and focus on our Volkswagen, Honda, and BMW cars. And we were really excited about giving away a car and bringing some extra excitement to the PIN program. Everyone who purchases a PIN from the PIN program has a chance to win a brand new Honda Accord LX. And this is one of our most popular models. It's won several awards in the industry, and it's made the car and driver top 10 list probably like 24 years in a row now. I think with all the entertainment, the vendors, and the activities planned, this is gonna be a really special event for Lexington. And most of all, we can't wait to hand the keys to the winner of that Honda Accord LX. Well, now that you know more about the benefits with the Spotlight Lexington PIN, be sure that you go to one of the 25 area Kroger locations, Commerce Lexington, or Don Jacobs Honda BMW Volkswagen on Nicholasville Road to get your PIN. They're only $5. Also, keep checking the Spotlight Lexington website, which is spotlightlexky.com for the most up-to-date listing of businesses that are participating and providing you with discounts. Hope you have a great day here from Victorian Square where the businesses are participating with Spotlight Lexington. ♪ And I will be your lover tonight ♪ ♪ With the lights for you and me ♪ Are you ready to horse around downtown? Spotlight Lexington, the free 17-day downtown festival celebrating the Alltech FDI World Equestrian Games is gearing up and ready to roll from Friday, September 24th to Sunday, October 10th. Tune in right here to GTV3 for daily updates and comprehensive coverage of all the food, fun, music, and good times. From man-on-the-street interviews to backstage pass footage, GTV3 will help shine a spotlight on the biggest event to ever hit downtown Lexington. For more thorough information, log on to lexingtonky.gov for up-to-the-minute content and listings for each and every Spotlight Lexington event. ♪ Yeah, freedom fly away ♪ ♪ Sharing the same desire ♪ ♪ Burning like wildfire ♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ Welcome to the September 21st Planning Committee meeting, and we do have a quorum present, so we'll go ahead and convene. The first issue on our agenda is the fence regulations, and I'm thinking that this is the second meeting we've looked at this issue, which Council Member Blues put into committee, and I'm thinking that perhaps Chris King, our Director of Planning, and Dewey Crowe, our Director of Building Inspection, are here at least to bring us up to date on what you have in the packet. Welcome. Thank you. I'd be glad to. I think last month we went over the suggested changes on heights of fences, particularly in front yard areas as it relates to concerns about site distance, which was the initial reason that Dr. Blues, I think, brought this primarily, although aesthetics were also a consideration somewhat as well. And I think we made that presentation last month, and unless you have any questions, we won't bring those matters back up. But in last month's meeting, a new question arose that you asked us to look into, and that was the question of orientation, particularly on wooden or stockade type fences where you have one side that has the posts and the structural members and then the other side that has the boards. And there was some question about, quote, good side or bad side and whether those should face inward or outward. Based upon your questions, as we promised, we did some research, and we found I think generally that most ordinances across the country are basically silent on that issue, which means you can put it either way. Some specifically said there's no right side or wrong side, but we did find some that did talk about orientation and how that should be done. And we shared that research with Council Members Feigl and Blues, had a meeting, and based upon that conversation, we put together a couple of quick possible versions of an ordinance text that you might want to consider, and I think these are in your packet. One would be as a general rule applicable to all fencing, whether it was just merely between private property owners, and the other would be some language that would be applicable only in a case where you abutted a public street right-of-way or a park or some other public space. And basically in very simple and clear language, it puts it where there are structural members of the fence. They would be on the inside or facing the property side rather than the outside. And, again, I think this is pretty much just a policy choice on your all's part if you want to pursue this, but we would be glad to answer any questions or comment further. Thank you very much. Council Member Blues. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Chris. Maybe footnoting a bit to our conversation when you and Dewey and Council Member Feigl and I met and Bill Sally, it seemed that if we were going to make any requirement on how a fence should face, it would be much more complicated if we did that across the board for every new fence. Right. Because of the need to sometimes build a fence which is connected to an older fence, which may face this way or may face that way. So I think that option two really serves a useful purpose. That is that it enables us to require that the supporting members of a fence face inward on all fences that are, as this says, adjacent to a public street, park or other publicly owned property. It's a matter of being, I think, a good public neighbor and of putting the best fence face forward, if you will. So I think it's a matter of putting the best fence face forward, if you will. So I would recommend to my colleagues that we, you know, that we add this proposed addition to the ordinance along with the fence height draft ordinance that we discussed, I think, in some detail last week and don't really need to recapitulate here. So Madam Chair, that would be my motion to move both this item, option two, and the fence height revision to zoning ordinance article 15 forward for consideration by the full council. So moved. Second. Motion by Council Member Blues, second by Council Member Feigl to move forward option two, which is fences abutting public property or streets, as well as moving forward the height recommendations, which is on the next page. Do I hear discussion? Yes, I do. Madam Chair, it just dawned on me from perusing in my mind the fence I have around my backyard. I have an 85-pound chocolate kangaroo, so I need the eight feet. If you do this, I'm thinking about gate latches. Mine actually have a padlock on them. It's going to break the continuity, is it not? Or you have to recess the gate? I mean, you can't have the gate with the hinges over here and the latch inside. Well, some. It's related to pools, but the members have to be on the inside, even on the gate. So it's recessed from the rest of the thing. Right. So it is a smooth appearance across the front. I think I've seen it both ways, but I do think that there's probably not anything unduly complicated in constructing a fence that way. Well, with the latch I have, it wouldn't work. It's the only problem. It just wouldn't work. But I'm grandfathered anyway, aren't I? Yes, sir. Thank you, Madam Chair. Chris, I have a question about alleys. Are alleys considered public or private property? Alleys would be in this draft. Alleys would be considered a public street. And speaking of grandfathered, in the case of Councilmember Beard's fence, if he were to need to replace a portion of his fence, I don't know if there's a permit required for replacement of a fence, but would the grandfathering still hold true if there's a replacement? And then how do you determine what percentage of replacement leads to a full replacement or a full new permit? We have not been requiring permits for replacement of fences as long as the replacement is exactly the same as what you had. In other words, if your fence has become deteriorated, so you have a six-foot privacy fence and you're merely replacing that with another six-foot fence, going back in the very same location, we've not been requiring permits. If you change the fence location or you change the style or go to a different type of fence, then we do require the fence permit to verify compliance with the zoning ordinance. So you do come into compliance in that case. But if you're replacing exactly what you have with exactly the same thing, then we don't require the permit and you're allowed to do that. And then the structural members could then be replaced back the exact same way that they are today? They would go back exactly the same way as they had been. I don't believe that this would trigger that since you're allowed to replace what's there and maintain what you had existing under that, the way we've been doing it. Okay. Thank you. I really think all of my comments have been addressed. I just wanted to make sure that everybody was aware that this is not retroactive, that anybody who has a fence out there today is not going to have to comply with this. But any new fence that goes up would have to comply. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. As proposed, we believe we don't see any significant enforcement issues. The language, especially on option two, as far as the orientation of the structural members, that's what me and Chris talked about, that's what we needed to be able to do that effectively, a language that didn't reference the good or the bad side, but strictly referenced something that's easy to determine, and that's structural members, such as the posts, the braces, the framing. And we believe, especially with option two, since this only applies to when you have a street frontage, we believe we can communicate that very effectively to constituents who would be calling and getting that type of information. So they're not worried about if they have an existing fence and their neighbor's face is in or face is out, do they need to match that or not match that. We think by limiting it to streets only, as you were proposing, makes the enforcement very straightforward and fairly easy to accomplish. So we don't really see any enforcement issues with that. It's very straightforward and we feel it's going to be easy to convey to those. Likewise, with the height requirements, we think those are pretty straight up and easy to convey to customers who need to get permits and will be calling for that type of information. We feel we can convey that readily. It's obviously very, it's measurable, it's identifiable, and that's the things we look for for good enforcement. We would be issuing the permits for the fences and we would be verifying compliance with these requirements. Okay, so any sort of complaint would come to building inspection. Yes, that's correct. I don't see other council members on the screen, so I had a couple of questions. In the option two, in all zones other than agricultural where fencing is located adjacent to, now the word adjacent, is there any specific distance? For example, if the fence is 50 feet back at the back of the house, the back corner, is that adjacent? You know how some homes will have fencing, they'll put fencing in the back of