. Currently, it states that someone needs to be in arboricultural services. Someone needs to be in horticultural services. And basically broadening that to anyone who has an interest in street trees is eligible to apply to be a member of the tree board. And then finally setting term limits for the appointed members. And I think this is in line with a lot of the boards and commissions and how members serve their terms. And then lastly, stipulating the number of meetings per year. Currently the ordinance requires 11. We would just like to see that decreased to 10 just to give us some flexibility through scheduling throughout the year. And then the last part of the changes deal with how appeals are heard based on various determinations either made by the Division of Environmental Services and the Urban Forester or whether it is a violation of the ordinance and it is on the enforcement track and how that is heard. So if it's an appeal based on the decision of the urban forester or the Division of Environmental Services, the tree board hears those. And then if it is an appeal of a civil citation, that would go to the infrastructure hearing board. Toward the end of the revised ordinances, this is to capture the fact that the ordinances governing hearing boards have changed over time. most recently at the state level and legislation that has passed at the state. And then there is one small change to Chapter 16, Section 1676, again, just to update to the current names of divisions within LFUCG. All right. On the guidelines, they currently spell out the intent and eligibility for homeowners to participate, the guidelines, and then the step-by-step process via a recipient of the cost-share program, and then the qualifications for 100% grants. These guidelines were adopted in 2003, last revised in 2014. So in addition to Councilmember Plowman's request, we look at who can be eligible based on where they live in Lexington Fayette County. The ad hoc tree canopy committee also requested that we look at the guidelines and ways to make them more equitable so that there could be broader participation among homeowners at all income levels. So that was the impetus for this. So to address the issue of neighborhoods that fall outside the urban service area, we thought that we certainly want to keep this in neighborhoods, planned developments. And so looking at the stormwater discharge permit that we have from the state that the Division of Water Quality makes sure that we're compliant with, there are certain programs within that permit that apply to urban areas. And so the urban areas have been specifically defined in the MS4 permit. And so basically it seemed like, okay, this is where there are storm sewers. They're obviously in the urban service area, but they're also in some of these pockets in the rural service area where there have been development plans that have been approved and built. And these are smaller neighborhoods, but they do still have storm sewers. So the roadways and the drainage improvements are similar to what we see inside the urban service area. So it just sort of naturally follows that if we were going to expand it, the next place to expand it to would be these planned neighborhoods that are in the rural service area. And then to address the equity issues in administering the cost share program, I really appreciate the time that I spent discussing this with Director Danielle Sanders in Community and Resident Services. She was, at the time we were looking at this, she was also going through a parallel effort to look at changing some of the guidelines for some of the programs that her office oversees. And so it was timely. And, you know, she laid out a couple of options. And it seemed like the best way to open up participation and allow more low to mid-income households to participate is to change it from the current 125% of the federal poverty guidelines to 80% AMI, or area median income. And that is based on family size. There was another component that's in the current guidelines that involved an assets test. Many times that's not what creates the barrier for someone to participate in one of the 100% grant types of programs that we offer, but it could be a barrier, and so she and I discussed eliminating the assets test, And she thought, you know, that certainly is just one hurdle that if we got it out of the way, it would allow more folks to potentially participate and receive 100 percent grant as opposed to a 50 percent cost share. And then another thing that we incorporated is if someone does apply for low to middle income assistance, but they don't meet the 80% EMI threshold, we now would incorporate the option of offering a two-party check so that they don't have to outlay 100% of the cost of the removal and replacement of their street tree and then wait on the city to review their paperwork, process it, get their check cut and mailed to them for the 50%. So by issuing a two-party check that's payable to the homeowner and to the contractor who has done the work, we would then get that homeowner to endorse the check and provide it directly to the contractor, and they wouldn't have to basically float 100% of the cost for that duration of time that it would normally take. So in conclusion, the draft ordinance provides updates that will more align with current practice and our current organization and potentially provide