Thank you. Thank you. with changing the look of taxicabs for a special event. So with that said, I'll turn it back to you. I know we have had the Convention and Visitors Bureau involved and the taxicab companies. Thank you. We also have a little memo here from our attorney, Glenda George, to allow us to do this. You want to just give a little brief what needs to be done from the law department and what the changes are? Sure. If you will look on page three of your packet, what we've done is created a definition for a special event permit. And taxicab companies would receive a permit for a specified period of time, which would allow them to change the color scheme of their taxicabs. If you'll recall, taxicabs have to have a minimum of 25 cabs in order to operate in Fayette County, but you wouldn't be required to change the color scheme of all 25. You could just do a select few for a specified period of time, and then once that time frame has expired, then you would go back to your original color. scheme. And this was only for special events, and you would have to submit an application and receive approval from the Department of Public Safety in order to do it. Any questions for Ms. George? We have a couple people I think would like to comment on this. We have a gentleman here from Yellow Cab, and also we have Convention of Visibility Bureau. You want to go ahead and start with Yellow Cab? Give your name and your address, if you would, please, for the record. I'm Don Daugherty, operations manager for Yellow Cab of Lexington. We're located at 799 Enterprise Drive here in town. We're just here to announce our support for this amendment change. As you'll see on the screen, I'm showing some pictures of what our company has done in Louisville. We got a permit for special cabs for the Ryder Cup in 2008, and these are those pictures here. We also do breast cancer awareness cabs in Louisville. We have four pink cabs on the road, and you will see those pictures as well. We want to take this opportunity to show support for Fayette County and pride in the city and community. With the World Equestrian Games coming up, it's a perfect opportunity for us to show our support and get those cabs on the road as soon as possible. So that's why we would like to support this vote now. Do we have any questions? I know when we met before the meeting, and one of the concerns I had was about cost and who is going to take the cost. We currently paint the cabs ourselves, the Ryder Cup cabs. We, Yellow Cab of Louisville, paid 100% of the cost. It would just depend on what the partner wanted. In partnership with the World Equestrian Games, if they wanted us to use their logo, they may pay for that paint job. We may pay for the paint job. We're not wanting to make a profit on the cars, so we're fully prepared to pay 100% cost of the painting of any vehicle that was awarded a permit, special permit. Any questions? Any comments? Ms. Gordon. Thank you, Mr. Chair. The beauty of this, I've met a couple of times with David and some cab folks. The beauty of this is the cost would be to the cab companies, and any cab company could participate. And it's really a win-win for the city because it would be, I think, great advertising for a special event. So I'm actually very excited about this. Any other comments or questions? Mr. Myers? Thank you, Mr. Chair. Is there or are there special pricing for vehicles that are painted? In other words, these vehicles in the pictures that are painted, do they have a different fare associated with them? No, sir. All of our fares are set for every cab. They're the same. They're always the same. That's part of the current ordinance under the amendment for the fares. They're set. They won't be changed for a special cab. All the meters are the same. They'll always be the same. Yellow cab would never charge for a special cab, nor does I believe that this amendment would even allow for that. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? Mr. Lane? This isn't directly related to modifying the exterior of the cabs. Could you just give us a brief overview of how many cabs you have in Fayette County and what business activity is like at this time? Business activity during the summer months is very slow with the students being out for University of Kentucky. We normally run about 60 cabs a day in Fayette County during the summer months. Once the students come back in in September, that jumps up to about 75. We have 90 cabs in our fleet at any given time. 50 to 60 of those will be on the road in service. On the weekends, that jumps up to the full fleet of 85 to 90. Do you have other competition in the market? Yes, there are two other cab companies in Fayette County, All-American Taxi and Mr. Taxi. They both run around 25 to 30 taxis. And my last question, do you think we have adequate cab service in the market, and are you planning to maybe beef up a little bit when we have special events here by adding maybe cabs from somewhere else? There are more than enough taxis on the road now to service Fayette County. for the normal amount of service. When the World Equestrian Games come to town, the market will definitely have to beef up on taxis. More than likely, they will probably need to double to handle that amount of business. Thank you very much. I appreciate your answers. Ms. Henson? Thank you, Chair. The ordinance states that it would be for a specified period of time. What's the normal time? Ms. George, you want to answer that question? You want to help her? Do you know that? Ms. Curtis? The reason that we didn't put a specific time frame in there is because we're not sure. We did receive a request from Yellow Taxi to go ahead and start doing it now, but the event is not actually until next year, so it could be for at least a year. Okay. Maybe sometimes longer, depending on the date of the event. So it actually depends upon the event itself? Right, it depends upon the event. Okay. Because we've received a request now to change the scheme, but the games aren't until 2010. Okay. All right. I can speak to what we do with Louisville, our sister company, Yellow Cab of Louisville. We normally request six-month permits in six-month increments. And then for the breast cancer cabs, we obviously want to keep those on the road, so we renew those every six months. The Ryder Cup cabs expire in September, and we are in the process of getting a permit from the City of Louisville to convert those to supporting the troops' taxis. and those will be done in six-month increments. I like this idea. Thank you. Ms. George, would that, would you say for, it didn't give a specific time, would the six months be something that we might look at then as a time frame then? Yes, and I also want to point out with the pink caps for breast cancer, that wouldn't be approved under this ordinance because that's not connected to an event. Like if we were doing the race for the cure and you wanted to advertise relating to that, then you could, but then there would be a set beginning and end date, like after the race, then it would expire. It wouldn't be something where you could renew it every six months. The ordinance isn't set up that way. Do we have something presently that we could do something for breast cancer, or does it be something else we'd have to add then into the ordinance? Well, if we were going to allow people to modify their scheme relating to particular public awareness events, we would have to make a change. The way the ordinance is now, it's connected to a specific special event that's going to be occurring. I guess what's the difference with what Louisville has if they allow this that we don't have presently? Or do you know? I don't know how the Louisville ordinance addresses that. Ms. Henson. So, like in the case of supporting our troops, that is not an event. Right. So we couldn't do something like that either, right? Not the way the ordinance is currently drafted. But keep in mind the request was to allow for a special event like the World Equestrian Games. But if you would like for us to go back and allow for things like painting your calves pink for breast cancer or supportive troops, we can do that. But this ordinance that you have now does not cover that. Okay. I have another question, if it's okay. Certainly. In Louisville, how do they, do they request this from the cab company, or is it typically just the idea of the operations? It was our ideal. We approached the city of Louisville for the pink cabs. We've got several cancer survivors as cab drivers, as well as some of our upper management has some family members that have passed from cancer. So we approach the city for the ability to use the pink cabs in Louisville. We assign those cabs to cancer survivors or to spouses of cancer victims. So they have a story to tell when they're out on the roads driving the pink cabs. It's just not the pink cab. It's the whole package. