Jay Massadi at LexingtonKY.gov. I appreciate you watching today. Be safe, be attentive, and have a good day. Thank you. ¶¶ Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. ¶¶ Thank you. ¶¶ Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. MUSIC PLAYS ¶¶ i think if we can get started i think that it's six after one thank you all committee members the first item on our agenda is for the july 7 2015 is the approval of the committee summary. Is there a motion? I'll move. Second. Motion by Council Member Henson, seconded by Council Member Evans. Any discussion? There being no discussion, all in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Thank you. All right, that takes us to our next, our first presentation, and Council Member Henson, would you like to introduce that? Sure. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. I guess as many of you know, we have been working on our workforce investment training item for quite some time. And I recently took this over when Council Member Ford became Commissioner Ford. So we have a presentation today, and I just would like to also stress the importance of this to our community. So I know that I like to say, you know, we've had a lot of improvements, which I consider empowering people with our homeless initiative, our affordable housing initiative. But I think workforce development is the number one key to empowering our community. So I guess Kevin Atkins. Thank you, Kevin. Thank you. Well, as Council Member Henson mentioned, this is a topic that this committee has been dealing with in earnest for about three years probably now and some even before that. so I'm proud to be here today to talk about a new proposed interlocal agreement that was reached recently between the mayor and Judge Wilson from Garrett County but as part of that for our newer members and I think I just if I counted right I counted six people sitting around this afternoon that weren't on the council in the last couple of years so I thought what we would do is kind of start with a look back. So as many of you know, in July of 2013, the auditor notified the Bluegrass Area Development District that he was going to look into how they administered and managed funds. Now, part of what he ended up looking at were their management of the workforce dollars. Following that notification in this committee about a week later and later in the council meeting, the council passed a resolution asking the General Assembly's Programming Review Committee to look into the business practices of the ad and even to examine their relevance in today's governmental works. So in 2014, the auditor did issue his findings, and I'm going to touch on his workforce findings in just a moment. But again, following the release of that report, this body asked then chief local elected official, which is the governmental head of the workforce organization, Mayor Ed Burtner of Winchester at that time, to take any and all steps to retain a new fiscal agent for the workforce dollars at the ad. you've got that resolution which was 213-2014 as part of your packet. So as we moved on to October of last year, there was a presentation again made at this committee meeting in regard to an amended workforce agreement that was required under the auditor's report. Following that presentation and the fact that it did not address many of the items that the auditor had identified, this committee and council recommended that the mayor not sign that agreement and actually went one step further and to take the steps to have the Lexington area declared its own workforce region. So we move forward to November, and as part of that request which we made to the governor, the State Workforce Board began the regional and local designation process for what would be the new regions under the Workforce Investment and Opportunity Act, WIOA. So, in March of this year, the governor attended the state workforce board meeting to discuss the changes in the policy at the workforce level at the state level, which impacts the regions that he would like to see as well. So in April of this year, the mayor met with the governor and the judge executives from around the regions to see if a resolve could be made to come to a resolution on a new interlocal agreement. During that conversation, I think the governor heard how far apart that the sides were on what they really would like to see. Both sides at that point had drafted their own interlocals. So as part of that conversation, Governor Beshear asked if the two sides would agree to a mediation, and both sides readily did. So in May, the end of May, both Mayor Gray and Judge Executive Wilson, who at that time was the chief local elected official, sat down for a morning with Helen Parker, who is a former regional head of the Department of Labor out of Atlanta. She's now retired, along with John Gay representing the Bluegrass Ad and Keith Horn from our law department. So after several hours, they did reach a tentative proposed agreement that we would need to bring to all the legislative bodies, which is what you've got in front of you today, and that's what we sent you all a notice of later that afternoon. So, leading up to the last couple of weeks, the governor has now issued his executive order on what the regional makeup of the workforce regions in Kentucky would be, and they're the same regions that they've historically been, which reflect the Area Development District