a larger pool of the public who could be tree board members. And the draft guidelines provide updates that expand the program's eligibility and then also increase grant eligibility for low to moderate income homeowners. We just request that your committee review and comment on the proposed changes. Hopefully consider approving them and then supporting this if and when it moves to the full council. I'd be happy to answer any questions. Thank you. And committee members, please sign in if you have comments or questions. Council Member Fred Brown. Thank you, Chair. I'd like to look and get some questions answered. Page two, I think, section 17B2. No, that's not it. I'll get to it. Section 17B-3, tree removal, is what I've got questions on. I've had some recent complaints about some neighborhoods that have very large pin oak trees. And we took the collecting the leaves up from these residents, and that even compounded the problem. but these trees have been planted in evidently the city when that when that area neighborhood was developed the city would have given permission and they really didn't have any guidelines I don't think on trees is that correct I mean this this ordinance corrects a lot of that but we've got a lot of neighborhoods that have Would you say? I'll try. But I don't think this ordinance addresses the fact that we've got a lot of subdivisions that were planted and developed under the old rules or rules we don't even abide by now. One rule would be, I think when I look in here, and now the right-of-way from the sidewalk to the road has to be 10 feet. Back initially it was 5 feet. So you can see the difference if you've got a pin oak. I haven't had one in my yard, so I'm knowledgeable about pin oaks. They're dangerous. They're dangerous to the sidewalk, and they're dangerous to the height and what they do on how they grow into other trees and across the streets. I don't see anything in the ordinance either that allows us what we do or who does the pruning of these trees. Is this up to the property owner? You know, I don't know. That's a question, I guess, and I'm not sure there is an answer. There are requirements for pruning that fall to the property owner. And it's clear. We call it clearance pruning. and it's to make sure that there's adequate clearance over the roadway side as well as over the sidewalk side. We do have a program that is funded in 1115 to provide some street tree clearance pruning. However, we can only offer that in tax districts that contribute to fund 1115. So there is some relief there. Yes. But another question here is if you've got a tree, and a lot of the residents I'm talking about have two pin oaks in there, and Chinoa is a prime example also, two pin oaks right there in the right-of-way, and they've grown into each other, and it's a mess. I don't think we've got any relief here to allow that property owner to have that tree taken down and replant a smaller tree that falls under the guidelines. I don't see that in here. Is there a provision in here for that, or has it got to have special permission from environmental services? We do want the property owner to obtain a permit to remove and replace the street tree. it's rare that there would be conditions where that permit application would not be approved and if it were to not be approved that is something that the homeowner could appeal to the tree board and ask for a review of that decision by the division and by the urban forester Well, I know there's not really a problem with a deceased tree or a hazardous tree or something like that, but just a normal tree that's growing and the sidewalk's creating havoc and everything. So I don't see that in here where you're actually giving any relief to the property owners. And I have a problem with that in that I think there ought to be something in there that would allow property owners to get rid of a tree out in the right-of-way if they so desired, however, planting a tree that's supposed to be acceptable. My time's up. Thank you. Council Member Whirley. Thank you, Chair. Thank you for the presentation. I think a lot of hard work went into this. i think i generally support it my only question and i guess i'll preface it with i think it's always great to look where we can broaden the membership of our boards and commissions particularly because so often we have difficulty actually getting people who want to volunteer their time and and serve on these boards and commissions even amongst council members we sometimes have difficulty filling those ex officio roles that we need i guess my only concern and put to you as the you know the quote experts in the government this to me seems like a board that should have a little bit of expertise and while i think that we the more broad we can make the board the more diverse we can make the board is great i just want to make sure we don't make those parameters so loose that we don't end up with the types of professionals that you know that should be making decisions on whether a tree is a problem tree not a problem tree whether the fayette county arborist made the right decision those sorts of things seems like there should be some expertise so i'm not necessarily criticizing that i guess i'm asking do you still feel comfortable if those changes go that far that the board will have the makeup that that is necessary or is or are we maybe broadening that