the house, they'll put fencing at the back corners of the house rather than the front across. Am I making sense on this? I think we need a picture sometimes, a picture is worth a thousand words. Making a backyard in essence. If the backyard doesn't front a public street or a public alley, then they wouldn't be subject to that. Okay, if the fence is at the back edge of the house across and shows from the street but isn't at the street, it does not fit into this. Is that correct? So technically if it doesn't fall within the front yard which fronts that or a side street side yard, I believe you're correct. That would not come into play if it's outside of those yards. So this is strictly the front yard? Well, it's any yard that has a street to it, either a front yard, side street, side yard, or in the case of a rear alley, an alley in the rear. So the rear would come into play in cases of public alleyways. Or what we call a double frontage lot like you find along New Circle Road, Man o' War Boulevard where the properties back up and don't have access. Okay. Now I know that I thought about whether to bring this up or not. And I'm going to bring it up. One of the ways that people get around this in other countries that I've observed is they put the fence at the level of the front yard. And then they build the solid bushes above it. That would be perfectly legal, would it not? As long as any required site distance wasn't interfered with. Okay. Very good. Council Member Feigl, did you have another question? Are you talking about if a homeowner chooses to have the fence set way back from the right-of-way? Yes, to fence a backyard, not a front yard. Where they aren't fencing their entire yard, but it has a huge setback, say 30 feet setback. And would the fence need to still comply with this? That was my question. And I think your answer was no. It would not if it's not on the front. Once the fence is out of that specific yard, then it would not apply. In other words, if your fence is past the front of the house, even though you could still see it from the street, that particular, what's that street? Okay. I'm either not understanding. But we're talking about the back of the house, right? The backyard. Maybe we can put a picture up from last month. Okay. Okay. This is, yes, this is very embarrassing. However, the slashes are the fence that fences the backyard. And I should have put a front door. The bottom of the picture is the street, toward the street. So according to what you said, that would be legal to turn the fence either direction, correct? I believe as you're showing it and explaining it, that fence would not have to have the structural materials oriented one way or the other. Because it starts, it's at the back corners of the structure. Yes. Thank you. That would be an interpretation we would make on how it's written. That would be my interpretation at this point, based on what you're proposing as the text amendment. So if you were called out to look at a fence like that, you would interpret whether it fits or not? Yes. Okay. Thank you. This is a question of maybe nobody that's in the room. It's something that the chairman said concerning bushes above the trees, above the fence. I've got trees on the mind because that's my next comment. I am seeing a lot, not just a little, a lot of tree limbs obscuring stop signs. And I don't know who does that, whether that's streets and roads or code enforcement or the police department or all of the above or none of the above. But maybe you all could help me on that or maybe Commissioner Webb might be able to. The arborist. Tim, lucky you were here. I have a property under our division of streets, roads and forestry that's enforced by my staff under Chapter 17B. It's supposed to be enforced, you mean? Yes. I'm seeing an awful lot as the summer has gone by, you know, the limbs have grown more. I would be glad to work with your office and get those addresses. Okay. We don't do any other, we wait for somebody to complain or run a stop sign and kill someone. Those are the two options. Sometimes on occasion it's easier for us to prune one tree limb out of the way. If it's an entire tree or bush or shrub that's obstructing the stop sign, we have to follow our enforcement process. This is in relatively new areas where the street trees have not matured enough to get the foliage up out of the way. And again, I've noticed it on several occasions, Wellington Way being one of them. Excuse me for interrupting, but the motion on the floor applies to fencing. So if we could take up the tree. That's fine. It was your comment that got me started. Okay, I'm so sorry. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'll ask, I'm not sure, was it Council Member Blues that worked with, that worked to help create the language for one and two? Okay. So Council Member Blues for option number two, based on what Council Member, the drawing, the beautiful drawing that Madam Chair did. Do you think we should revisit the language adjacent to, based on what she just said? When I first, I hadn't heard the original discussion about this. So I wasn't thinking aesthetics, I was thinking safety. So I was picturing that the structural membranes would be towards the inside so people couldn't climb over from public streets and such and, you know, get on to people's private property. So in thinking about the drawing that she showed, it's still, you still, if the structural membranes were there, you'd still be able to, you know, crawl over that or climb over. Do you want to revisit adjacent to, or are you good with it as it is? Well, I think I'm fine with option two as it is. I did not see this as a safety issue, but rather as essentially an aesthetic issue along the public right-of-way. And I think that, you know, obviously judgment would come into play. If you've got a fence that's right up against the right-of-way or close to it, clearly visible, then you've got option two, I think, in place. Farther back where it's not going to be a, you know, what shall I say, where it's not going to be really as visible, it's not going to, it's not really going to matter. So I'm fine with option two at this juncture. I think, just one follow-up, I think that if there would be a way for build-in inspection once, if this does pass, that you could give feedback to us of what's happening, what's going on. What's happening when you're actually going out there and citing, just to see and maybe report back to us and say if that language is getting us into any trouble or it's not clear or one inspector is seeing it one way or another is seeing it another, if you could come back to our committee and talk with us about whether we need to look at the language of abutting or adjacent to and get clarification. Yes, we'll be doing that as part of our process if this gets put into place and we start enforcing it this way. We will track feedback on that. And if we're seeing an issue, we will ask for some help. Okay. Chris, I think has more to add. Sure. I just also wanted to remind you that at this point you're really just talking about the language to initiate a text amendment process. So even when full council acts, it won't change the law yet. And we will be doing our research, notification to all the neighborhood associations, public hearing before we report back to you or the Planning Commission reports back to council. So we could look at that question as it moves along that process. That would be great. And just in case I missed the, I don't know when it's going to come back to us again, so in case I'm not here when that happens, if there's any way any language could be, if the planning staff could even suggest that after six months, come back and look at it or a year, automatically present that to either Planning Commission or to this committee. To just give an update of how it's going. Certainly. We'd be glad to do that. Thanks. Thanks, Madam Chair. Okay, thank you. So the motion on the floor is to forward the, to the full council to initiate a text amendment incorporating option two and the height, fence height guidelines. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All opposed. Nay. Are there any nays? Okay, that motion passes. So that will go next week to the full council as a motion from planning committee. Now, we have two more heavy duty. Items and then one that will be introduced. After those, we have secure by design and I see Commissioner, you have arrived. So, and then we have our parks master plan funding. So, I'm thinking maybe we could split our time here if it suits you. We'll see how it goes and spend about a half hour on number two and a half hour on number three and see how that works. So, secure by design. I really don't need, I don't need a half hour. So, okay. Well, okay. Thank you. So, let's move on to the second item, which is secure by design. And it starts, the text of everything starts on page five of the packet. And who will be police, our friends from public safety police will be presenting this. Welcome, Chief Bastin. I have Lieutenant Greg Jones with me today, who's our in-house expert on secured by design. We're prepared to do a presentation if you'd like, but we don't want to be redundant if it's information that you're already aware of. It might be more advantageous to have a question and answer session if there's some issues that you'd like more information about. Okay. What suits the committee? I know everyone got the written packet and has read that, I would presume. So, would you like to see the presentation or would you like to go to questions? Okay. Is it, how long is your presentation? Oh, verbal comments. Okay. I think we need to hear that then. That would be very helpful. Lieutenant Jones, come forward. Well, we know all those thousands of people in the public might want to know who watched this. Oh, absolutely. Secured by design is a program that began in England over 20 years ago. And secured by design U.S. would begin in Lexington, Kentucky as the first franchise and an opportunity to reduce crime and create socially sustainable communities, starting with Lexington. The program is based on abundance of research that's been done in England based on property crimes and specifically burglary and larceny in England. And the program showed that a significant reduction, somewhere around the neighborhood of 50% reduction in those type crimes. And what it involves is working with builders, planners, architects, government entities, et cetera, to reduce crime by looking at the built environment prior to projects being built. And there is a certification program that this is based on, and it's a, the plan is a five-year program here in the United States in Lexington, would be a five-year program with a platinum level and a basic level. But based on design guides and principles from this program to work together to make a safe and sustainable community. Some of the design guide elements, there's eight major elements that look at access and movement. It looks at site design. It looks at surveillance and the eyes on the street. It looks at lighting and ownership, physical protection, as