regions in Kentucky, as well as the appointment of a new state workforce development board, We have one of those new members, David Boggs, who is with OWL here in Lexington. He is now on the state board as well. So, and kind of to bring this, so in order to get this moving, the mayor met with Deputy Secretary Beth Brennley, who is overseeing the workforce issue. Boyle County Judge Executive Harold McKinney, who is now the chief local elected official for the Area Development District Workforce, to discuss the implementation process for WIOA in this region. Now back to what the auditor mentioned in his report. he really cited the conflicts of interest in relationship to the bluegrass ads management of these dollars. And basically, the problem was you have the Area Development District Board of Directors overseeing in many ways and not always agreeing with the workforce, and they had the final say. They also, those judges vote on who the fiscal agent will be for the new contract. That was finding two. The Bluegrass ad, he said, should ensure that all contracts for services should be procured. That's something this council has said as well, and he said it should be done in accordance with established policies and procedures, and there's even new state policy in regard to that now. and very troubling if you were on the workforce board that the ad was not consistently giving the information the workforce board requested on their finances to the workforce board. So that led to the governor's appearance, and so there are three new policies that really get to a lot of the issues that this council and this administration have raised over time. The first policy, which is 1501, deals with the composition of the board, and it basically says the same thing federal law does, where you have to have a majority of the private sector in the membership. You have to have workforce representation. You have to have representation from education and training representatives, as well as government and economic development. The new policy defines the governance and role of the board. So it clearly defines for board members, what am I supposed to be doing in my role? It provides a standard nomination procedure and form for board nominations, where the nominations now, if you're in the private sector, it has to come through a business organization. It's not just a local mayor or judge executive appointment. Somebody has to suggest them to the appointing body. And it requires a competitive procurement for one-stop operators, something, again, that this council has recommended. The second policy deals with interlocal agreements like we're discussing here today and the roles and responsibilities of the CLIOs, the chief elected officials. So a new interlocal agreement for WIOA is required. the old WEA agreements were not grandfathered in. So each community has to agree to a new interlocal. In our case, 16 of the 17 have already agreed to this new proposed agreement, and Lexington is the 17th to hear it. Also will be required is a new partnership agreement, and this agreement will really kind of dictate once the interlocal is approved how the workforce region will work moving forward. This is going to be negotiated with both CLIOs, which if this agreement goes through and things stay the same, would be Mayor Gray and Judge McKinney from Boyle County, as well as the chair of the workforce board. So it is a collaborative agreement. This policy also includes a supermajority vote for the first time. And so instead of simple majority to secure the fiscal agent and other big items on the board, you have to have a 65% supermajority of the LEO organization, all the elected officials. And those elected officials are the judge executives in all the counties with the exception of Fayette where it's Mayor Gray. And it does, again, require competitive procurement. The final policy, just in many ways, deals with some of the same issues. It discusses the partnership agreement, how the operations are going to work between the LEOs and the board. It requires you to negotiate a new interlocal cooperative agreement. And the key, I think, for a lot of people is that this process will be overseen by the state workforce. and investment as opposed to done at the local level. So with that overview, I want to talk a little bit now about what is actually in the new agreement. The mayor of Lexington will now permanently be a co-chief local elected official, so they will be a part of all the decisions moving forward. The judge executives will then, and the other counties will then elect a member at large to serve as the other co-chief local elected official. It also requires that state policy federal law be followed in the designation for fiscal agents, grant sub-recipients, and one-stop operators. In other words, those roles, because of state policy, now have to be competitively procured. It also, to get to the auditor's report, says that the CoCLEOs can no longer be the highest-ranking officer of the board that governs the local grant sub, physical agent, or service delivery provider. Historically, the highest-ranking elected official on the Bluegrass Ad Board has served as the CLEO as well. So you had an overlap in roles where decisions were being made and negotiated by the very people that were going to then be voting on them. The new proposal also has in it a dispute resolution process that is defined. It has a new provision