that pool a little bit too much i'm comfortable with it because the the The passionate people who are on the tree board have the qualifications that we're seeking and looking for. And even members of the public who attend the tree board meetings who aren't tree board members. There's a deep pool of people that we know that we could fill expired terms who are amply qualified. Thank you for the very direct answer. That helps. That's my concern. It's answered. I will say, just also point out that I like the change of when we're looking at income eligibility for certainties using the 80% AMI. That goes in line with HUD programs and other housing programs where that moderate to low-income household is defined throughout other forms of government. So I think that was a good change. Thank you. Council Member Sivigny. Thank you, Chair. Thank you so much for the presentation. And I just kind of have a question because I've lived in so many different neighborhoods and we have street trees. And this is probably the first time that I've been made aware that we actually are supposed to, like if one falls down, we're supposed to replace it and some neighborhoods do good jobs, some don't. Is this anywhere on our 311 system that a neighbor can report a street tree issue? Yes. Either a dead street tree or branches that are in the way, things like that? Yes, they can report through LexCol. I think there are specifically codes for both of those within the LexCol system. There's also codes that if someone's just interested in the cost share program, they can get more information, things like that. So, yeah, I feel like it's amply covered. Okay, so if there's, and let's say there's now a property that doesn't have street trees on it anymore for one reason or another, would they, did they report that through Lex Call as well? They can. And then does something happen that it triggers a. . . It would, yes, and then it would go to Mr. Query and he and the arborist tech who reports to him would go out and investigate. Okay. Thank you so much. Appreciate it. Thank you, Chair. Councilmember Legree. Thank you, Chair, and thank you, Ms. Carey, for this presentation, and thank you, Mr. Query, for your work on it. And I also want to say I know that a lot of work during tree board and then some conversation with our tree ad hoc group around issues of equity and access and even funding for the hazardous street tree program. Those conversations were very involved and I appreciated the outcome that you shared here. Because I think it'll make it easier for more people to access this program and for to keep the trees in our city healthier and to maintain them when some of that maintenance can be incredibly expensive. Just for kind of clarification, how much money is allocated for the hazardous street tree program typically? The past two years, $50,000 has been allocated in Fund 1101, our budget for 1101. And then the ad hoc tree canopy committee allocated an additional $150,000 of its initial pool of money to help us sort of clear the deck. And there was quite a backlog and to help us work through that. So we have worked our way through the $150,000. Tim and Rob have been so busy this year processing applications and doing follow-up inspections and tracking all of that. It's been quite a workload lift for both of them. But, yes, $50,000 sort of seems to be where it's been the past couple of years. And how quickly are those funds typically allocated? Usually, we have enough applications, usually from the beginning of the fiscal year to about October, when we have to then at that point close down applications until the next fiscal year. So there is a demand, for sure. Definitely. And Council Member Worley, to speak to your statement about the composition of the board, I thought it might be helpful to share a little bit about the staff, the expertise from the staff. As a tree board member, I can say tree board is very popular, very cool board. And we have a lot of really invested members from all across the community who are interested in being involved with tree oriented projects and potentially with our board. But I think it would be helpful to understand the staff who attend. Would you be able to share a little bit more about that part of the membership? Sure. So in addition to the urban forester, I serve on the tree board as representative of the environmental quality and public works department. Tracy Wade from the division of planning serves on the board. Doug Burton as director of engineering serves on the board. and then several folks that are in our urban forestry program within environmental services attend to provide support and knowledge so did i miss anyone is heather wilson on the yeah heather's part of the urban forestry section um that's it thank you again i know this took a lot of work and a lot of time and i appreciate it thank you council member plowman for bringing forward these questions and helping us find some solutions. Vice Mayor Will. Thank you, Chair. Thank you for your presentation. Thank you for your work on this. Some of my questions got answered by my colleagues, but then I came up with new ones. With the change for the eligibility for the grants, using that AMI scale instead of the poverty guideline. Do you know offhand how many more people might have access to this program, to the grant money? I think certainly with a smaller family