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Myers, I have you next on the list. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Is it Mr. Daughtery? Yes, sir. Does your company here in Lexington have a desire to do a similar campaign like this and or some of the other campaigns like the Ryder Cup that then morphs into supporting our troops that you would then come back to renew that permit? Yes. We are very interested in several ideals. We definitely would like to do the pink cabs for breast cancer. We would probably want to request two cabs currently based on the size of our fleet. We also foresee in the future that, you know, there's a special event of the Bluegrass Festival that runs in concurrent with the World Equestrian Games. That would be an event that we would be interested in promoting, obviously, the World Equestrian Games. anything that we can do to bring awareness to any type of special event, we would be willing to look at the event on an event-by-event basis and definitely be in support of helping out. Okay. On the pink cab, is that something that you want? If you could get those two cabs, it would be indefinite? Yes. Yes, sir. Okay. I would move that we ask the law department to at least bring us – I'm not sure if I want to amend what we currently have, but at least look at what Louisville has done to permit this other type use. And if you could bring that back to us at our next meeting, I'd appreciate that. So moved. We have a motion and a second. Any discussion on that? All those in favor, say aye. All those opposed, that passes. And just for clarity, we don't want to slow this down, what we have in front of us today, so we'll do it separately. Sure. Thank you. Mr. Martin? Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I've got to apologize. I was reading something that was handed to me so I didn't catch all of Council Member Meyer's comments. So if I repeat something, stop me. So one of the concerns I have is unintended consequences. Whenever I draft statutes, I always try to think about how can something zig or zag that was not really intended at the time it was drafted. And George stopped me again. And stop me if this is what you were talking about. The thing I'm concerned about is the full scope of freedom of speech signage that could possibly be put on the sides of taxi cabs. And we're talking about strip clubs and sex shops, skulls and crossbones and all kinds of things that could be on the sides of taxi cabs. And I would like to see some sort of criteria added to the ordinance which would have some sort of community standard about what could be put on the side of a taxi cab. Because I could envision someone applying for something that no one would think would be appropriate, but which a court might think was not prohibited because there were no standards for it. So all of us love the things that we're seeing here, but I can certainly envision some signs that I would not want to see on the side of a cab, and I think all of us could as well. So I guess I would ask that before this comes before the council that they do a little tweaking and twittering or whatever on the ordinance so that there are some sort of criteria for what type of signage can be granted, because otherwise it might be arbitrary and thus subject to challenge. I think Ms. George is shaking her head, so when she brings that back to us, she'll take that in consideration. Thank you, Mr. Chair. You're welcome. Mr. Beard? Thank you, Chair. A couple of months ago, I guess it was, we passed either an ordinance or a resolution, I'm not sure, probably an ordinance concerning a geographic area that prohibited World Equestrian Games signage as relates to people using it to draw people into their businesses. And it was a geographic, again, a geographic area focusing primarily, of course, on the... Was it the Newtown Pike when we looked at that are you referring to? Well, Newtown Pike, I think it goes all the way into New Circle Road. My question is, is there any conflict with this method? I think Mr. Lord might be able to comment on that. David, maybe you can help us on that. David Lord, 3524 Antilles Drive. In visiting with Don earlier, there's nothing that they would do without working with World Equestrian Games and getting their full support of this. I mean, I think I can't speak for them, but I do sit on the board, and I think we would all see this as an additional promotion of the games that does not exist today throughout the community, and it's promoting the games, so it's not anything that we'd be taking away from. And as Don had said in our conversations, any design that they would create would be approved by the World Equestrian Games. So it would be done hand in hand. And if they were to say no, I think there wouldn't be any reason to move forward. But I can't think of a reason that they would not be supportive of this additional promotion. Well, I just didn't want us to do something that was going to be contradictory, even though we know what the intent is. I understand. I think we have a law department also might want to make a comment on here. Mike, did you want to comment on this? Yes, I happen to be here on another matter, so today is my lucky day. Well, good. Aren't we lucky? The Clean Zone Ordinance was drafted for a geographical area around the horse park for permanent signage and temporary signage within that area, and we talked about it in all our meetings, and like the LexTran buses, there was a concern about that, and the Clean Zone Ordinance would not affect the LexTran buses. So similarly, I do not believe it would affect the advertising on taxi cabs either. Does that answer your question? Yeah. Thank you, Mike. Thank you. Mr. Lane? Mr. Sanner, while you're up there, do you think it would be worthwhile to expand this ordinance to not only apply it to cabs but also to buses? Or do you think the buses already have the right to customize their exteriors? I don't. I don't know about that. I mean, they take advertising from all over the place. The buses do. I'm not familiar with their advertising requirements or how they. Ms. George, do you have any comment on that? This particular ordinance relates only to taxi cabs, so we would not be able to address an issue relating to buses in the ordinance that's proposed. Chapter 18A relates to taxis, so that would have to be done separately or looked at separately. We couldn't do it here. Okay. Okay. One more question. What if somebody had a pink car and they stenciled on their yellow cab and drove around like a gypsy cab? Do we have a provision in there that protects the people that are not licensed to modify their car and appear to look like a cab and drive around and pick up people unauthorized illegally? You couldn't do that. You have to have a minimum of 25 cabs and you have to have a license issued by the urban county government. And we receive complaints all the time when people try to have gypsy cabs or do things outside of the ordinance. So we would be able to stop those people and correct that. Would there be any way that the general public would know, you know, if a modified exterior on a cab came up, whether this was a licensed legal cab or one that was unlicensed and illegal? Yes, because you're required to have your license in your cab. You're required to have that in there. So you would know that it's a licensed cab. Okay. Because, yeah, I can see this being an issue during the World Question of Gains from cab, gypsy cabs coming in for the day or two to try to make extra money because of all the people, I think. And this is something for us to think about. I know in Louisville when they do have special events, they do waive some of their requirements to allow people to operate limousines and other type of modes of transportation to get people around, and their ordinance doesn't apply during that time. And I think the representative from Yellow Cab did say that he thought that during that time we would need additional taxi cabs, and that's one of the things that Louisville has done to address that. You can operate a company during the event, and you don't have to meet all of the requirements of their ordinance. Did you want to comment on that? I was going to comment on the identification. In Fayette County, there's a permit sticker that's issued by public safety that goes in the rear window of all cabs to indicate that they are licensed taxis, and those would be required on the special event cabs as well. Ms. Gordon. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Rick, Mr. Curtis, I wanted to ask you, I want to go back to the question about logo and what could be put on. Well, and I guess, first of all, I don't know if David or Don know in Louisville, when they get their permit approved, do they also get approval of the paint job, the logo? They do. Yes. So when the permit would come to you and public safety, the request, then would your shop also approve what goes on? Yes, ma'am. The design itself. That's the proposal specific that they would have submitted to us for approval before we allowed them to put it on the cap itself. So does Louisville actually have a set of criteria where they specify things that can't go on there, or do they just look at the proposal and make their best judgment? I don't know, but I'll find out. I don't know. I'll find out. That's good. Okay. Okay. Well, it seems that that would be important. I mean, I wouldn't expect the cab companies to come with something that wouldn't be appreciated in the public. But it would be good to know if Louisville has some certain standards for what kind of designs they approve. I know that when we first passed the ordinance, the taxi ordinance, one of the things that we wanted to do was to tighten up control so that rogue drivers weren't out there with just one car on the road and not licensed. Yes, ma'am. Because when we license them, I know they have to meet certain standards. Yes, ma'am. And they have to submit to an inspection. Yes, ma'am. Right? Early inspections, yes, ma'am. Okay. All right. Thank you. Mr. Martin. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm not familiar with the ordinance governing bus signage, but it's possible. Do you know whether or not we have criteria in that ordinance? The only thing I was thinking when that was being talked about was it may be in the advertisement ordinance, specifically because it's a public venue similar to what would be a billboard because of the size. So they may very well be covered under that. Right. And obviously we have other ordinances that do affect advertising and public signage and things like that. So we can maybe draw on that, those types of things, and we're looking at this one as well. Exactly. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Meyer? Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate Councilman Martin's concerns regarding opening up Pandora's box with respect to non-specialty event type advertisement on taxis. I guess I have a question. Ms. George, you said that, I think maybe a couple people said that in Louisville, when those special events come up, like the Ryder Cup, where you need more cabs infused into the marketplace to know how to handle the capacity, and they lack some of their standards. Can we specifically look at what they did in that instance also, and then make sure that we come up with a design standard, not only for specified events, these other type of events that aren't really event-associated, like the pink cab, and then what we would do in a special event so that when the games come and we sort of open the floodgates and let more cabs come into the marketplace, that we do not lax our standards in terms of safety and appearance as well. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Beer. Thank you, Chair. At the termination of the permit, you have a five-day period of time for them to get the cabs painted back to their original. With 75 cabs and 25 of them having to get painted in five days, it doesn't seem very practical to me. Pardon me? Would you like to address that, Mr. Jollinger? I can address that. No, it may be the ordinance's problem is the point. If we were wanting to paint 25 cabs a new design, we would not need this amendment. The current ordinance allows for 25 cabs. The reason this amendment is going in to allow for less cabs, we're only looking at the possibility of two pink cabs, maybe four, six, eight at the most world equestrian cabs. So we would not be painting 25 cabs when the permit expired. We would be painting at the most eight. Okay. So the five days doesn't bother you all? No, no, sir, it doesn't. Okay, well, I was just trying to help you all. Well, I appreciate that, but I did want a misconception that we would be trying to paint 25 cabs in five days. That would not be the case. Okay. Thank you. And there's not a fee that's associated with it to have a different kind of logo on that that we charge, is there? You just have to get a permit, right? Yes, sir. So there's not a fee? Not an additional fee, no, sir. Okay. Is there any other questions? Ms. Gorton is not part of the committee, so if somebody would like to make a motion on her behalf, then I'd be willing to accept one now. Excuse me. Before a motion is made, I just want to point out one thing. If you look in your packet on page two, we were in the process of amending the definition of a taxi cab, but we've had some other issues come up with inquiries concerning starting bicycle taxis and people wanting to do other things. So if we're going to proceed with this ordinance, we would want to take this definition out so that we have an opportunity to tweak it a little more just to address some other issues. Would you like for us to wait a month and then just come back with everything all together? I didn't know if you wanted to go ahead and proceed with the ability for taxicab companies to be able to change their color scheme. And if you want to go ahead with that, to put that on for Thursday, I don't know how fast you all want to go with that. I wouldn't bring it out to next Tuesday. Okay, then we'll have time to. It's up to you all, but at this point we don't want it to go forward with definition six as written. I'm willing to hear a suggestion from the council if you'd like to move forward today or if you'd like to wait until next, councilman. Is this something that needs to be done within the next month for the taxis? Is this something that you're in an emergency kind of situation? We're not in an emergency type situation, but we are coming up on a year out. And we're not after making money on these cabs, but we will incur an expense. And eight cabs will cost us about $10,000 to paint. So we would like to have those on the road as long as possible. So the sooner we can get approved. Once you get the okay, how long will it take you to get probably up and running to the paint job and all that? Probably 30 days. We would have a process of going through the World Equestrian Games, designing a paint scheme, then getting approved. So probably 30 days. Okay. Any motion, suggestions from the council? I guess. Mr. Myers? Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have a question. Can you elaborate? When you said six, I don't see a number six on what I have. On page two in your packet. Okay. I was looking at this. It's in the packet. Okay. Because now that you bring that up, we were in Florida for part of our break. And to Mr. Martin's point, they had some bicycle taxis down there that had strip club advertisement on the back of them, and it would be pretty simple. It's a totally different thing than painting an entire vehicle. But if we're going to start talking about bicycle cabs and those other type operations, we need to make sure we've got this correct so that we don't have that type of stuff. Right, and so that's why we're requesting to take that out and let us have an opportunity to look at that and talk to the state and then present a different definition to the council for approval. Okay, so are you comfortable with me making a motion to go ahead and move forward with this, with exception of number six? Yes. So moved. We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? Mr. Martin? May I have permission to make one more small comment? Certainly. This is a discussion. This is an area that's just fraught with litigation. And so we just need to make sure we spend a sufficient amount of time to craft this so that we're not subject to a suit. Signage and freedom of speech issues and commercial speech issues is one of the most heavily litigated things in constitutional law. And so we just need to make sure we get this right because we could really be opening a Pandora's box. I love these signs, and I think it's a great thing, and I support it. But I just want to make sure that we put enough effort into this to make sure that we don't mess it up. Thanks. Thank you, Ms. Pagel. Because of that and because of the other concerns that have been expressed, I personally