for liability of workforce funds, which will now be shared equally among all counties where previously it has been shared on proportion of population. So although Lexington hasn't always been in a leadership role, we've still shared about 50% of the liability for how those funds have been spent. That is now going to be shared equally, 1 17th among all parties. It requires quarterly meetings of the LEO Executive Committee meeting. This is to aid in the communication among those LEOs and provide them the opportunity to receive regular updates on the activities of workforce in the region. It also requires, for the first time, annual joint meeting with the LEOs Executive Committee and the local workforce board. again trying to enhance the cooperation and communication between those bodies. And it also talks about the members of the board will be nominated using federal law and state policy. As a final step, there will need to be a new partnership agreement negotiated as well. That occurs after an interlocal is approved. That document will deal with, as you can see, the regional planning process, oversight, how and what process will be used to manage the funds, what accountability measures and matrices will be used. That will be developed as part of that process. The designation or termination for career center operators. How the budget will be developed for the workforce area, which gets key to how you're going to address your targets, where you're going to put your money, and the process for addressing the operational issues resolved or unresolved. So with that, Keith Horn from the law department, as I said, was part of this mediation session, and Keith helped oversee the review of the new contract, and I are here to answer whatever questions you all may have about this. Thank you, Mr. Atkins. I understand, just for the committee's reference, I understand that they are preparing a draft resolution, and I believe it's being copied as we speak right now, so we'll get that to you all as soon as possible. And Councilmember Maloney? Thank you, Kevin. A couple questions here. I'm looking at the way I understand this, y'all, they're going to, the Bluegrass Board is going to form another board, and it's going to be for the workforce. How many people will be on that board total? That will be decided with the partnership agreement, but the early discussions are about 19. And the reason why I asked that is because before I didn't support sending the money when we had the money here. And I voted against it a few years ago, taking the money away because I think we're going to lose our workforce money, which we have lost our workforce money. Now, is this going to be a similar setup? Because if they get to pick one person from each county again, and it goes to 65%, and we're a bulk of the population to get the extra funding, could very easily end up being like what we're dealing with right now. Do we have a way to help make sure Lutzen, which is where most of the money is supposed to be going, is going to be able to come back in and do what it's supposed to do? Well, to your points, there will be a new workforce board. The old board will be the current board will go away with the appointment of a new board probably sometime in August if we get all the nominations. in. And every county is no longer guaranteed a seat on the board, which I think is one of the reasons it is important that the mayor is the co-chief local elected official. He is guaranteed that seat at a table. He will help oversee the nomination process. He will help oversee, along with Judge McKinney or whoever the at-large member is, a lot of the process. So that's why that's important, the development of the budget. Where are they going to spend the money? So what you're saying is we could probably have six or seven people out of lots of them because they're experiencing the workforce and be able to be on something like this instead of having what we have now, one or two? Yeah, I mean, for example, and he's here today, so I'll use him as an example. Mark Manuel from BCTC was not on there because he was a Fayette County, and he was on there because he worked at BCTC, who does the training services. And keep in mind, you have to have a certain percentage of representation from those training providers. Well, I mean, it's not perfect. It's better than what it was, and I commend what you all have done and what has happened, the tragedy, what the Bluegrass ad did before. But if it's done right and you put the right people on there that have the experience and understand what impact the Fayette County has, because the majority of the workforce people come to Fayette County, and I just hate to see the money going out in the counties where they don't have the ability to do the workforce like we do. So this here might be an opportunity to keep the workforce. That's what I push for. I mean, I'm for regional planning. I'm for all that. But we're the heart of it. We make this thing work. And when we work well, other counties work well. I think that's one of the things that really came out in all the discussions in the last several months about what the region should look like, where the jobs are. As everybody on this council knows, Commerce Lexington ran the numbers for us. You all have seen those. And all the counties have noted that for their residents' employment, this county, Fayette County, is just crucial to the entire region. Thank you. Councilmember Henson. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Kevin. I guess I'm a little concerned that, okay, we signed the agreement and it's for five years. So what happens if the policy changes? Does that have to go before the board or? If state policy changes? Yeah, these policies that are in the packet that specify the procurement process, which I think is extremely important, will those all remain in place? Or what assurance do we have that they will? Well, for the policies to change, they will have to first be changed by the State Workforce Board. Okay. Keep in mind the governor asked for these new policies, so it's not an easy thing to change. Now the agreement, and I'm going to ask Keith, Keith may want to walk up, make sure I get this right. The agreement is drafted based on what federal law and state policy is. So if state policy were to change, and that is something that is totally out of our control, then it could potentially have an impact on the agreement. Okay. And... The only thing I would add to that is it's one of the reasons why it's important that we as the urban county government keep track of what's going on at the state level. because I think without this council's involvement, the changes that have occurred even at the state level probably never would have occurred. And so there's no real reason to believe they would back off, for example, on the procurement thing after the audit that has been done by the auditor's office and et cetera, but it is something you need to keep an eye on. Not only that, but if there's any changes in law, you also need to keep an eye on that. But I don't have any reason to believe that the state would want to change the policy as it relates to the procurement process. Okay. Thank you. And will the mayor have time to actually serve in his commitment to the board? he's already spending a good amount of time on this process. He is committed to it. He thinks the workforce issue is an important one for this community. I mean, he's heard from the business leaders as well about the workforce they need. So it is something that he is willing to put the time in. Okay. It won't be a designee. It will be him. It will be the mayor. And one final, I mentioned this in our last meeting, is that I think outcome is important, accountability. So will we be able to see what's taken place and actually see numbers, number of people served, how were they served, and so forth? Would we be able to get that information? I think what you will see historically from the mayor on any issue is he wants to know what the outcomes have been. And this issue, I don't think the request will be any different. That's getting to the crux of are you being successful with the dollars you spend? And I guess, and I would like for this committee to have regular updates. Maybe, I don't know if it should be annually or quarterly or whatever, but just some way of tracking the number of people served, how they were served, even the dollars. Well, and as you and I have discussed previously, and to me it goes even beyond that, what happens after they've gotten the training. Right. Or they followed along for a period of time to make sure they were successful. Thank you again. council member stennett thank you chair kevin can you go over the numbers again and what's at stake just to rehash what we've been battling over the last three years how much this region receives total and how much we've received over the years it's a little north the last contract is a little north of 11 million dollars and that contract basically ran for uh two years and there's no guarantee to affect county in turn of how much how many dollars come back here that's right the The contract is based on, first of all, it's based, as everybody knows, on the federal funding that's put into it. Then it's broke down between unemployment, poverty rate, and population. Okay, and the new agreement has the same, there's no guarantee for Fett County? That's right. And then on the training, you mentioned our training providers. Are those set, or the board, this new board, actually handpicked those? Would that change on a regular basis? who dictates who our training providers are? You know, it's done by the board. The workforce board. And will that change going forward? Will we have new providers? Will we continue to use the same ones? We could. The state maintains a list of the eligible providers. So everyone in order to receive these funds has to become eligible? And there's a criteria, I assume? Yes. Okay. And then I know next month in budget and finance, We'll hear our workforce analysis from Commerce Lexington. How does this impact as we move down our path and maybe reinvigorating our workforce development office or however you plan to do it going forward, how does this piece of the puzzle fit into that? Are we going to take the approach that we've done the last three years and wait on this, or are we going to use this just as another piece of our pie and move forward with something? How does this fit in, this new agreement, to what we really need to start working on? That's workforce training. Good question and great timing, actually. There are several of us sitting over here who participated yesterday in the interviews for Billy Peevler's former position. And that was one of the issues that was asked to both the final candidates as part of those interviews, how we are going