size, it's going to, you know, family sizes of one, two, and three, it could potentially really open up eligibility for those folks when it gets to the larger family sizes those two metrics sort of converge and so it wouldn't necessarily address additional large families being able to participate but certainly on the smaller end of the scale and then i think a part of it is we we do encumber the funds so fast each year that we don't get to promote the program a lot. And hopefully, once we've, you know, gotten through sort of our backlog that we've had accumulating, hopefully we will continue to have the program funded and then also be able to promote it and get into the parts of town where people may not even know that this program exists to help them with their street trees. Another question about the 50% grant for those who don't qualify for the 100%. Is that everybody that doesn't qualify for the 100% or is there another sort of layer of qualification to get the 50%? So if a homeowner who applies doesn't request to be evaluated for the low-income, middle-income qualification, then we would just keep them in the track where they expect a 50% cost share upon completion. If someone does want to be considered for the 100% grant but then is determined to not be eligible, then we would offer them that 50% grant as a way for the city to pay the 50% up front, and then they wouldn't have to float that money. So the 50% is basically the default? Correct. Okay. And then this next question comes with the caveat that, you know, I don't represent anybody else up here and I'm not making promises. So here's the question. Right now you're working with $50,000 a year, not counting that $150. sort of injection, what's the most amount of money you can handle in terms of your capacity? I would say we could easily accommodate $150,000 a year because Tim has proven that he and his staff can handle that level of applications that come in and getting them through the whole process. Great. Thank you all so much for your work. Thank you, Chair. Councilmember Lynch. Thank you, Chair, and thank you for this presentation. It's very thorough, and I appreciate it. My first question kind of goes back to what Councilmember Worley brought up and the competition of the board. Can you specifically explain the deletion of the director of building inspection or their representative from the board? Mainly because street trees aren't in the purview of the division of building inspection. And so if we wanted to reduce, which we wanted to reduce it by one staff member, that seemed like the most natural position to eliminate. Does a staff member from that department come down? Currently, we do not have anyone from building inspection who is on tree board. Thank you. And then my last question is you mentioned that you hoped with the changing of the criteria for the cost-sharing program to publicize it more so that it can reach more people. So what are you currently doing to get the information out there to the public? And then what do you plan to do differently so that more people will learn about this awesome program? It is currently just heavily word of mouth. and we can watch sort of, we can look on a map and see like when one person in a neighborhood finds out about the program and then the neighbors see their tree, street tree coming down and getting replaced and then we just start getting applications from all the houses nearby. So we just, and again, we just really haven't had enough funds to be able to get out there and promote it in the past. moving forward if it were to be funded at a higher level we have a parallel initiative going on with the tree canopy ad hoc committee and we are going to be hiring someone to help with marketing and communications related to all of urban forestry street trees are certainly a component of that. And I think we would look to that consultant to help us frame a message and determine the best ways to get the message out. Awesome. Thank you so much for your work and your report. Council Member Gray. Thank you. Thank you for your thorough report just as everyone else has said. I have a couple of questions here. How might these proposed changes affect the process for utility companies like KU or would that affect those at all? No, I don't think so. I mean, we tried by opting to restrict trees in areas with overhead utility easements to a maximum height of 15. It should actually save some of the utility companies work because they wouldn't need to prune them but it's going to result in a tree that looks healthier and is shaped correctly because it hasn't been drastically pruned okay and my second question for you is it says that the hazard hazard street tree program is only available to qualified property owners so can renters a property um currently no apparently no okay well thank you for your time and thank you madam chairwoman councilmember civikney Thank you, Chair. I had one more question. So does the queue get cleared? So do you basically get say 350 applications, you've worked through the money, and do those people stay in the queue so that they're in the queue on July 1st? Or does the queue get cleared and do we have this kind of rush at the beginning of the year? because i want to make sure my district gets in at the beginning of the year um we we try to keep close tabs on it so that when we're bumping up against our maximum budget we try to get the application off our website you know we try to time it well um If there are applications that come in and we're past that budget max, we do communicate with them that we will keep their application on file until funds are available again. Councilmember Fogle, and I'm first going to apologize to you because I didn't keep in my mind that Councilmember Savigny had spoken and you hadn't had an opportunity to speak for the first time. So go ahead. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. So my question is, can you speak to the diversity of this group? I heard you say a lot of women's names, for one, but can you speak to the racial part of it and the diversity of your group? Currently, it is not diverse, other than probably gender, in terms of gender. And that is one goal of bringing these changes forward is, again, by not so clearly defining what types of background someone needs to possess in order to qualify for some of the board's positions, it gives us an opportunity to diversify the board. Okay, and so with your statement by word of mouth and you don't have a diversity group, then that leads me to believe that folks who own homes, and we have a small portion of African American and people of color. The people who own homes in my district, Oakwood, North Inertown, some in town homeowners. So if it's by word of mouth and you don't have diversity, how do they get this information? And if you're going based on percentages of who can qualify for the 100%, 50%, 80%, how does this trickle down to neighborhoods that I serve? Well, and that's one of the goals of making these changes, is that so we can communicate and get out there to folks where we know from our recent urban tree canopy study there are needs for more trees so that we can reach those homeowners and say, look, we have this program. If you've got a street tree that's in decline or a hazard in some way, here's an opportunity that maybe if you qualify, it can be 100% funded, And if not, there's at least a 50%. And how long have you been in existence? The program, the cost share program, I would guess since 2003, since that's when the guidelines were originally adopted. But I don't know. Okay, thank you for your presentation. And hopefully our group, which our new council, is so diverse that we may be able to lend you a hand. I don't know. I can't promise for anybody else, but I look forward for this program to come in the community that I serve. Vice Mayor, Will. Thank you, Chair. Kind of piggybacking off of Council Member Fogel's concerns about equity. Those are certainly my concerns as well. How do we balance, again, underserved neighborhoods and underserved communities are underserved because a lot of these kind of programs that do exist don't end up having a deep enough reach or a concerted enough effort sometimes to reach these communities? So I'm thinking about it kind of in two different angles. what could we do better in terms of outreach letting folks know in a lot of these neighborhoods and communities that this program exists and that they could qualify for free tree replacements? and two, how do we make sure that these funds, you know, the way I'm kind of gaming it out in my head, if we're not reaching out to a lot of these underserved communities that would probably qualify for these 100% grants and then we end up spending the bulk of our budget on the 50% by default to all the other parts of the county that could afford it, How do we make sure that money doesn't get drained in that direction and our underserved communities continue being underserved? Would we be able to allot certain amounts of money to certain neighborhoods or zip codes or whatever criteria? Your thoughts? So one of the items toward the very end of the proposed revised guidelines talks about setting aside 25% of the budget to award the 100% grants. And so, you know, we would certainly carve out that piece and make sure that it is not spent by folks that don't need a grant, whether it's the 100% level or the 50% level, until we try to get that little pot, that smaller pot, filled and encumbered. And to your first question, I think it's just a matter of getting out in front of it so that when July 1 hits and the funds are available for the next fiscal year, making sure that we have spoken to those neighborhoods either at neighborhood association meetings or through their council person or at the nearby neighborhood center to let folks know that the program exists and that there's opportunities to have it fully funded or 50% funded. Thank you. I would love to see next time you come before us with a report or an update, I would love to see a more detailed sort of outreach plan that very much leans heavily on the equity concerns. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Council Member Gray. Thank you, Chair. I concur along with Vice Mayor Wu about the equity, and I would like to see data because some data or a plan, I did comms work. I would like to see what your communications plan is to reach out to those underserved communities. Because historically we know due to the federal enforcing of the redlining that communities that have more people that look like me failed to have trees. And this has continued on. And so I'm a little disappointed that there has not prior been a plan to reach out to these communities because it's widely known. Just curious. Do you have any numbers regarding the number of individuals who have sought the applications that reside on the north side or east end? We track, as part of the application process, we track the council district, where all the participants have come from. And in probably this summer, we do give an annual update to this committee about street trees and the urban forestry program. and one of the slides in that slide deck covers number of trees or number of participants by council district. We have not included the number of recipients of the 100% grant as part of that, but we can certainly provide that. So, you know, certainly I think when I come back here in May or June, whenever that gets scheduled, I can provide some of that data. Thank you. Because we want to ensure that all the people of Lexington are served equally and make sure they have access to the same information as those who may have more funds than others. Thank you. Council Member Wareley. Thank you, Chair. And I see Council Member Legree is signed on. I would say she might have some comments about the way that the tree board and this program work. I think any, with respect and in agreement with all of my fellow council members' questions and comments related to making sure that this is an equitable program, I think just having seen this program in the budget over the years and seeing these reports, any issue in my mind of it not reaching all the people that we hope it should is a budgetary function, not a function of this department or of the tree board or of the program itself. There's not enough money. just like our sidewalk assistance program the money runs out before it gets to the most the people who need it and that's that's both people of of higher income low income all the people who apply the money runs out before we can help all the folks so i would encourage us as we go into the budget season if this is something that we would like to see improved and expanded and make sure it is equitable i think that that is very much a budgetary function that we should keep in mind because i think if it had they have more money then you see some of the things that they're trying to do here about setting aside some money for those lower income individuals and expanding the diversity of the board. And I think you made a great point on that. I think these things that they want to do with the change in the ordinance will help, but one of our number one functions as a legislative body is the budget. And so if we want to see this program expand and improve, we need to fund it. So, thank you. Council Member Brown. Thank you, Chair. Follow up on Council Member Worley. I know that we have a sidewalk matching grant ordinance. Because I think I helped draft it back in the early 2000. But it parallels pretty much with this matching grant with the trees. And so I would like to look at those two, both of those ordinances. It's comparative to what we need because we have been short funding the sidewalk program, probably more so than we have the tree program of giving. And I didn't realize it, and you brought that up, Director, that we had that many applications that we couldn't fulfill in the tree planting and being able to aid, especially in the matching. I don't know about the 100%. I know on the sidewalk fund, we addressed that in the ordinance. We addressed that those people that qualify, and I'm not sure it's under the same guidelines, but it should be. But that money was actually set aside into that fund, and then anything over that we put in the budget would go to the matching. That's how that one works, and I'm not sure the tree board works that way. I've got a question. I'll let Council Member Legree answer it. But the ARPA program gave the tree board, I think, $250,000. The money went in there. But I don't know where that money was spent and whether any of it that. And I'll let her answer that. But I know there was some funds put in. And I did want to say that the tree board is a very functioning board. i think to some degree they may be biased because they love those trees but but that's okay but i'm just saying when you're looking at there's always two sides to everything and when i look at tree removal they all frown at me and about that because the the tree board basically is in the in the mode to put trees in everywhere they can and get the canopy in there and this is an excellent guideline as far as the size trees and i think that's important but council member lagree i'll let you defend yourself thank you um chair if you don't mind i'll answer this question then i'll take my time um council member brown i believe that you're referring to the 1.5 million dollars of budget stabilization funds that were allocated for the maintenance and support of the tree canopy. And so those conversations began in ARPA and then they came to fruition, practically speaking, with our budget stabilization money. So actually they're less restricted than the ARPA funds would have been. And to Director Carey's point earlier, That tree canopy ad hoc committee made the decision early on to allocate funding to the hazardous street tree program. For exactly some of the reasons that we have talked about now, the really, really high demand for that program and then the need to meet that demand. So when we are talking about all these various issues, I think we're talking about