well as activity in the area, and then an important element of maintenance and management. But this program is done on a voluntary basis. It is not required, but it is done on a voluntary basis. And we have, it began about two years ago when Chief Bastin and some builders and Dr. Derek Paulson and some folks went to England and looked at the program there and saw firsthand what's happened over there and some of the built environment and some of the results of what they've done. And it's tremendous. And the opportunities here to bring this here for the first time are really unique for this community. I'll be happy to answer any questions that you have. As it came before you the first time, you saw the resolution, and we wanted to revisit that to emphasize that we do work with other entities as well to make this happen in Lexington. Thank you very much. And you said you did work with the builders, the building community on this? Yes. Okay. We do have some questions. Council Member James. Thank you, Madam Chair. I wasn't quite comfortable with it because of some work that I had done with Dr. Paulson during the central sector and east and small area plans. I had some concerns about the Secured by Design program. Just wanted to get a little bit more information specifically about how they worked with planning and other government entities. So I do appreciate we met and we made amendments to the resolution, and I do appreciate that, the information we got. Since this information was presented in the planning packet, I've obtained some additional information that's raised my concern a little bit. And I feel really bad because I feel like we worked through the wording of the resolution, and I was content with the changes that we made with the resolution, but I have a few more questions about the program that would probably, I mean, I'll be willing to go into them today, but based on the new information that I've received, I don't know that I could support the resolution going forward until these questions are answered or at least brought to the attention that they need. Again, I'm willing to go into those questions now. Sure, sure. I wasn't thinking of this in terms of the LEAD program, but now that you've said the different levels of Secured by Design, so that makes me, it makes me, I go back to the LEAD program, and I think, I don't believe the urban county government has passed a resolution supporting any LEAD program. So what makes this program something that we need to resolve through a government entity, whereas something like a LEAD, like the LEAD certification is something that can be obtained by the building community or whomever obtains that, but it hasn't come through government to do that? What's the comparison, and what's the similarities and the differences that make this program go through a different process? Well, this program is largely crime-driven and crime data-driven versus energy and all of those things. Although we do believe that obviously crime savings and this program can leave a reduced carbon footprint, this is crime-driven. The model that we have adhered to is governed by the government in England, and this is an example for us to take those design guides and use them as a government. And we work with other entities as well as part of this. But it is crime-focused and it's crime data-focused. I'm not sure if I'm getting closer. I understand that it's based on crime and not on environment, like saving the world or saving the ozone layer and such. But I guess I'm just trying to figure out why this would have to be something that comes through the local government entity where the LEAD certification would not, where it has the different levels. So I'll ask a few more questions, maybe I can get to it. Mayor, do they receive money somehow from us becoming part of this? Do they receive any type of funds? No, they receive no benefit at all. As a matter of fact, they've been very helpful in providing free testing and evaluation of things like doors and windows and guidelines for that. But no, they do not at all. Or if Cheryl and I made a door or window we wanted to submit it, I guess we could do that too. But you go through, there are different entities that go through submitting their product in order for it to be certified as being secure by design use. Secure by design is not based exactly on specific principles like that. The idea is that a secure environment exists based, and there's some examples of some of the things we're looking at in your packet under those eight areas. It's based on secure windows and doors as a product of that, and that they have tested windows and doors. We're currently, that's a work in progress that we're working toward is to identify what secure doors are. For example, we have a door manufacturer that in England they have codes and architectural codes that don't exist in the United States. So that one of our efforts may be to look and see about introducing those type codes in the United States. The same door manufacturer makes doors in the United States, but under different codes and things like that. Those are the type efforts that we work with them on. There are no expenditures related to that. It's all just research and testing based. That's something that other folks have been involved with, with our folks from England. I'm not sure which ones have. We have a couple local entities that I understand have. Do you know what folks would know those answers? Probably some of the folks in England that have worked with our door company folks to see. The testing and part of the design is a small piece. The idea is that it is secure, and as we identify specific standards, those will be made available as well. I'm sorry, maybe I asked the question wrong. How does someone know that you're going through this process and tries to submit their product to be certified, secured by design? So Lexington, I guess, will be the first city in the United States to do this. Yes. So how do we know, if I know people that are building doors right now, how do they know that they need to try to get their product certified to be part of this program? Well, that's something they can submit as part of testing as we identify what strength and things like that, pounds of pressure and things like that, that a door will withstand or a frame or a jam or related parts and things like that. So you said some have already been tested. So how did they know about that? How did they know to become a part of offering their product for testing if we haven't started the program yet? Well, it's not just secure by design, but just as part of doors for testing so that we can evaluate what standards we would make. Okay. How did you find out, how did you get that information out to those people, trying to figure out between police and planning and a door designer that that information circulated? Eastern Kentucky University, the Center for Built Environment, worked with some of those entities to establish some door testing processes. Okay. What role and authority would we be able to play as a council with the secure by design in overseeing approved products and budgeting and that sort of thing? What role will the council have when this moves forward? The process is currently in place with the various technical committees and planning committees that various folks come together as we identified in the resolution to look at the plans and to talk about the development plans. And so various entities have a role there in the beginning. And that's the idea of the program is that things are looked at before environments built that could be unsafe and could contribute to criminal activity. Okay. You mentioned the trip to England. Did anyone from our planning staff go to England with you? Not that I'm aware of. Okay. I realize that there are some other programs that have a similar secure by design, but they go through the planning, like planning certification. Are you aware that there are other programs through like the National Planning Association that have certain secure by design techniques implemented into the planning facets of their government as opposed to the public safety standards? I am not aware of programs that consider the element of crime. I know there are some planning facets. I'm not aware of a planning program that considers criminal activity and what research from crime has shown. Okay. Is it that Lexington's crime is so bad that we would be considered as kind of a proto or the first city? Or how is Lexington ripe for this? How is Lexington ripe for this England type of secure by design? Any property crime is too much crime. And so any effort we make to lower that is an excellent effort. And research has shown that folks are willing to pay just what little bit extra that it costs. As you can see in your packet, the cost is minimal. Research shows that folks are much more willing to pay for that, just extra cost for a secure environment. And so the benefit is to the community, is to the feeling of safety and security in their own homes and in the neighborhood. Okay. And what's the relationship between the Home Builders Association and the secure by design? Currently we're developing that. We've met with members of it and continuing to foster not only that relationship, but with builders themselves and real estate folks and various other related fields. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Chief Bastin, Lieutenant Jones, thanks for being here. I was in the audience several months ago when the gentleman from London was here and made the presentation on safe by design. And it was an extremely impressive presentation, which made a lot of sense. And I was particularly impressed by the fact that safe by design is not a system of locking ourselves in. It emphasizes a good deal of open spaces, sight lines, good lighting, and it emphasizes the fact that it's not a system of locking ourselves in. Appropriate and attractive landscaping, which also does not give undue opportunities to people lurking in the shadows, so to speak, that is something much more than, and in certain ways, something less than sophisticated door locks, although that can be part of it. And then I was present at a BOA hearing when there was a request for some variance. I may not remember this exactly right. Dennis Anderson's Townley Center residential area. I think he applied for some variances so that the landscaping could be in the area. And the walkways could be adjusted in certain ways so that they were still attractive and appealing, but that they were more open and afforded greater visibility and openness and safety. So recognizing that this is a, you know, sort of a beginning program for us, that it can save potentially a great deal of money. Cut down on crime, cut down on expense. It also can cut down on a good deal of anxiety. We need more people to be able to feel safe in their neighborhoods without being locked in their homes. So for all of those reasons, Madam Chair, I would certainly support this resolution in giving it council support to go forward. So that the Division of Police could continue to