would like to see this document done completely and entirely before we begin to pass portions of it. I just feel like the better handle we can get on it, the more we're protected. and that would give us time, too, to look at some other ordinances like what Louisville has to see what we can borrow from theirs. So I would be inclined to wait. Are you wanting a table or are you just wanting just a no vote is what you're saying? Probably a no vote. Okay. Any other discussion, Ms. Henson? I'm sorry. Ms. Lawless, actually, first. several of the cities that I visited that have the petty cabs the city owns them and people pay to drive them and they get tips or whatever and so that might be one way to look at using those and be able to have a lot of control over the signage or advertisement on them. That's all. But I love the bicycle cabs. Ms. Henson, did you want to comment? Yeah, I just had a question about when will our next services meeting committee will meet? The date? Yeah, or will it be next month? It'll be next month. And I know that for like the first week of September there are no meetings. Actually, when you say that, it's not until October 6th because we don't have a meeting. So that gives us a – unless we go ahead and decide to have a special meeting. Right now on the schedule, we're not scheduled to meet during September. I have Ms. Gorton next, and then Mr. Myers. Glenda, Ms. George, I wanted to ask you a question about number six in the ordinance. How would, as it reads now, a taxi cab has to be a motor vehicle. So how would bicycles fit under that? Or are you saying to add bicycles in? Well, that's one of the things we're going to look at. So that wouldn't necessarily affect this particular... I guess I'm trying to understand how bicycles... The work could go on for the bicycle part separate from this. Is that what you're saying? Well, as of right now, bicycles is not covered under the taxicab definition. But when you look at that last sentence of where the underline is, where it says a taxicab shall not mean, and it says a vehicle providing transportation in Fayette County that is not affiliated with a licensed taxi company, and you're accepting tips, donations, gas money, What we've had happening is people wanting to start businesses to transport people, but they're saying, oh, I don't charge, I just accept a tip. And so to stop that from happening and having a lot of small companies trying to start and say they're not a taxicab company, we need to work on this definition a little bit to address some of the problems that we're starting to see. So you don't see any conflict, though, with working on that and going ahead with this? No, not at all. Since this is addressing just one little piece. Right, this is just one little piece. Well, I think there are some other issues that maybe we're not prepared to talk about today because this is just one little piece, but I think tweaking the whole ordinance is probably a good idea because there are some, Rick just gave the okay, because it hasn't been tweaked for a while. Right. And I think at some point in the future it might be a good idea to look at the whole ordinance. Right. We'll deal with this issue here, but we might want to, somebody might want to bring up in work session to look at the whole ordinance, put that back into the services committee, and then we can address a multitude of issues, I think, that's not just this specific one. So are you saying we would go ahead with the special event permit? I think we would go ahead. If that motion passes, we'll go ahead and deal with that one. And then it looks like there's going to be other issues we're going to have to address that you're going to come back to us, and we'll probably be bringing more suggestions to you to look at in the future. I think Mr. Kirsch is raising his, shaking his head back there, too. He's got a stack back there. On that second part where we want to work on that all on the front end and then come back with one comprehensive ordinance that makes all the changes at one time rather than me just coming back with this one piece and then having to go back and make additional changes based on other things that the council wants to do? I think so. Okay. Is there any other discussion on this issue? All those in favor of the motion say aye. Aye. All those opposed? That passes. Thank you all. Thank you for your time. The next issue on the agenda is the golf carts on public roads. Mr. Stenet brought this into committee. Mr. Stenet. Thank you, Chair. As many of you know, the state statute last year changed in order to allow local municipalities to create their own ordinances on golf carts. And several of you have been contacted by constituents who would like to see us adopt an ordinance on a local level. So you have a sample ordinance, should be in the packet, to take a look at along with the state statutes. and I'd simply put it into committee for discussion at the request of a few constituents in my district who would like to see it become law. And you can see the opinions from other agencies within government should also be in your packet. And I thank Paul Schoeniger for doing a lot of work on this. And I would just ask for the discussion to take place and whether or not it's something this body wants to pursue and do. I put it into services, obviously, because it is a public safety issue, And obviously there are several guidelines that the state has given us that we have to abide by when drafting any type of ordinance on this issue. But once again, I merely put it out there for discussion and look forward to the debate and dialogue on this issue. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. I think we probably want to go ahead and start. We have Mr. Sander here again, who's – this is actually the issue that he was down here for, but we thank you for your other input. But if you could just go through from the law department's standpoint and kind of go over what the General Assembly gave us the ability to do and what we can do and just the requirements if we decide to do something. Well, the draft ordinance you have in your packet is taken directly from the statute. The statute requires certain minimum things to be able to allow golf carts on public roadways. and then my memo is attached in your pack, and it addresses some things that you may wish to put in if you want to. It also addresses some issues that will have to be clarified. With the public's input here, why don't you go ahead and just give us an outline of what your memo said, just to kind of go through that. It would be helpful, I think. Okay. The statute was enacted last year, so it's a little over a year old. and to allow golf carts on public roadways. That's the first thing I guess we need to talk about. As the statute says, a governing body can pass an ordinance to allow a golf cart on a public roadway. It does not mention the so-called private streets that we all see around every once in a while. So because the private streets aren't mentioned in the ordinance, we do not believe that even if you pass an ordinance, the golf carts wouldn't be allowed on the so-called private streets. And then the next thing is that the public roadway has to lie within five road miles of an entrance to a golf course. Now, there's a lot of golf courses here in Fayette County, and there's also some golf courses on the outside of Fayette County. If you take five road miles from those entrances, you come into Fayette County. So that's another issue the council may want to take up. So we allow it to go to the end of the Fayette County borders is what you're saying? Right. And then in the ordinance, you have to specifically designate those roadways where golf carts would be allowed. You just couldn't, there was one sample ordinance here from another city where they didn't do that. They just said golf carts are allowed. Well, you can't do that. You have to say on a certain street from this point to this point is where golf carts are allowed. Is my understanding GIS is looking into that right now on the streets that would be available for this? Paul's shaking and said yes. And the streets that they would be allowed on are streets where the speed limit is 35 miles an hour or less. However, you cannot cross the streets with the golf cart where the speed limit is more than 35 miles an hour. So if you live out where I live, you could drive theoretically a golf cart in your neighborhood, but I could not cross Todd's Road. Todd's Road has a speed limit of 45 miles an hour. Let's see. Statute gives you several hoops the golf cart owner has to jump through to get his golf cart