a couple of things. We're talking about the hazardous street tree program, which is the main focus of our discussion today. But it's also connected to changes in this language that are related to the tree board. And making sure that the tree board serves a community in a way that is most functional for the needs of the community. And then we are also talking about our response to our most recent report on the tree canopy. We have a pretty dynamic and up to date report. And to some of the points that my colleagues have made, There are areas of town where we have a really, really high demand for trees and for tree plantings, but also maintenance and outreach and education. And so I agree that we definitely need to generate more equity and access when it comes to all those different parts of what it is to maintain a healthy tree canopy and a healthy tree city. And Director Kerry spoke earlier about the request for proposals. And I'll pause now and then I'll continue my monologue in a minute. So, Chair, if you would allow me to speak. I will call on you, Council Member of the Green. Thank you. And so the part that we're in right now has to do with outreach, education, marketing, promotion, and then gathering of data for all of the areas where we need more support of our tree canopy. And so I believe that that request for proposal and related to the work of the 1.5 million tree ad hoc committee will help us to meet some of these needs. But Council Member Worley is exactly right. Some of this is connected to budget and the need to potentially allocate more funds for this program so that then we can do more outreach so that we can meet more of the need. So that we can make sure that if we're doing that outreach and then people respond that we have the money there to serve our community's needs. So that's just a little bit of background because I think we've been talking about a lot of different things. And I want to acknowledge that we can and our goal is will do better with our outreach by function of having those monies allocated. So thank you to my colleagues for the comments. Thank you, Chair, for indulging my monologue. You needed some extra time to answer those questions. Councilmember Plumman, seeing as this is your item, do you have any actions you would like to take today? I would make a motion to move, remove the item. Is that what you're asking? For the ordinance or the resolution. Oh, I was going ahead and make three motions. Okay. I'm sorry. I thought you meant if we wanted to take this item out right now. All right. I do have three motions today. The first being an ordinance revision. I move to approve the proposed amendments to Chapter 17B of the Code of Ordinances relating to street trees as presented to the committee and is set forth in the committee packet. So moved. Second. I have a motion and a second. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Okay, that motion passes. The second is the resolution for the street tree program guidelines. And I believe you all should have a copy of that resolution at your desk. I move to approve a resolution approving guidelines for the hazardous street tree cost share program to provide financial assistance to owners of owner occupied residential property. In removing hazardous street trees pursuant to chapter 17B of the court of ordinances, so moved. Second. Motion made by Councilmember Plum and seconded by Councilmember LeGree. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Okay, that motion passes. And the third and final motion. I move to have the resolution approving guidelines for the hazardous street tree cost share program reported out at work session today, February 7, 2023. So moved. Do I have a second? Second. Yes, open for discussion. I think you might want to ask the administration if they can accomplish that, you know, that turnaround that quick. And is it necessary that we can't wait a week or, I mean, what's the rush? Director Carey, would you like to talk about that, the timing? Sure. In regard to reporting out of the guidelines quickly, we've had the folks that are in Westmoreland that would like to participate, and we're sort of getting toward the end of prime tree planting season so that it would be, gosh, it would be April, I think, before if this went through normal channels to be reported out and it would just it's more timely for those homeowners if if they can participate now as opposed to waiting several months when the weather's warmer and it's not as ideal of a time to replant their removed street tree any other questions or comments for this discussion on the motion Okay, I had a motion by Councilmember Plowman, seconded by Councilmember Monarres. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Okay, that passes. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, the last item we have on our agenda today is the items referred to committee. if you all could pull that up either on your screen or have it in front of you. Included in your packet is a comprehensive list of all the committee items which was sent out last week for your review. I'd like to just quickly run through this list, and if you would like to take over an item that needs a new sponsor or make a motion to remove, sign in to speak when we get to that item. So the first item that we have on the list is wrongway driving. that the previous sponsor was council member blood so we will need a new sponsor or a motion to remove going forward if you could sign in to speak i'll recognize you thank you council member lagree thank you chair move to remove do you have a second second okay i have a A motion made by Councilmember Legree, seconded by Vice Mayor Wu. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Okay, that motion passes. Thank you. We have number two is process for road closures. Councilmember Civicney. Yes, Chair, I'd be happy to take this one. Okay, thank you. Number three is the single use plastics and energy conservation. This was an item sponsored by Vice Mayor Kay. In talking this over with Vice Chair Legree, we are proposing that we combine this item with number nine, which is around sustainability options for the city. So I would like to remove this, have a motion to remove this item for now, but we will discuss it with item nine. Thank you. Thank you. All in favor, say aye. Any opposed? Okay, that motion passes. Item number four, waste management fines. This is with Council Member Legree. Do you have any comments on this item? Thank you, Chair. This was Council Member Gibbs' item and I don't have the momentum to move forward with it at this point. So I'd like to remove it, a motion to remove. Do I have a second? I have a second. Okay, I have a motion and a second. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Thank you. And just a reminder, if there is any item that gets removed today, any council member can put an item back into committee later if you would like to take it up. Item five is the 5G small cell wireless update. This is currently sponsored by council member McCurran, so we either need a new sponsor for that item or have a motion to remove. Councilmember Lynch? Move to remove. Do I have a second? Thank you. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Okay, that passes. The next item is the waste digesters. I have that in committee and we'll work on that item. Councilmember Savigni, you had indicated interest in that item. Would you like to co-sponsor that with me? I would be delighted to. Great, thank you. The next item is item number seven, the solid waste trash compactors. The sponsor was Council Member Maloney. So we need a new sponsor for this item or a motion to remove. Vice Mayor Wu. Move to remove. Council Member Gray, did you? I was going to take it on or say I would take it. Okay, so we have a second, or we did not have a second prior to that. Okay, so we had a second, so would you like to withdraw that motion? Or the second, and would you like to withdraw the motion? Yes, please. Okay, so Council Member Gray, you're going to take that one on? Okay, thank you. Item number eight is the Hazardous Street Trees Program. Councilmember Plumman? I move to remove. Do I have a second? Okay, thank you. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Okay, that passes, thank you. Moving right along, number nine, I have that item, and we actually have a presentation scheduled from Jada Griggs, who is our sustainability manager. she is going to be presenting to our committee in May on the sustainability plan updates that she has been working on. Okay then under our annual and periodic updates item number 10 is the recycling general general practices this is currently assigned to council member Worley. Thank you chair at the chair's preference I would prefer to keep it in And while there's not any initial work, when we first formed this, asked for a presentation, it led to a subcommittee that was created. And then we addressed several issues with the MRF, and we worked through paper recycling and all that. I think it would be good just for the public's benefit if it were only an annual or periodic, just to hear what our general practices are and see if we need to form any sort of subcommittee. So unless it's bogging up the chair's agendas, I'll prefer to keep it in. Okay, thank you. Items 11 and 12, backyard composting and the urban forestry street trees update. Councilmember Legree, you have both of these items. Could you speak to those? I would be glad to, Chair. Number 11, backyard composting, this started as a pilot program and it's continued. And we're going to have an update on that in May. So I'd like to keep that in committee and see what direction it could take. And then number 12, urban forestry and street trees update. This is an annual update and from the conversation today, it sounds like there may be interest in continuing some of the themes that we brought up. And so that should be pretty straightforward. Okay, thank you. 13 was the Capacity Assurance Program. We had that presentation today and we'll have a continued discussion at our next committee meeting in April. Items 14 through 20 are annual updates that we are required to hear through this committee. So they have all been assigned to the chair of the committee, so you see my name there. But we can't remove them. They have to happen. And then the last item that we have on our list is the subcommittee, the paving management plan subcommittee. This is, the current sponsor is Council Member Fred Brown. I do know that we have a presentation scheduled for April for this item. Are there any comments that you would like to make at this time? Okay, great. Thank you. This concludes our business for today. Is there a motion to adjourn? So moved. Second. Thank you. We stand adjourned.