work with home builders, with manufacturers, with landscapers, with developers, to make the kind of improvements that we are talking about here. Thank you. Do you get calls presently from citizens who would like a police officer to come out and check their house and see if it's adequately safe to some level? At least they think it's safe to some level. I know manpower is always a problem, but you don't want to turn on 100 people for the Saturday afternoon. But at the same time, that is available then. I'm getting a good nod from Chief Bastin. Absolutely. Okay. Well, the public should know that because there are products out there. There are tools that lock things of that sort. You keep on hearing about these home invasions. And it always starts out that they kick the door in. Like that's an easy thing to do. And I never knew that it was, but I guess it is. There's a program called SEPTED, crime prevention through environmental design, which is a part of secure by design. There's elements that coexist. But that's a program where some of our community services officers can come out and actually do a survey, a site look, and give you a report back and some feedback. And that goes along with extra patrols and things like that that our patrol functions can provide. Council Member Feigl. Thank you, Chair. One thing I just want to kind of clarify is that this is primarily targeted toward new construction, is it not? There are programs for new construction as well as existing constructions, refurbishment type programs as well. There are certifications for that also. I have a representative here from the building industry in the audience. I wondered if he wanted to speak to this. Welcome, Todd Johnson. Yes, ma'am. Well, I just wondered if you were familiar with this proposal and if you had any thoughts about how it might impact the builders and how they would react to this. Absolutely. I think it's a great program. Chief Bastin and I believe it's Commander Barnard came to us with Dr. Paulson from EKU in the early stages of this and have been working with some of our members. We also participated in the presentations that were done here when the folks from London were over doing their presentation. And we've been very supportive of it and appreciative of Chief Bastin bringing us in on the front end of it. And we think it's a very good thing. Okay, great. I think this is a great way for us to move forward. And I don't think that people will perceive this as Lexington having a high crime rate. So we need to do something to the extreme. I think it's more that we want to be on the cutting edge. So I think it's a great addition to what we have in our community. I'll follow the general direction of the other colleagues. I had a chance to work with Derek early on, maybe three years ago, Chief, when we first started imagining these initiatives. And my understanding is that you all have worked really well together to examine these questions and these opportunities. And I think it's a pretty good example of taking best practices from other places and introducing them into our operations. So I support it enthusiastically. Thank you. The Secure By Design in England gets operating revenue from the product manufacturers who have had their products certified. How will our office be funded? Right now, this is just voluntary. The difference in cost is minimal. The idea is to bring the voluntary builders in and show what products have been tested and proven to be most secure and advocate those products based on it. But again, it's totally voluntary. But we'll have officers that are working. Will the officers be volunteering their time with the program? One of the savings that we'll incur will be if we're successful and we have a number of builders who subscribe to this theory and reduce opportunities for crime, then we have to react less to what has occurred, the crime that's occurred. So in the long run, we think it's a great investment in reducing the amount of resources that we would have to spend for maybe a poorly designed property where we would inherit for the rest of the future to respond to when crimes do occur there. So it's worth our investment. We think we believe in it that much to take a leap of faith, put resources in it now, thinking that it's going to pay off huge dividends for the community as well as reduce the amount of resources that we would have to use to respond later if we don't consider these things. What do you make of the U.K. model of using the revenues from the products manufacturers to fund the program here? I really, to be honest with you, I think it's unreasonable for us to think that as large as our building industry is in America, that Lexington can drive that initially with a new initiative and get all the door and window manufacturers, lock companies and all those people to believe in us until they see some of it and see it working in order to change their practices. I think once we become a model for the rest of the nation, as we hope to do, and show that it's effective and that everyone supports it. It's a win for us if we get places that are built and less crime occurs. It's great for citizens who don't have to experience those crimes. It's great for the building industry if they can produce a product working with us, which will cause people to feel safer in their homes and businesses and so forth. So we felt like we were in a different position than England. England mandated some things and they were really concerned with getting crime reduced across the country. We're a pilot project. We want to take the lead here in Lexington, Kentucky and try to do something for the benefit of the community that others will hopefully recognize and want to come here and see how we do it. And that's been going on for 20 years in England. What do you think the hesitancy has been? Why do you think it's been that other cities haven't accepted this as their policy, especially cities that have a lot higher crime than we do? I think we've dabbled in it as a country. But we've never taken the step of doing a comprehensive approach like this is. We've done itty-bitty pieces along the way, and they may have had varying levels of effect. But with a comprehensive approach like has been done in England, they have the statistics to show the results. And after touring some of the places that I toured with the other folks that went to England, I was very impressed with what I saw. I was extremely skeptical, to be honest with you, when I went, and I wondered what I was going to see. But I came back believing that it was something that would be a great benefit to the community and something that we should take the lead on, even though it was going to cause a lot of work. Sure. And how much work would that be? How many of our officers will be placed on this issue? You're looking at one right now. You know, we're already getting a tremendous amount of inquiry from businesses and hospitals who are building here in town and builders who are wanting, they're saying, where are the standards, we want to do it now. So that's indicative, I think, of folks supporting the program. So do you see the number of people assigned to this particular project increasing within the next few months? I think it will. And I hope it does, because that will show that there are more people interested in it and we potentially have an opportunity to have a greater effect. Sure. Do you have a step-up plan to how many people per month or how many calls you get as to when you'll increase staff? We don't. We're going to play that by ear until Greg burns midnight oil, and then we'll figure out a way to assign someone else to it. If someone wants to get in touch with Greg, do they just call the main police office number? They can. And what's that number, just for anyone watching? 258-3600. Okay, thank you, Chief. Thanks, Madam Chair. Council Member Blues. Thank you, Madam Chair. I think as Chief Bastin says, this is a pilot program. It's already had a serious beginning here in Lexington. It shows great promise. I think that we should give this a boost. So I move to move Resolution Number 311-10 to the full council for consideration. We have a motion by Council Member Blues, second by Council Member Beard, to move the resolution forward to the full council. Council Member James. Thank you. I will support moving this to the full council. The police have done a great job of working with me on any of the concerns that I had, based on my experience with the input of Dr. Paulson during the central sector and east and small area plans. I do, however, I'm a bit skeptical on some of the licensing funding, some of the product certification, and how that process is working. It appears at this time there's a select group that's been included in. I don't work necessarily with the Home Builders Association. I work with other builders on things in my area that aren't certified through HBA necessarily. So I think we've got to do a little bit better job of reaching out. That's one reason I wanted to get the phone number out there for anybody interested. It appears from the information that's on the website, on all the websites, that England has done a good job with it, but I think we're missing some components of it. I think presentations are great. I think sometimes we get selected information at presentations. I'm not saying that anybody's doing that on purpose. It's just that if you are, and it's happened to me before too, if I have something that I'm supportive of and I'm presenting it, I'm going to present the things that make it look favorable. And that made me, that won me over about it. And I think it's okay to have questions about it. So I just, I would hope just as we do other things where we talk about funding now and in the future for things, that we would consider this, that we ask the funding questions. I think it's telling that no one's really asked those questions about this, but everything costs money. Even if it starts as a pilot and it grows, it's going to cost money. It's going to cost some of our officers resources. And we've been told in the past that pickings were slim for public safety dollars. So I'm just a little bit concerned about it. I haven't necessarily seen, I can't see the connection between this and the saving. I see a lot of time involved in a pilot program where we're the only city in the United States to do this. So I do hope for those of you that support it, that you will start asking the questions about funding currently and in the future. And although this can be seen as a powerful project, why haven't other cities in our nation done this, in our United States done this? So just be a little bit more critical of it, although it heralds to be great. Let's just ask, let's keep asking the questions and make sure that it's right. Thank you. Thank you. Do any other council members have questions or comments? I have one last question then, because I want to be sure I do understand that piece of it. Would the, if the council passes this, if the committee moves this on to the full council and the council passes it, would implementation of