license. He's got to get a permit from the Division of Revenue. has to be inspected by somebody from the sheriff's office or the sheriff's office designee. The golf cart has to be insured, just like a car. In order to operate the golf cart, the operator has to have a valid operator's license, a driver's license. The golf cart can only be operated between sunrise and sunset. It's got to display a slow-moving vehicle emblem on it. And the transportation cabinet of the state has the right to designate a roadway where they can override any local ordinance. And those are the provisions that are required by statute in a local ordinance. And then I think you also put some things that we might want to consider, too. Yes. Let's see. Some of the things you may want to consider include how much the yearly fee would be for the permit, whether a violation of the ordinance would be an administrative fine, in which case an administrative hearing board would hear it, and who would enforce it or whether it would be a criminal fine cited to district court in which a police officer would be the only one able to cite for a violation. You may want to consider whether there needs to be a bicycle safety flag that extends above the ground to give motorists warning that a golf cart is on the roadway. You may want to require the golf carts to be equipped with rear-view mirrors, lights, brake lights, headlights, turn signals, reflectors, and brakes. You may want to require that the golf cart be equipped with seatbelts and whether the passenger is required to wear a seatbelt. You may want to consider whether the Division of Traffic Engineering needs to conduct studies to determine which roadways golf carts can be safely operated on and whether the Division of Streets and Roads would then post signs that this roadway is allowed for golf cart use to give notice to the general public. You may want to consider the limit on the number of occupants in any golf cart. And then there will have to be some meetings with several other intergovernmental agencies and agencies from outside the government, such as the sheriff's office, because they will be in charge of inspections. The county attorney's office may need to be consulted because they will be prosecuting any violations. Like I say, within the government, streets and roads, traffic engineering and revenue, and the Division of Police may need to be consulted for some operational issues. Thank you. And you've included the ordinance in here that you drafted. I included a sample ordinance, yes, where some blanks to be filled in. But what's in the ordinance is what is required by the state statute, and you can add to it. You just can't take away from it. All right. Are there any questions for legal? Mr. Beard? Thank you. Mike, on these items that we may wish to consider, why lights if it's, in fact, sunrise to sunset? Just as an added safety feature. You may want to require them, you may not. It's like running lights for regular automobiles. Right. Thank you. Any other questions for Mr. Sander? I believe there was a memo from the Division of Police in the packet, too. All right. I was going to ask Mr. Schoeninger then if he could make some comments about the other issues in the packet. Do you have a memo? And I do believe we have something also from public safety. Yeah. If it's okay with you, Council Member, I'd like to start with the police memo, if that's okay. What page is that on? It's on page 21 of the packet. Thank you. I don't want to read to you, but I will say that the Division of Police, although they're not here today, so I'm a little uncomfortable speaking for them. But they are opposed to this draft ordinance, and it's primarily for three reasons. The first is safety. The second is the administrative portion, and I think Mike went through that very well. And then the third is an enforcement issue. And if I could just read to you something, at least I'd appreciate reading something to you. this ordinance will create a hazard greater than the benefit attempting to be gained, and that in smaller communities this may have a place, but our city is too large with a very heavy traffic volume that is not conducive to this proposal. Again, they're not here to defend that, but I think both of those statements are pretty striking. So I believe it's accurate to say the police are opposed to this. Okay, and in your memo, is there any other issues? To be honest with you, Michael went through, I think, everything. GIS is working on a map. They've produced one map so far, but it didn't stop it. When a 35-mile-an-hour street or with a street that was less than 35 miles, they didn't stop it when they came to a street that had more than 35 miles an hour. So that's why we've asked them to redo that. Gotcha. Is there any comments from Mr. Stinnett? Paul, did we contact the Sheriff's Department because they actually would be the one next. They play a big part in it. I have contacted the Sheriff's Office. And were they opposed and favored? Do they have the manpower to inspect all these golf carts? I don't know that the first two issues are really addressed, but they do have a concern about the third issue, that right now they do not have a manpower assigned to this because they don't do that right now. But they're concerned about the inspection portion. Because I see the Sheriff's Department having to create another layer of staffing to either go to the people's houses or have them bring them down here and have a location to inspect them. Also, LFUCG creating a level of staffing to issue and maintain all the permitting records. If you all remember, those that were on council, the alarm ordinance has created enough issues with our police folks, and dealing with that issue alone, I can only imagine having another vehicle issue to deal with in-house. we create a lot of obstacles. I think that would have to be explored further, especially since our budget constraints are what they are right now. Being able to add additional staff would almost be impossible in order to do this. It would have to be done in order to do this ordinance. So right now I think we're set where we're at in terms of not being able to move it forward until we can figure those two big issues out and work with the Sheriff's Department as well as how do we do it ourselves in-house. Thank you, Chair. Ms. Feigl. The only other issue that I would bring up is if we consider it at a later date. I'd like to see some accident reports from communities that have already implemented this to see if there has been a real serious problem with accidents. But I would just like for that to be brought back to this committee at some point. I saw Mr. Schoeniger write that down, so I'm sure he'll do some research for us on that. Mr. Lane? I have some concerns about the fact we have plenty of traffic in Fayette County already. If we start putting golf carts out on the streets, that's going to slow down traffic. It's going to be a safety issue. And then I also think it's an extra bureaucratic expense and responsibility for the police department. So I'm inclined not to support this resolution or this idea. At this point, it's just an idea. Mr. Stinnett? I did want to pursue, though, how is the issue of golf carts relevant? Did you see anything on electric cars? That was another issue that came up with these electric motorbikes that people and children are driving on our streets. Are they legal now, the electric vehicles, the small electric cars? I don't know. I didn't look at that. We just dealt strictly with this statute. I'd imagine anything that has to be, I'm guessing here, I'd imagine anything driven on our streets you have to have an operator's license for. I just wanted to see. I didn't know if there was any other changes to the state statute because I know they looked at golf carts. No, this was a specific statute, state statute was specific to golf carts only. Okay, not any other. Okay, thank you. Thank you, Chair. Mr. Myers. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think that Mr. Boggs' first two statements in his closing paragraph speak volumes, and I think Paul read it already. But in conclusion, we submit that due to the lack of safety features alone, golf carts have no place on public roadways. I think that's the key right here. And I guess my question would be, he goes on to say that it would outweigh, the detriments would outweigh any benefit attempting to be gained. What is the benefit attempting to be gained by allowing golf carts on public streets? Mr. Stenet, you brought this issue in. What was your intentions here on the benefit? Again, my intentions put into service is to have the discussion, to see what we can and cannot do with this issue. Obviously, clearly, three big problems rose to the top, and that's the Sheriff's Department having to inspect them, LFUCG having to issue permits, and then the third issue is our police force maintaining a golf cart versus other vehicles on the roads. So that was the intention, to have discussion, to put it out to the public realm. Okay, so you don't necessarily have a game that will come out of this if we did it. You just want to have a discussion. Well, I know several people who own golf carts would like to see us do something, but right now I'm not sure what we can do until we get the personnel issue solved. Okay. Thank you. My vote would be that golf carts have no place on public roads. To have a golf cart wrestling with a two-ton or a four-ton vehicle makes absolutely no sense. So I don't think we should even persist any further. Thank you. Mr. Beard. Thank you, Chair. Do we have any idea at all what the scope and number might be? Is there a groundswell of demand for these? It's almost better, I think, that we have a lot of them as opposed to four or five running around and surprising people. At least people might get sensitized if they lived within, let's take Andover, for instance. They get sensitized to the fact that they exist and they're out there. And I guess that's a question for Councilmembers Tenet. Do you have a sense or a feeling for what the need and requirement and how many people are going to play? and that's why we're discussing I have no idea and I think that would be up to the administration side in terms of looking at either other cities or how many people we would actually have to employ to monitor the permitting process and the sheriffs to inspect it and working with them to see how many people they think they would have to devote to it I mean talking maybe a hundred golf carts you know they might we could handle that within a calendar year thousands it gets into a different story but we don't know or nobody's no idea nobody's mentioned And maybe the first place to go would be to whomever is managing the present golf courses and find out what kind of discussion they have had internally about this. That's a pertinent fact, I think, before we go forward. Otherwise, I couldn't support it as it stands right now. Thank you. Ms. Feigel. Thank you, Chair. Yes, shortly after Georgetown allowed golf carts on their roads, We did a survey in the 5th District, and I think we did it through the Chevy Chaser. And actually only one person responded that they had an interest in it. And I thought that the Chevy Chase area would probably be, you know, probably one of the ideal areas for it, but there didn't seem to be a groundswell. Ms. Lawless? Chevy Chase doesn't have a golf course I allow her oh right I forgot they're not my people anyway it seems to me like this is a whole lot of expense and layers of government for what would probably be a handful of people to do And the Idleire Country Club, they still couldn't do it in Chevy Chase because they'd have to cross Richmond Road, which would be, you know, just like, yeah, build a bridge over. But anyway, so many of our golf courses are on major thoroughfares, so nobody could go anywhere anyway. So this seems like an awful lot of expense for a handful of people, and maybe they could get a bicycle. Any other discussion? It doesn't look like there's a lot of groundswell support from the council here to pursue this any further. We can keep in committee, or when we're done, we can pull it out of committee. I think that the majority would like to have it just pulled and moved forward. So with that, we will move to the next item, which is underground utilities. Ms. Feigl. Thank you, Chair. I have some information in your packet. I think as a result of the summary and the analysis that we did of the last ice storm, this issue came out, the possibility of passing an ordinance or taking a look at an ordinance that would require all future development to have underground utilities. And so I began to meet with the law department, and we met with a KU representative, and David Frybert is here today. And we looked at some other communities to see what they had done. And so we have put together a proposal for an ordinance that would cover all new development. And so that's just here for you today to take a look at. Perhaps Mr. Freiberg would like to make some comments about this, answer questions. I really don't have any presentation other than to just propose that we take a look at underground utilities for future development. I did get an email this morning, though, from someone who said that they had actually been trying to get underground utilities included in the Newtown Pike Extension project and had been trying to do that for a year. And because it isn't required, unfortunately, we are not going to have underground utilities on Newtown Pike Extension, which I regret. So I felt like that if we took a look at this ordinance, we might not see some of these projects fall through the cracks in the future. I think one of the comments that was made at one of our meetings, and it might have come from you, David, that probably 90 percent of the developments that occur now opt to do underground utilities. utilities. But I really think that if we had an ordinance in place that it would hold all developments to that higher standard. So if you have any questions, I'd be happy to try to answer your questions. We've got the law department here. Why don't you comment on just the changes that you put in here? It looks like what's underlined. Pretty simple, but here are just changes to the regulations here? What the proposal is would be a change to the subdivision regulations. So in essence, the procedural thing would be then an initiation of a text amendment to the subdivision regulations, but with the approval of this council moving forward. The one thing that I would mention, and I didn't get a chance to call Council Member Feigl and I meant to, I did not know until I was looking at the packet, maybe yesterday, that there was an interest in the construction projects, because this would really just relate to subdivisions, new subdivisions, all new subdivisions. But road projects like Newtown and others would not be covered by this, nor do I necessarily think this would be the place to do that. And that may be just some, I apologize if I missed that, but I don't think we really talked about that. we've more talked about the subdivisions when we were putting this together. So where would you have to make those corrections in? I'm not certain. If it's a construction project that we're involved in, we could make it a requirement of the contract on a contract-by-contract basis. There's no reason we couldn't. I mean, we could instruct when construction road projects go out. That would be part of an ordinance regulation. That would just be part of the contract itself, correct? Well, it would be part of the bid request. And so the council could certainly pass an ordinance requiring that bid requests contain certain language. I apologize, but I'm kind of just thinking this through for the first time because we didn't get a chance to fully discuss this aspect of it. So this would just deal with subdivisions and you might have to look at it? This would deal fully with subdivisions, yes, sir. And this would be the part that definitely would need to go to a text amendment type process. So this could move probably on its own. Right. And then you could look at the others so we could address that then in the future? Yes. Okay. And I remember now that we started out talking about just new development in subdivisions, and it kind of just gained some momentum. Yes. And I apologize to the extent that I didn't understand. I don't think we talked fully about how we would do projects or even necessarily went down. But we don't have to wait on that to do this. No. It can be parallel tracks then. You would not. Ms. Lawless, are you first on here? I really like this a lot. The problem with Newtown Pike is that it's a state project. But my only concern is the unintended impact of, say, we're doing a development with, you know, moderate to low-income housing. you're looking at, you know, $35 a foot for overhead utilities versus $475 approximately a foot. And so I don't want to shoot ourselves in the foot. If we have an opportunity for either a combination of market-priced and affordable housing development, that then is priced out of being able to be developed because of the extreme cost of underground utilities. So that's my only concern. I think