to be impactful as part of the WIOA discussion and what we need to do basically on our own as well. So I think, to answer your question, I think while this is good and it probably provides us some opportunity that we have not had previously, I think it also shows that we need to continue down the road we've been going, which is more collaboration with the Business Education Network, Ben, through Commerce Lexington, to help address these specific needs of Fayette County. because I think then that also what's identified there can then be taken to the larger workforce board discussion to better help those workers and those in need of training here. I'm glad to hear you say that because I think we relied back in 2007 solely on these dollars, and that's all the city did. And today we're in a different place. We're in a different time. We're debating minimum wages. We're debating other things that all have to do with workforce training. And the only way we're ever going to move forward is to get off our reluctance solely on this, but look at it holistically, and this is just one token of what we really can and are capable of doing here locally. I know it was said a couple weeks ago or during the budget finance meeting that we can't do anything else to help people, but that's not true at all. I mean, we can. We have the power to abate payroll taxes. We have the power for workforce training dollars and many, many other areas. And I think this time when we move away from this model and do what you just said and start looking at it with our partners, We have a lot of good partners locally that we can rely on just for Fayette County. I'm ready to do that, so thank you. And I'll just add to what you just said. There's nothing, and we have great partners here. We've met with several of them through this process, and there's nothing in any of this that precludes us as a government. If we see grant funding for workforce training that is eligible for governmental bodies, there's nothing that precludes us from going after that funding. All right. Very good. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. I, Council Member Fred Brown. Thank you, Chair. Just give me a little bit of background. The Bluegrass Add District is still in effect, and the board is under them as they were before. Is that the structure? I'm trying to identify the structure there because, you know, Adam Edelman audited the Bluegrass Add District. The technically the answer your question is no the the region is the same it mirrors the bluegrass area development district region the workforce board is supposed to be an entity of its own although the counties that comprise that region are the same setup of counties. They do have the same, obviously, local elected officials, which are the judges and the mayor here. The ad is supposed to be serving as their contracted fiscal agent, their banker or accountant, if you will. So the arrangement now is going to be different than what it was in the past as related to the Bluegrass ad. Or whoever eventually is chosen for that role. With the procurement, the area development district is no longer automatically in that role. They will have to respond to the RFP like anybody else would. So that's the difference. That's the separation there, and that's for internal control and so accountability, I guess, that the governments will have. Okay. Thank you. Okay. If there's not any other questions, I'm going to ask a couple. You talked about the creation of the partnership agreement, and I'm hoping that perhaps I would be able to start sitting down and getting updates from the mayor, but I'd like for the council to receive a copy of that once that's created. I think that it would be good for the council for us to be able to read that. And then also, if there is an opportunity for Fayette County citizens to be involved in this process, is there an opportunity for that? I know there's one of my constituents that's here at the meeting that's expressed an interest in it, and so I just wanted to find out what that process would be. The process, I'm assuming you're talking about to become a member of the workforce board. The process is you have to be, if you're in the private sector, you have to be approved or the name submitted by a group that represents business like a chamber of commerce or any business organization. There's no hard definition on that. There's those involved with workforce training. So you would have to come out of one of the organizations involved with that area. There is government and economic development. So if you're an economic developer for a local community, you would qualify. If you're a governmental official, potentially qualify. So there are categories by law that you have to fit into. What we would hope is that we have a robust interest. We're going to be pretty intentional as we go through. It is required nomination, kind of an application process, and we're going to be pretty intentional at looking at those and trying to work with Judge McKinney or whoever the Leos chooses, the at-large member, and making sure that we have the best makeup, a total makeup, for this region. So I think if somebody's interested, and they're from Lexington, if they want to let our office know, I mean, it becomes a question of what category do they fit in. But, yeah, I mean, we'd be interested in talking to just about anybody. Has there ever been a member of this council that