this program mean that certain vendors would be sole vendors and other people couldn't get in? I'm a little confused about that. No, it's open to anyone who's willing to look at or submit plans if it's a new environment and let the group look at all the folks that were mentioned, planning, all the entities that should be at the table when we're talking about that so that all concerns are looked at. But, no, we don't want to get into the licensing of products. Well, that was what concerned me. That's something that they're doing in England, but like I said earlier, we're not a large enough market with what we're just beginning in this country to do to get all the big door and window manufacturers, lock makers and all to be interested until they see some things built using these principles and to see whether it's going to be successful or not and worth their time to engineer things that will be, you know, suitable for the building environment that we're going to be doing. Like was mentioned earlier, though, the doors and windows are just some of the basic kinds of things, reinforcing those. And, you know, many of us for a long time have thought that a bigger lock would take care of things and a solid core door, but what we found out is that's the, you know, the weakest part of that is the whole frame and door combination. So you have to test both because many times when you kick the door, the frame, you know, it just kicks the lock out of the frame, out of the wood in the frame or whatever. So it has to be a secure frame for the door to do its job. Would those folks involved in this actually be publicly endorsing certain companies to do this? Do you envision that? I don't think so. I think what we'll have to do eventually, and, you know, Greg and I have talked some about it, is once we get some doors tested that we're currently using, and I think that's what's been provided so far, some of the ones that we're currently using that are kind of popular in the industry, compare where they are, we don't know, with the standards that they've created in England, and then we move from there to try to lobby folks to get on board with making the doors more sturdy, if they need to be, and those kind of things. Chief, what's your, I was interested in Councilmember James' comments, and one of the comments is that this program has been in effect, I think, you said 20 years in England. And it is curious to me why no one in our country has initiated it. What's your take on that? Like I mentioned before, I think we've done bits and pieces in crime prevention. There have been errors that we've gone through in the profession here in America where we've looked at specific things, done security surveys, but it was very narrow in scope, and it's never been to look at from the beginning of, you know, especially at the beginning of building to try to take under consideration things that could become a factor and provide an opportunity for crime. And in talking with the designers and developers, builders, typically they're not used to thinking so much about those issues as we do. When we talk to someone who we've arrested and we say, why did you choose this place instead of the one next door? We get some information, and that's what has been done in England. And they've done, they have 20 years of interviewing people and finding out why they choose certain things. And it's about opportunities. So in taking that information and trying to look at ways that we can reduce those opportunities, that's where you gain the reduction in crime. Do you know if any other city in the country has at least initially considered this and then said no? Do you have any research on that? I don't know. In talking with the folks from England, I didn't get the impression that anyone else was. I know while they were over here, though, they received some calls from, I think, the Department of Justice, who was very interested in, once they heard about the program and how they were over talking to Lexington about maybe talking to them about doing some other initiatives. Okay. Thank you very much. The motion on the floor is to forward this resolution on to the full council. And there are no other council members logged in, so will those in favor please say aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? All right. That passes. And the next item, thank you very much for being here. The next item on our agenda is the Parks Master Plan. And, Council Member James, thank you for putting this in committee before we move on. Council Member Feigl has put the Parks Master Plan funding into Planning Committee, and we'll move on to that. Do you have an initial? I do. Are you making the presentation, or do you have someone? Well, I think Mike Santer is here, and he'll probably interact with me. I really just wanted to more or less give you an update on where we are right now. Okay. And this starts on page 10 of the packet for those following the packet. Thank you. This body actually authorized us to go into a committee to look at creative funding sources for the Parks Master Plan. At this point, we have found a model in Louisville for a parks conservancy that we feel like is an extremely effective organization. It was created in the 1980s, and since then they have generated about $25 million for their park system. And we would like to use this as a model to go forward, but as we have entered into our exploratory, exploration of this, and I've talked with Mike Santer in law, it's a very complicated and very involved process involving setting up a 501C3. And I bring this to you because I feel like that the mission that you gave us as a committee was to explore opportunities, and I didn't know how far you wanted us to go with this, because it actually involves beginning to create articles of incorporation, board of directors, bylaws. There's a whole list of items that have to be developed in order for us to create a 501C3 and begin to set up the conservancy. So I just wanted to bring that to you today to find out how you wanted us to proceed with this. We can certainly take it on as a committee, but as you know, the committee only meets monthly, and sometimes we haven't even met monthly. And this is a very involved process, and I think it would take a very long time for a monthly committee to move this forward. So I thought you might want to consider an alternative. It does seem to me that your charge was to look at alternatives. And so if the council approved something like this, then I'm just thinking off the top of my head, a specific committee to do this would be formed. So, Mr. Sanner from law, would you like to add, maybe walk us, give a brief walkthrough? I'll just add a few things rather than go into all the nuts and bolts. I think Council Member Feig will attach the steps, and there's some 13 steps, and filing the 501C3 papers is the 10th step. So you've got nine steps before you file for the 501C3. One of the initial determinations you need to make, is this going to be a privately run organization, or will it have government tie-ins? I believe when the gentleman from Louisville presented his presentation last month, they are a privately run corporation is my understanding. I think they are a private organization, but they did start out with support from the city government in terms of funding, just seed money to get going. So there is a partnership. Right. There's a partnership, but establishing them are different steps. If it's a government run, then you need an enabling resolution. And then, of course, the corporation would be subject to open meetings, open records law as well. Okay. Stay right there, if you will. Council Member Lawless. Have you all looked at joining with an existing 501C3, like the Blue Grass Community Foundation? No, we have not talked about joining with them. I know that right now we do have some funds that go through that organization. I think Jerry Hancock is here, and he might be able to speak too. That's an excellent way at least to start, even if you want to break off later. They administer it very inexpensively. Mr. Hancock, would you speak to, we already have that at Blue Grass Community Foundation, and you might be able to highlight that. Our Director of Division of Parks, thank you for being here. Thank you. Eight or nine years ago, Dr. David Stevens left some money in a donor directed fund at the Blue Grass Community Foundation. Blue Grass Community Foundation is itself a 501C3, under which it has many funds. And we have raised some money through that entity called Parks of Fayette County. And if any of you are leaving office and would like to leave some of your campaign funds to us, we'd be happy to administer them for Parks' benefit. But I think the issue here is that in order to raise significant amounts of money on a going forward basis, community business leaders will want to step forward, we hope, to participate, and they will likely want to have a fund that they can be assured is not in any way commingled with government and that donors and contributors would have that same assurance. The foundation in Louisville has been particularly successful using high-profile business executives in that community in this effort, and they have wanted to be clearly separate and apart from government so that there's no hint that the funds might be used for some general fund purpose. So I think there are a number of relatively small but meaningful decisions that need to be made. We need to understand the council's will toward encouraging a separate entity to be established in the community to serve future parks' needs and the sense that that would be controlled with all of the Sarbane-Oxley kinds of directives that we would want to follow. But it would clearly be a separate fund administered by independent individuals whose sole focus is to see parks grow and prosper in the future. So we have a small fund today, but I think the idea here is how do we enable the community to contribute to something that would be significantly larger. Did that answer your question? Well, I'm really not sure how doing it under the Blue Grass Community Foundation would. It's like Friends of the Dog Park. We have the Triangle Foundation. I mean, there are a lot of entities, you know, and like I say, oftentimes it's much easier to go, rather than create yet a whole new one. But that's up to the committee. I'm not on the committee. I was just throwing out a suggestion. If I might add, Friends of the Dog Park, as Jerry well knows, is a nonprofit that's non-governmental, and yet everything it raises goes back into the park. This is a very similar thing, only this would be on a much larger basis for all the parks. Is that what you're thinking? Yes, that's what I'm thinking, that we would have large, visible business leaders sit here and make decisions about their fundraising, would establish an initial list of priorities, probably target two or three somewhat low-hanging fruit that the community can see as benefits of contributing, and that annually would come here and report their progress and their future needs. Council Member Blues, were you finished? I