it's really great, certainly after the ice storms, et cetera. I don't think we have too many people that would argue underground or better. But is there somebody that could speak to that question? I was going to ask David if he might just comment on the price difference. Sure. I'm David Freiberg with Kentucky Utilities. And first of all, I'd like to say thank you all to Councilmember Feiglin for the staff for including us early in the process and letting us kind of act as technical assets, and we appreciate that. And also the willingness to listen to and, when possible, accommodate technical concerns we have with underground utilities and kind of giving the city legitimate kind of roles in reviewing and organizing this without getting into a position where they would be in conflict with our regulator, the Public Service Commission. But, Council Member Lawless, it sounds like some numbers that I gave to Joe Kelly the other day in terms of overhead versus underground in a street, in a road project environment. And there's always a difference between running a cable between two poles and jackhammering up the ground and putting in conduit. And there's always a higher cost for underground facilities of any kind. That differential is greater in some applications than along road projects where you're working with concrete in a built environment. That difference is greater. and it's $35. The numbers we gave Joe were for a project like Newtown Pike, $35 versus $400-some-odd. In a green space, in a setting of a neighborhood to be developed, the difference would still be there, but it wouldn't be as dramatic. So it wouldn't be that large a gap, but there would be a higher cost for the underground that tends to get absorbed into or passed on in the lot price or the home price, but it would not be that staggering tenfold. Do you have some idea of what the difference would be? It would be two or three times as much, but you'd be talking a couple hundred dollars differential or several hundred dollars differential instead of several thousand dollars differential for an average modestly priced home. Just for the facilities. Mr. Martin. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I guess apologies in advance for Mr. Fiber. I like Mr. Fiber, and he's a wonderful advocate for his company. But this is really a pet peeve of mine. Some of you who are at the planning committee meeting, the joint planning committee meeting, heard me talk about this. I'm sorry, but I'm going to raise holy hell about this. We're really missing the boat on utilities in Lexington. We are undertaking extraordinary expense on limestone to bury utilities there. The cheapest and most expedient way to do this is when a new development is going in. And so here we are spending a large amount of money to bury utilities, but we're completely ignoring the new utilities that are going up. I think what was done around the U.K. and the U.K. hospital with these large mammoth utility structures is just embarrassing and a shame for Lexington. And it's going to happen again on Newtown Pike. We're going to see those kind of large utility structures along our main corridor to downtown, the one that we talk about, inviting citizens here, telling them what a great town we have, our major corridor, and then we're going to have large, essentially, cell tower-looking structures lining all the way in. Is that correct? Are we going to have that on Newtown? I'm not familiar with what exactly would be on Newtown, but the point raised earlier is that it is a large part of it. It's a state project, some federal funding mixed in as well. And what often happens in those cases is policymakers look at how much we can do, And doing a little more is balanced against doing a little less differently or better. And those are decisions that are made by folks like you and the folks in Frankfurt and the people that expend the public monies. Hard call to make, though. Well, in a private capacity as president of my neighborhood association, I wrote a letter to council discouraging the approval of a cell tower in the middle of Cardinal Run Park. And because in my letter to the mayor and to the council at the time, I mentioned how important our green space is to us and that we have these spaces in order so that we don't let all the trappings of modern times take us over, and particularly in our parks to preserve our parks so people can have at least one place to go where they're not in the middle of some TV wire or electrical cable or something like that. And I think that we are allowing gross things to happen to our corridors. I do not know why these utility lines can't be done in the rear portions of property so that they're not an eyesore to the public and to visitors and that it destroys the beauty in the green space, which frankly is our golden goose here in Lexington. And so I strongly support looking at an ordinance to bury utilities in new neighborhoods. I strongly support requiring new projects along corridors to have the utilities either off the main street into rears of properties or buried underground. We should not allow this type of thing that happened around UK Hospital happen again. And I have been in state government as well and have dealt with the federal government on projects, and I know a lot of it is a matter of political will. And if you have the right political will on projects, things tend to get done. And we are selling ourselves out to allow large industrial-looking utility structures to line our corridors, and they're going to be there for 100 years. And when our children's children are driving down Newtown Pike, they're going to see these things, and they're going to wonder why we didn't put these things off the road someplace. They can go just about anywhere, but we're making a decision that it's just cheaper to put them along our roadways than to put them behind someplace. And I just don't think that balance and that decision about what our priorities are is correct. I would like to see these things off the major corridor. We are the bluegrass. We are the horse capital of the world. But we're sure not going to look like it. We're going to look like an industrial city with a bunch of large tower structures. So that's my stampede today. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Henson. Thank you, Chair. David, I have a couple questions for you. When there's a new development, the installation cost goes to the development, right? It would go to whomever is doing the development. Right. Typically, they spread those out into a much smaller piece per parcel. But then the repair cost, like if we have an ice storm or high winds, that falls on KU, correct? Yes. Okay. It is a cost that is carried across the state through our overall rate base. And one of the selling points of underground utilities are that they do, they are impacted less by weather, by weather events. But when they are impacted by mechanical failure or a dig-in, it takes longer to fix them. So they go out less frequently, but when they do, it takes longer to get to them and fix them. So do you have any figures, because that was my next question, is the cost, the comparison for repairs, comparing above ground to below ground? Well, I assume that the installation cost differential would hold as a rule with the repair differential, because basically underground, you're having to install bigger facilities that can't cool in the air. They have to have more room to cool and they have to be larger. And you have to install other devices and supporting materials that go with the underground facilities. I assume it is several times more expensive to repair the underground facilities as it is to install them, but I will find out and see if those kind of rules of thumb hold true. It takes longer as well, so there's a longer period of time that you'll experience an outage, even if it is less frequent. That's what the frequency would also be important, I think, It's like what kinds of things would cause a needed repair for an underground utility. We definitely know what causes problems. I mean, car accidents, there's all kinds of, just not to mention Mother Nature, but just the frequency, if we compare the cost, which one really outweighs the other. And I agree with Council Member Martin that I just think these huge poles all up and down our corridors are very, very unattractive. Thank you for being here. Sure. Mr. Beard. Thank you, Chair. David, is there not a differential also about what kind of power is being carried by these lines? And you mentioned cooling, but, for instance, the Lansdowne Drive transmission towers, Tates Creek