has served on that? I'm just curious. Not in my four years, but I can't answer the longer-term questions. Curious. I guess I would look at council members' stentancy. I mean, do you know if there's ever been a council member that's ever served on this bluegrass? Uh-huh. Not that you're aware of either? Okay. I didn't remember either. And I just look back at Daryl Smith, who's been involved for years on this, and he said not that he's aware of as well. I'm just curious. Okay. If there are no other questions of the council, I've been advised that in order for the interlocal agreement to be able to be signed by Mayor Gray, this committee would need to consider the draft resolution, which has actually been put before you now. and even though this motion that's on the top is actually referencing the work session but that's the language that we would need to be considering today at this committee so I guess I would entertain a motion for there to be approval of this the author the resolution authorizing the mayor to sign the interlocal cooperative agreement second okay mr councilmember Gibbs made a motion seconded by councilmember Henson is there any discussion on the motion there being none all in favor say aye any opposed all right now as I understand from different discussions in the past, this is a time-sensitive resolution. So I would like to get permission or approval from this committee in order to report this out at work session today at 3 o'clock in order for it to be placed on or considered for placement on the docket at 6 o'clock tonight. Okay, Council Member Fred Brown, seconded by Council Member Akers. to allow me to report out this resolution today at work session. Is there any discussion on the motion? All in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? All right. Thank you so much, then. I guess that we will move forward to the next. And thank you. Thank you, Mr. Atkins. Appreciate it. And for those that are here today. and we will move on to the next presentation, which will be about Ordinance 271, and I believe it will be Ms. Nelson. We'll switch guards here. Good afternoon. Thank you. I've been asked to speak to you today about Ordinance No. 271-2009. The vernacular in our office is the Board and Commission Oath, so you may hear me refer to that instead of by its ordinance number. We have approximately 71 boards, commissions, and agencies of the LFUCG. This board and commission oath was passed December 8, 2009, and it directs all appointees to boards, agencies, and commissions requiring council confirmation to take an oath of office. This, I want to be clear, is different from the constitutional oath. So planning commission, you as elected officials, Board of Adjustment, Human Rights Commission, several other commissions with citation authority or state responsibility take a different oath. This oath is to be administered by me or by my office or by an oath by affidavit. We actually have a form. Many of you already serve on boards and commissions and may have already seen this form before. Council Member Henson, I think, has seen it several times. Appointees per the oath are not to take office until after completion of the oath. And then the language also states that the appointee's office shall be vacated should the oath not be completed within 30 days after council confirmation of your appointment. The oath by affidavit forms are to be submitted to our office within 14 days after completion, and they must be notarized. This is the oath language. It says, I do solemnly swear or affirm that I will attend training offered by the urban county government relating to members of boards and commissions, that I've reviewed the governing documents relating to the board agency or commission to which I have been appointed and further solemnly swear or affirm that you will discharge to the best of your ability the duties and responsibilities of the board, agency, or commission to which you have been appointed. The affidavit form includes this language and then a block of notary language. We currently have 637 members of LFUCG boards, commissions, or agencies. That number is as of June 17th. Some of these are duplicates because there are some folks who serve on multiple boards and commissions. This number, I want to be clear, also does not include the full strength of boards or commissions. So if we had all of the seats filled, we're getting closer to 1,000. There are, by my count on June 17th, 170 outstanding oath forms. 134 if you remove those folks who are considered ex-officio members of boards and commissions or non-voting members. I just wanted to give you some other numbers. We've had 113 appointments since January 1st, 2015. Of this block, there are 18 forms still outstanding, 8 forms since April 30th of 2015. In 2014, there were 220 appointments, and of that block, there are 41 forms still outstanding. Prior to May of 2015, the forms were sent separately by my office with a letter asking the appointee to have the form completed, notarized, and returned to us. We talked with the mayor's office this spring about including that form in the regular packet that goes out to appointees. So now appointees receive that packet from the mayor's office, along with a form that they have to complete for the attorney general regarding open meetings and open records. So I wanted to give you a little bit about how this process has gone since 2009, when it was passed