was just going to remark, much like Fifth Third Bank went through the downtown Lexington Corporation for their very large contribution of the pavilion, and so, you know, it's... Council Member Blues. Thank you, Madam Chair. What we do know is that we have a lot of parks, some of them very beautiful, and all of them with great potential. What we don't have is money to adequately fund and develop them. And I think that to bring our parks up to grade, we're going to need significant infusions of money. So my question is, would such a foundation, such a 501C3, if created, would it be perhaps an advocate for a separate revenue stream for parks and recreation in our natural environment, perhaps? Let me answer the question indirectly and say that should we, as a group here, decide that parks' needs for capital funding are greater than the sums that the general fund can contribute, and that a foundation could be provided, before that next question might be asked of how do we raise those other dollars, I would think it incumbent on us to answer the questions of the citizens. Have you attempted to raise some needed money from the philanthropic community? And this, I think, would be the effort to do that. The other dollars, I think, is a question that ought to be asked and answered. But I see this effort as the next big step for parks in answering citizens' concerns about have we looked everywhere other than through taxes, perhaps. And so to raise the dollars privately, I think, we would be best served by having a separate 501C3 set up that business and civic leaders could contribute to. Raising money privately, I see this as a step in order to answer the question, have we looked everywhere first? So I see the two being separate, certainly, initially. One thing that concerns me is that a 501C3 might be focused on, and I think would be, to a certain extent, focused on particular areas of the community. And these are projects that may not address comprehensively all of our parks' needs. And these, I think, would be worthy projects, worthy goals, such as what the Friends of the Dog Park have done for several of our parks, the Equestrian Trust, and so on. But I would hope that we would get to serious advocacy for serious public support for our parks. Our parks are our most direct relationship with the public, and such an important one. So I would just put that out there as, I guess, a hope. Keep in mind that Louisville Parks has three primary fundraising arms that assist the Parks and Rec Department. The first is the general fund, which is the sole source of funding, for the most part, here in Lexington today. They also have the foundation, which we're talking about now, which raises money privately. And the third is a new, huge, and it appears successful endeavor called 21st Century Parks. So in Louisville, there are three large, multimillion-dollar arms, all seeking to raise funds for different but related purposes. And one of their roles is to work together to make sure that the overall citizens' needs are being met, and not just those needs in certain areas or in certain kinds of amenities. So I see this as a next step where, over time, the group that sits here and helps raise money will be able to do that. We'll create a prioritization list that will be shared here before anything goes forward, but they won't be the sole, single voice of park improvements. There will certainly be the general fund kind of initiatives that you all vote on on a regular basis. And this could be only one of, hopefully, other arms that are created in the future to help raise funds for the community. Well, thank you very much for that. You know, this initial discussion and what you and Council Member Feigl have gotten started here, and I hope we can move it forward. Council Member Feigl. I just wanted to add one thing that might help to help clarify this a little bit. I see this as an advocacy group, more than just a 501C3, more than just a vehicle to accept donations. I see this as an advocacy group. The members of the Board of Directors would be involved in probably taking the master plan. We have a great parks master plan, but we don't have a financial plan to go with that. So I would envision this Board of Directors taking the parks master plan and trying to determine what it is that we need to complete our parks master plan to finally set a goal. And then being the advocates then to raise the money to make that happen. And obviously it's going to take years before that happens. But as we've all seen going through the last two budget cycles, we don't have the kind of funding that we need in our park system, just to maintain, much less try to improve some of the land that we have available to us, but we don't have the funding to improve that land and to make it usable spaces. And I see this board as an advocacy group that will go out and raise money to complete some of those visions that we have for our park system. Okay. I wanted to ask a couple of questions, and I'm not sure whether Council Member Feigl or Jerry or Mike are, one of you surely will know the answer. One is, do you envision that if our council were to set up something like this, that the friends groups such as Friends Groups, Friends of the Dog Park, and some of the ball, I don't know what they're officially called, the baseball groups that put a lot of funding into the park, soccer, that those entities would go away, or that they would be partners continuing? Because those are all very focused on specific parks' needs where the people who give are the ones that are going to be the users for those specific needs. What's your vision of how they would dovetail? I don't see them going away. In fact, I hope they'll continue to thrive and participate and partner with us. I think we need more of them. I see them continuing to participate, whether they would choose to use, let's call it the Lexington Parks Foundation for lack of a better term, whether they would choose to want to use that as a, quote, checking account or not, I think is an open question. Councilman Lawless, to your point, the Bluegrass Community Foundation, under its new leadership, is sending signals to me about a much greater willingness to work with small groups. The foundation, by design, is not an easy in, easy out, checkbook kind of an affair. It's designed for money to grow and capital to accumulate so investments can be made. They've sent me signals saying they want to work much more efficiently with smaller groups that have $10,000 or $20,000. Whether that would fit inside this organization or not, we don't know. I don't think we're here today to tell you this is the end-all, be-all. This is all very complicated stuff. We're trying to get a sense of whether a fairly radical idea of a 501C3 outside of government's coffers is something that you understand to be a positive thing or not. And we've got a lot of I-dotting and T-crossing before we come back to you with what we're going to do. This is exactly what we want to do. The idea here is, is this a good idea? It has worked in lots of other places like New York City, like Louisville. We think it will work here. We want to move down the road toward being able to come here with something three-quarters of an inch thick that says, please vote on this. Leadership will manage it and control it and not abuse it as a way. People don't like to give money to the general fund. You may have heard that somewhere else, but it is true. And so what we're doing is planting seeds here and seeing how you respond to that. How that will work with every small group, I can't tell you today. We have much bigger communities than Lexington, and they have large corporate headquarters. So I'm wondering if you see that as a potential bigger challenge, because Lexington doesn't have large corporate headquarters, or do you see this as something that would be on a smaller basis perhaps? It's both a challenge and an opportunity for us. We have Fortune 500 companies there, Fortune 100 companies. It doesn't mean their doorbell's not ringing. There's as long a line outside their door as there is outside Lexmark's door here. We don't have as many of those companies. We won't be able to raise $300 million quickly or $20 million quickly, but we'll never raise any money if we don't start. Thank you, Madam Chair. I am part of the Parks Master Plan funding group and sat in on the conference call regarding the conservancy. And I will say that one thing I got out of it is that I think the importance of seeking funding is to be sure that we are providing the services that the citizens are asking for. So you gain support by offering the services that the community will support. That means that if I work at Smuckers, then that's what I'm going to be talking to Smuckers about, supporting in the community because my children love football. That's what I'm going to be aiming for them to go for, that sort of thing. Because in the groups like the friends of groups, I think it's critical that you do have those friends of groups, but you also listen to what the community is saying that are not part of the friends of group and how they're spending their pastimes and support those types of things. Because those are, as I think Council Member Blue said, that's what our citizens see. That is the one way, when you're driving down the street or walking down the street, you see the parks. Everybody sees those. They see the parks and the roads. And so if you can have the park system be something that the citizens are supporting, they say, hey, I'm a part of that, I understand what's going on, you then gain the moral support to support other things in government and we look good in their eyes and we're providing things to get us out of that obesity rate that we're in right now. So I think that's one thing I got is that, you know, although I think one of the, there was a perception maybe that, they talked about the perception of a conservancy was to have green space. And where green space is great, it doesn't work in every neighborhood. So they talked about, you know, in one neighborhood, I think it was Cherokee Park, they have things like basketball courts that they fund through the conservancy. So things like that is really critical, not getting in our minds what we want it to look like, but instead having the citizens say what it is we want provided in our park and then be willing to fund that, even if it's something we don't choose to do ourselves. So I think that's one thing that I got from it, just encourage as we move forward. I do think it's a good idea. I think it's a good idea to have a separate nonprofit, maybe, to do away with that perception and let that nonprofit do as it will and be a partner in it by providing the information that our citizens provide us. Thanks. Thank you. Thank you. I was just curious if you had taken a look at that. We'll take that out. The only other comment that I wanted to add to this as well is that I believe that developing a good park system is as much economic development as it is anything else. And we've talked about this before where everything we do is economic