Pike, I believe, has some form of transmission down the front on the west side. Yes, sir. And that subject came up in the discussion about the sidewalks, about whether they could be buried. But is there not a heavier cost for – From an engineering standpoint, our folks would tell us that there is a big difference between – there are better candidates for undergrounding than others when it comes to the size and the type of facilities we have. The smaller distribution facilities are an obvious good fit in that their size and the number of people that will be impacted by a failure are so much smaller than the larger transmission lines, the higher voltage lines, that are both much more expensive to put underground, and you have to balance the cost. But also, when there is a problem, it is not like driving down the street and seeing a tree in a pole or in a line or a car that has hit a pole. You obviously, our guys know exactly where the problem is and go directly to it. If an underground transmission line has a fault or a failure on it, they have to determine where that is, and that may take some time. And if it's a small line that's 50 people, you can value that on one hand, or is it a transmission line serving several thousand people, and that has a different value in your equation. So the larger facilities are more expensive to put in underground, significantly more so, and the impact of having an outage is much higher and tends to come out with different answers when you look at those different kinds of facilities. David, I don't know if you've got a copy of this or not, the final version, but it does exempt the high-voltage electric transmission lines and the distribution feeder circuits of 200 amps. Yes, ma'am, it does, and that's one of the points where we raised an engineering issue, and you all were willing to listen and factor that into what you ended up with, and we appreciate it. Ms. Lawless? Mr. Beard, are you done? Okay, thank you. Ms. Lawless? I, too, am very disappointed about the Newtown Pike power lines, holes, And, of course, my district has got UK and Euclid and those giant poles. And my big concern was, is this going to prohibit affordable housing? If I'm hearing from you, it wouldn't, then I support it 100%. Mr. Lane? The good news, I don't have a question for you. So thank you, David. I was going to ask one of the chairmen. Thank you, sir. Or the Council Member Feigel. My question was, have we actually vetted this with the Home Builders Association? Because most of this would apply to the people building the new subdivisions. I think before we tried to, you know, put a new ordinance out, I think it might be good just to get them to review it, maybe get some input too. David Freiburg's information from the power company is very, very good. I think maybe the home builders could also give us another perspective that might be helpful to us in working on this. I don't have a problem with doing that. However, I believe that one of the people from planning said that 90 percent of all of the homes that are built now are already, I mean, the developments are already underground. I think Mr. Schoeninger wanted to comment. The other, you'll also get public input. You're just initiating a text amendment. Planning will have to go through their whole public hearing process, and there will be ample time for the public, home builders, any interested citizens to voice their concern. Well, I mean, I'm suggesting they probably will be supportive, unless it's, you know, really inexpensive housing where there would be a problem to make it affordable. But I think most of the new subdivisions are underground. Any other discussion? At this point, would you like to make a motion? Yeah, I would like to approve or make a motion to accept the subdivision regulations as drafted and move those forward to the Planning Commission. We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? All those in favor, say aye. Aye. All those opposed? That passes. And the last item, let's go through the items in committee, if we could, and we'll have Mr. Schoeniger, if you would, just give us an update where we see the status and where we stand so we can prepare for the next council services meetings. To a certain extent, the council member that referred the item might have more information than I do. That's fine. We'll start with you. If we can start with the – you've dealt with the first three issues. Right. The Public Utilities Ice Storm Task Force, I believe KU still wants to come to the committee to give a further update after your discussions with the Public Service Commission about the outcome of the ice storm, I think. I'm sorry, Paul. That's fine. I believe Council Member Gordon wanted to still bring you folks back to the committee to give an update for your outcome. I believe that remains the case. and after August 20th, I think we'll be prepared to do so and we'll work with you to schedule that. So we'll keep that in the committee. Before, let's back up just a second. In our discussions earlier, is there a motion to take golf carts on public roads out? We have a motion and a second. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed will take that one out? Okay, Mr. Schoeniger. The next item about private solid waste providers, excuse me, Solid Waste is still looking at some information that the private providers are providing or not providing. So that will be ready, I believe, sometime this fall. Okay. The animal cruelty issue, this is something that was put into committee just before the break, or put back into committee just before the break. There was a, you folks, the council voted on an animal cruelty ordinance. I think there was some interest in separating horses from other domesticated animals. The law department, I believe, is working on that as well, and that might probably be ready for your next meeting. I'm going to rely on Council Member Meyers for some input on the sign ordinance. I know that he wanted to take a more comprehensive, holistic review of the sign ordinance, I believe. I do. And I know that they've dealt with downtown signage, which is sort of a separate issue, but this is more of a holistic one. And if you look down a couple more spaces, we've got imposing fines on right-of-way signage. So I would like to keep that in committee, and I'm working with a couple other council members to put something together. And then we'll come back to the chair to ask for maybe a formal work group or something being formed. Sounds great. Thank you. We'll keep it in. The next is a multi-way stop, Glendover Valley, that Councilman Rebeard put in. I believe you're waiting or traffic engineering is waiting on a petition from the residents, I believe. The employee automobile usage and reimbursement, although I think the program is ongoing, you had asked for some more information from General Services on how it's going and an update on how it's going, and that can be probably provided really at any time. So we can probably put that on the next meeting? You probably could. Okay. Again, I'm going to rely on Councilman Beard for the next one, but the Zandell stormwater ditch, you've had one presentation, and I think you were looking for some more information. I think the biggest issue there was the expense and cost. The cost was a multimillion-dollar project to cover that, I don't know exactly what you call it, ditches, as easy as any. You know, when we find money that we can do some beautification, that might be okay. But as far as really totally remediating it. We need to keep it in here then. So I think we can pull it. Okay. I have a motion to remove it. Do I have a second? Motion is second. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed, we'll remove that one. You've talked about the right-of-way signage a little bit. Right. In the curb replacement program, this is something that Councilman Gorton put into committee some time ago. I think she was looking for a program that would mirror the sidewalk replacement program. But to be honest with you, I don't know if any more. Let me follow up with her and see, because this one's been in for obviously a long time. It's time to do something or remove it. It looks like that handles all. Do I have a motion to adjourn? Mr. Lane? I'm sorry. Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to add a couple of items to this list. Well, you need to do that in the work session. Do that today at the work session. We'll add those in. That'll be fine. Okay. Any others? A motion to adjourn would be in order. Second. Second. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed, we are adjourned. Thank you.