at the end of 2009. We began in 2010 by trying to do the same sort of oath sheets that you see in our big oath books in the council clerk's office across the way. It was difficult to track down all the members of a board, so that left big gaps in our books. We just didn't have enough manpower to deploy out to all the boards and commissions. There were a couple of mass trainings. In 2012, the government videotaped a mass training for board and commission members and made that available on our website. So that's more convenient for new appointees to be able to just go to the board and commission page at any time and watch that training. So we had the law department complete a legal review and approval of the oath by affidavit form in 2013. And this is the form that we're using now. At that time, my office went to visit approximately 38 boards and commissions that we were able to get in touch with. And we basically cleaned up all the oath language, got everybody's forms turned in that we could. After that big push last year, we started using the mailer of the form to new appointees. Our challenges at this point are relying on the members to return the forms. Sometimes when you get something in the mail, it just lands on the desk and doesn't get turned in right away. You must have that form notarized. This is not easy. We welcome people to come to our office to have things notarized, but unless you have access to a bank with a notary or you know somebody who's a notary, it's difficult to get those done. Boards or commissions may meet as needed, so they may not have regular meetings, so we can't even schedule an appointment to go and try to meet the new members. We really feel like this process has become more streamlined with the inclusion of the form in that main packet that appointees get. so i we are recommending a couple of changes to this ordinance that would really i think be the final piece in making this process very streamlined having the oath by affidavit form completed and returned within 60 days of council confirmation i believe the draft ordinance language that was drafted by miss murphy says within 30 days and then 60 days you would be removed from office and replaced if you haven't turned the form in. The 60 days would give us time to issue a reminder at the 30-day mark, and that would give people time to get the form done and turned back in to us. We would also like to strike the language regarding council clerk administration of the oath, and then just clean up the language to say that the oath by affidavit is the vehicle we'll use to get this done. Oh, I spoke with Ms. Murphy just now about the notarization requirement on the form, and we believe we would have to change the language of the oath in order to have a witness requirement instead. So the notarization is probably going to be standard on the form. Thanks. Sure. Thanks, Ms. Nelson. Ms. Scutchfield, Council Member Scutchfield. Thank you, Chair. I guess my biggest question are the changes that were made in 2009, what were those changes in relationship to what changed then? There was no change. This was a new ordinance in 2009. Okay. All right. Thank you. Council Member Evans. Thank you, Chair. I guess really the biggest issue is that members aren't sending the affidavit back. I'm curious as to how giving them more time to not do something is going to encourage them to do it. And then if the consequence is being removed, I mean, have we gone through that process before and what happens with that? I mean, if that's something that's placed in their initial, you know, packet, if that's how doing anything more, giving them more time to do something that they're clearly not doing anyway, or have you seen that, you know, you are getting them back within 60 days and not 30? um and then let's see i'm curious instead of just completely eliminating the oath and i don't know about all of all of the boards and commissions and how they're staffed but could it be a matter of just having the whoever staffs that board issue or administer those those oaths or is it someone special that has to do that. Because usually, just in my experience, we've had board members just come in, and that's when they're issued the oath is right there. You just kind of catch them there. So I just think paperwork in general, it's easy to kind of just get lost or just kind of sitting around. So I was just curious if that had been thought about, of just whoever is responsible for that board or commission and allowing that person to have the authority to administer that so it's all done, and then that person is responsible for getting the paperwork back to you. So I'm just kind of curious if you'd kind of talk about that. Sure. I'll go backwards through. Yeah, sorry. We actually did work with quite a few staffers who worked with boards and commissions last year when we were visiting all the different meetings to work on getting all of the oath affidavit forms turned in. It is actually very difficult to get in touch with many of the boards because they do meet as needed. They don't meet regularly. They cancel meetings. So even board staffers are concerned about attendance at board meetings. It's not always needed to get all the folks there. We do have a couple of boards, like the Board of Health. The person who staffs that board is fantastic and automatically gets that form done for us. I think we might have to have a change. I'm looking back at the attorneys, a change to the ordinance language, because right now it says I'm responsible. So we may have to write something in that allows us a little bit of policy or procedure leeway to get those done. The 60-day requirement, right now we have no process for issuing a reminder. It's 14 days, and then you're out of there right now. So we have never recommended removal because we were still fine-tuning the process, but I think 60 days would give us time to issue a second reminder about having that letter turned in. Council Member Fred Brown. Thank you, Chair. I'm trying to figure out from the information you give us, how many boards do we have that the LFUCG is responsible for or appointing? I counted from our website, and we have 71 listed. 