development. And I know that families with children will often look at two things when they choose a place to live, and that is the schools and the park system. And if we have to show our park system to people that we're trying to attract to Lexington, I'm not sure it says what we want it to say. So that's really my impetus for being involved in this is I believe that it is a reflection of our community. And I feel, I guess I'm pretty saddened that we don't have the kind of funding that we need to have the top-notch park system that we want. Thank you. Thank you. Are there any motions at this time on this issue? Are you actually finished with your exploration of possibilities? I don't think that we're done with looking for possibilities. I just felt like that this was almost another whole project, and I didn't know if this board wanted us to continue to look at this and bring back something or if you wanted to set up a separate committee. Is there any motion on the information that's come forward? Do you want to move forward to council or set up a subcommittee to look or ad hoc to look at this particular proposal? I really believe that a subcommittee is probably necessary. I'm not sure who that might entail, if it's members of this group. We had a presentation by Mr. Bill Juckett from Louisville very recently, and we had a subcommittee. We had a joint meeting between the Parks Advisory Board and our Parks Funding Task Force. So I would rather see this committee be a joint mission between the Parks Advisory Board and council. So are you suggesting perhaps setting up a task force or a work group made up of planning committee members and Parks Advisory Board members to flesh this out for Lexington? I think that might be a good idea. That's an excellent idea. And certainly we have to have some assistance from the law department, because a lot of this is the legal work that we need. Just one quick question on this. Would participation from the private sector be relevant at this stage? From who? Private sector. Absolutely. I would appreciate hearing a motion to this effect if you want to move forward. I would like to see the logistics of creating a 501C3 to bring back to this council or to this planning committee for its review. So we have a motion by Councilmember Feigl and a second by Councilmember Ellinger to ask the vice mayor to appoint a task force to look into, and the task force would be made up of private sector, Parks Advisory Board, and planning committee members to further pursue setting up a 501C3. Okay. Mr. Blues, are you off? Okay. Councilmember James? Would Blue Grass Community Foundation be included as a private sector potentially? I think having Lisa Atkins or someone from that office would be helpful to us, since Director has said that they are interested in helping with kind of smaller non-profits. I'm not sure how you're feeling. They actually would want to do it within their organization, I suspect. In many ways they're seeking the same individuals to contribute to their funds. I don't want to say that we compete with them. I would, though, say that I think it's important that we think long and hard, all of you, about who you see as eventually sitting on this, who can contribute to community-wide fundraising and support. Whether the community foundation sits on this or not, I think is an open question. It's not clear to me that that would help us and not necessarily detract from what they do. Maybe the University of Kentucky Center for Non-Profit. Great idea. I think that's an excellent idea. Anyone opposed? That motion passes. Thank you, Council Member Feigl, for bringing that to us. Our next item, which I have added to our agenda, is tree-related regulations. We thought, if necessary, and if we don't have time to really delve into this in detail, we'll at least introduce it. Council Member James, would you like to start us out? Sure, I'll start us out. I'm passing around the actual ZOTAs and the amendments. It's the same information that's in our packet, but just in individual forms. So that way, if we wanted to move one thing forward today, we could, and we'd have other things to look at. We have in the audience today, Ed Gardner was our legal assistance with this. Ed joins us on the tree board for our meetings. We have the chair of our tree board, Karen Angelucci. We have Tracy here to help us from the law department as well. She's in planning, and she has helped us with this as well. And, of course, our urban forester, Tim Query, is here. The proposed ordinance changes and the changes that you see in your packet from pages 41 to 44, rooted out of, no pun intended, the tree board. And we have been looking really closely as we're encountering, as we're getting complaints from citizens, as we're getting complaints from citizens, encountering issues, what we can do. We're supposed to be in an advisory role to the council to make suggestions for any changes. And so what you have presented are the amendments that we believe need to occur, and we are here to discuss those. Madam Chair, we can go through them however you see fit. I think that our chair would be the best person probably to go through that. She has a great way of putting things. She just does it so much better than I do. Okay. Very good. We'll start with number one. Karen Angelucci and packet page 40. I'm assuming that packet may look different. Does your packet look different? Unfortunately, Bob Carpenter can't be here, because he's hurt his back. So he's crucial on the first one, but it has to do with article 18 of the zoning ordinance. And this one has to do with, let's see. Bob, or Ed, is this the bonding one, number one? This is the one to change the ordinance on corridors. Sorry. Right. The first one has to do with the corridors and the ordinance that allows the planting along corridors. Up until now there's no teeth to enforce if business owners are adjacent to the corridors and they have landscaping. This is going to help put teeth in that so that they can go back and require these people to maintain their trees in a corridor situation. And what they've done is they went through and looked at all the other corridor ordinances and smoothed it out and made it more effective for Bob Carpenter and his guys to effectively keep our corridor trees and landscaping in good order. Just to elaborate a little bit on that for the committee, the language that's crossed out in 18-4 was very, it's just very vague. All landscaping materials shall be installed in a sound workmanship like manner and according to accepted good construction and planting procedures. Well, that's fine if everyone's in agreement with what that means. It's very subjective. So the language that was added was a specific language that's been adopted by our council. So all the underlying language on page 41 is language that we have adopted as our council. And we thought that's where the teeth comes in, because that is language that building inspection will be able to use when they're going out to site. Thank you, Andrea. Exactly. We may have questions later after people have agitated on it. It took us over a year to compile these, so I don't expect you to do it today. It would be great if it could happen today. 18-8 is the enforcement part of 18-4, so that's something that they haven't been able to do. Article number two, which is article 26 of the zoning ordinance, we simply just added the words, you see the underline, and redevelopments subject to review by the planning commission. Up until now, we're promoting infill, we're promoting redevelopment, and up until now, unless it's a brand new street or a brand new subdivision, they're not required to put in landscaping. So we would like to see if someone redevelops a block of the city, we would like to see them put in some trees and make sure that there's wording in here, because up until now it says in new developments. It would be nice to go back to the infill and the redevelopments and make sure that those areas are constructed the way we expect the new areas constructed. Why forget the infill areas? Those are the ones that really need the trees anyway. So that's what article 26-1, that's the only change in that, and that's just broadening it. Go on, go ahead, and we'll get questions. Number three is article six of the landscaping. And you may remember, this is very minor too, but it's adding crossing out new collectors. This allows street trees and plantings for residential, local and collectors to be on all collectors and connectors, not just brand new. So it's really just simply changing a few words to make everybody the same and not just new neighborhoods versus old neighborhoods. We would like to see some changes as far as who collects, like in number four, as determined by the urban county government landscape examiner. I think that we just thought that was it should go to when they submit platting and I'm sorry, forgive me, make sure I'm on the right page. Is this on platting? When they go, we're just trying to simplify it. Instead of them having to go get permits here and there and here and there and somebody's collecting the money. It all goes to the general fund anyway. So we're trying to simplify it. And that's what number four is talking about. Number five is the same thing for fee assessment and collection. Talking about who collects the money, who collects the $10. Instead of division and billing inspection who currently collects the money, we feel like it should be done at the time when they do their plat. It's cutting, it's saving time and effort on the people going after the permits. Article six, the timing of tree planting. We just changed a few things there because if you look on 610B for planting, it says that they need to plant within one year. And there's certain times, especially now with the drought and there's just certain times of the year that's not good to plant. So we thought why put that in there? As long as they are required and they are in accordance with the engineering manuals, that's fine. They still have a requirement to put them in there. We just don't feel like there should be a deadline. Because sometimes they put them in there when they don't need to be in there, and that doesn't work out well for the tree, if I'm speaking for the tree. That was also the area that helped with the bonding, to be able to include trees in bonding. Right. And that's coming up here soon. Chapter five, number seven, which is the chapter five, you all will remember a few months ago I came and we talked about trying to delete, you know, it was questionable why there's apparently $100 per tree that should have been collected and it's not been collected. And it comes down to a mystery of about ten years where one year they did it, one year they didn't, one year they did it, one year they decided not to do it. So we're trying to make it right. And the way we feel like making it right is to get back to a bonding system where street trees are put in when the final course of asphalt is put in. What's happened is because there's no bonding on street trees and now we have bankruptcies going around as far as development sites, the trees are the last to go in, so they don't go in because there's no money to put them in. That's where the people that's been helping me, Ed and Marwan and Bob, they've been very helpful because a lot of this is not exactly my expertise. But it would be nice if when the final course of asphalt, the final concrete, all that stuff was put in, then the trees came in and there was money set aside for that, and when they finally got the trees in, they got their money back. So that's the purpose of bonding. One minor change to the street tree ordinance was to keep vines from, invasive vines from covering trees, street trees. We would love to see this citywide, but we can't go into private property. But what we can do is keep street trees clear of invasive vines. And there's a lot around town. If you go looking, they're out there. It's our non-native euonymous. It covers the tree. It hides defects, hides hazards. It would be hard to go into the old neighborhoods and enforce this, but we have an enforcement problem anyway, so let's start it somewhere, and that way the new neighborhoods will say, oh, I really shouldn't grow this ivy on my tree. So it's starting, trying to start a process that should have already been started. And then I think number nine is the bonding issue. What have I missed? Oh, which one was that? Oh, that's the I see. Well, and the one we have added was to add to this, and this is Bob Carpenter's department, and I'm sorry he can't be here, so that will be a question. We probably need to talk with building inspection. Can you elaborate on that for Bob? Where are you in the packet now? Let me do this, and we should have done this at the outset. We had a last minute, meaning yesterday, that provision that she's already covered it. It's the part about collecting the fee, but it did not get into your all's packet, and so you've been looking at different, if you haven't been following the numbers, that's why. I wondered why we hadn't been able to be following the numbers. And there are some, well, the council members disappeared off the screen. I thought we had some questions, but we may not. Well, it was an oversight. I'm going to blame Bob, and he's not here, so I can really blame him. It doesn't change the purpose and what we want to do, but it is a text and wording, so. So what is in the packet we need to ignore, is that correct, Mr. Gardner, and substitute what you just handed out? It just, we inserted the I misspoke. It's not the fee, it's the determination related to trees, which is under number four in what you've just been handed. Type a number? Yes. Right, and Mr. Carpenter had requested that change. Yeah, and it wasn't really a change that came yesterday. We just overlooked it in the it was a typo, we just overlooked. Okay. Council members, do you have questions at this point? I know this is a first look. Yes, Council Member James. Yeah, I just wanted to, I guess these are, a couple of these are ZOTAs, Ed. Ed. A couple of these are ZOTAs, so just wanted to be aware of, does it need to, will it need to come out of this committee, then go to the full Council and then forward it to Planning Commission, or can this committee forward directly to Planning Commission? It will need to be forwarded by the Council. The Council will actually have to initiate a text amendment, so it will not be something this committee can do. We've done that before. We did it for the underground, for undergrounding utilities and developments, and there's another one that will be walked on today related to something else, but it does, it would move from this committee to the full Council for a resolution. Okay. Thank you. Members, do you have questions? Karen, did you, what sort of input did you have with the building, builders, building community? I believe Mr. Johnson's here, if he wants to. I mean, in the process. They were very cooperative. Actually, I just didn't face any interference at all. So they did thank you. I mean, I gave them forewarning that what we were hoping to do, and nobody really said anything to me. So do you want to elaborate, Mr. Johnson? And our tree board representative can't be here today, so he's sent. Andy Hills is our representative that serves on the tree board, and he has changed positions, and I did see an email back and forth between he and Ms. Angelou regarding him changing positions and what to do with our vacant spot now on the tree board. We do have a couple of questions that we haven't, that I haven't had a chance to talk with the tree board members about. I just, I looked at this yesterday for the first time, and we do have some questions on a couple of aspects that probably would be better held in a forum other than this one. Okay. It might be a good idea to keep this in committee then. Sure, that would be great. Get some feedback after everybody's had a chance to read it and study it and you've asked your questions. Council Member Beard. Thank you, Madam Chair. Karen? Yes. Page 3, 6-10B, type 1, type and number of trees. Uh-huh. Slight confusion in my mind anyway. Trees shall be required to the standard of one tree per 45 feet of street frontage for large trees, 35 for medium trees, and 25 feet for small trees. Now, is that when they're planted? Or is that five years from now or is it 25 years from now that they're large? When they talk about the size of the tree, if you look on our website, and we even have brochures for street trees, they're broke down into large, small and medium species. So if you decided to plant a honey locust, which is probably a medium-sized tree, you're going to have to plant it 35 feet apart. That's what it will be at maturity, in other words. Right. Okay. That's all I was trying to get clear. At maturity, the size of the tree. Is that correct, Tim? And the reason we've scratched that is because the landscape examiner, to my knowledge, I don't even, I'm not even sure that. Do we have one? It was Bob, but he's not. Okay. I see. Did that finish your questions, Council Member? Well, I just wondered if we need to say that. At maturity. Oh, at maturity. Well, we could add that. He wants to say at maturity. The tree's at maturity. So Chris King, Division of Planning, has jumped up with some input. Again, it doesn't need to because the species are already classified in the planting manual and other materials. Back when this was created, when the zoning ordinance was written back in the 70s initially to deal with that, we're very specific. So it's by species. So you go to the species list, as Karen was saying, and it tells you that that tree is a small tree or a large tree. So you don't really need that language in there. Okay. Fine. Fine. Thank you. Council Member James. Thank you, Madam Chair. I just wanted to make a comment regarding the homebuilders' input. Was there a representative of the homebuilder at our last tree board meeting? Well, I would like to say that I've reached out over a year ago and got not much input. And it's taken well, I've been on the tree board for almost three years, and the homebuilders have been there maybe twice. So it's not from lack of outreach and lack of e-mails, because I certainly am capable of that. Sure. And you don't have to say any more, because I wanted to point that out to the Chair, that the tree board is purposefully made up of a wide variety of organizations and entities. And we've got the utilities represented, we've got the state represented, building inspection, legislative body, and we do that to be able to get that type of input. If at this point, when it's coming to a committee, when we've been discussing this for the past year, someone has an objection, it just kind of rubs me the wrong way. And again, we've reached out. We have that spot left open for them. They really need to attend. And it's difficult at this point to yield when they've had so long to be involved. So if there's any encouragement that anybody can give to this organization, that it's critical that they be a part of that. And while I'm at it, the Affordable Housing Trust Fund as well. We really need their input on that. We knew that. That's why we were forthcoming and wanted everyone to know what we were up to. It sounds like you've done your due diligence. Mine was simply a question of information. Is there any other question or comment? And we have lost our quorum, so Council Member Myers, would you for the next seven minutes be part of our quorum? Oh, here comes our quorum again. We lost. Madam Chair, would it be appropriate at this time to offer that these amendments move forward to the full council, or do you feel like we need more time? Do you want to wait on some comment from Todd Johnson? I think that's up to the committee. What do committee members want to do? I would move that we hold it in committee until our next meeting and give everybody ample opportunity to give us their input. I know that the committee has, the tree board has done its due diligence, but as the planning committee, I feel like we need to make that opportunity available too. Did I hear that in the form of a motion, did you say? To keep it in committee. Okay. Council Member Feigl moved and Council Member Ellinger seconded that we keep this in committee and re-hear it on October 19th with any input on that date and then be prepared to do something with it. Between now and then, I'm going to e-mail to Todd and he can e-mail to Mr. Johnson the proposed changes to the engineering manuals, which is where the bonding comes in. He will get with home builders and others and then probably respond formally to that and then they can obviously come at this meeting, your next meeting, since it's going to stay in committee, but that will be something that's happening in between. Our committee meets again on October 19th. I'll be getting that out to him today or tomorrow at the latest. Okay. Council Member James. The tree board meets on October 13th and we meet at 1030, usually it ends at noon, and we meet on the fifth floor of this building. It would be great if the Home Builders Association has any concerns or questions. That's a room full of tree experts and we've also been delving to the issue for the past year. It would be great if we could have the concerns raised at that meeting prior to coming back to this planning committee. Thank you. Very good. Thank you, Council Member James. I want to thank Jerry Southers sitting in to substitute as our staff. Do you know if we have a Liberty Road or a Newtown Pike update that was to be distributed at the meeting? Did you receive that? It wasn't presented to me. Okay. So we'll have those presented. They were simply to be written reports at the next meeting. And then, Council Members, if you'll look quickly at the last page of our packet at the issues and committee, is there anything in the committee currently that you see that needs to be removed? No? Well, I thank all of our presenters who are here and who participated. And I heard a motion from Council Member Ellinger to adjourn. Do I hear a second? All those in favor, please say aye. Anyone opposed? Thank you very much. . . . . . . . . . . . . .