71 active boards. Have we tiered those as to the level of, not so much the level of importance, but obviously we have some that are more important than others. And two examples would be some of those boards might be part of our urban county government as far as even part of our audit process. I'm thinking of the airport board. I'm thinking of the health board. And I'm not sure what other boards might be under the city of Lexington's governing area. Then we also have the ethics issue that we have certain, are all 71 boards, do they have to deal with the ethics and submitting that? They don't, do they? No, sir. So that's a tier of types of boards. So, and you're telling me that 2009 was when an ordinance was enacted. Prior to that, we still had all those boards, but we were appointing them, I think, through just the urban county government. The appointment procedure didn't change at all before. Right, right. Yeah, because when I was on before, we didn't have to go through this process that you're talking about, the oath and everything. It sounds like it's cumbersome, but I guess I'd have to have an answer from a law department. Are we doing this because of legal problems or legal obligations? I see Ms. Murphy coming forward. Well, I realize that. Are you asking, back in 2009, did we do it based on legal? Well, obviously we set the ordinance up then for some reasons and maybe more accountability or credibility or whatever from the board members. Based on what I'm able to review, and this is going back and looking at emails from then-Council Clerk Lamb and council members at that time, it was just for accountability purposes to put in place an oath for commissions that weren't under an oath. You mentioned the airport board. The airport board is a separate entity in and of itself, and it falls under a state statute. Therefore, they don't come under this particular oath because they come under the state statute oath because that's what created it. And we have no supervisory control over it. We just appoint to it, if that makes sense. And there's a whole list of separate boards and commissions and how they fall. I think you asked the question. It's not necessarily by importance, but there are some that are created by state statute. But there's those that we just created by LFUCG. So there are differences, and some of them submit to our oath, and some of them do not, based on how they were created. So is there any order of boards? Does anybody keep account of the type of boards we have and maybe their importance as to how they relate to the government? And what I was alluding to, some of these, just like the airport board, they're component units when it comes to the audit process. So the breakdown of the 71 boards, if we had that information, and Chair, I think maybe we need to continue this if others see the importance of this. I think maybe we need to, which is what we're having now for the recommendations, I'm not so sure that these recommendations are broad enough. It just talks about the oath, and I don't know which boards it's talking about. And I'd like to have maybe a listing of the boards and some type of pecking order or if they're under state statute or if they're a component unit as to how we're addressing that and also how they play into the ethics role since all of them don't. Right. So that's kind of what I'm It's kind of a general General statement or question that I'd like to have some more information And I think we ought to keep it in committee To identify that Now others may not agree with that I actually I don't know I guess it's appropriate for me to respond This ends how this issue came up When I was back in my prior Capacity and my I have two thoughts to consider there was to consider moving forward with the changes or to consider that really and truly is it even enforceable and do we even need it I mean what does it really accomplish so I think that it's I look forward to hearing some more conversation here and then decide at the end of that what the majority thinks here and I appreciate your comments Councilmember Hanson? Thank you, Chair. I guess I thank you, Meredith, for the presentation. And I think the mayor's office does a lot, mostly, of keeping up with the boards and commissions and where the vacancies are. And then each commission or board also kind of monitors their own membership. And I kind of agree with Council Member Lamb is that is this something that we even want or need to deal with? But I was going to suggest if we choose to go forward with this, perhaps when they get the packet, if we could flag the AFT data or whatever it is in the packet and say, you know, please respond immediately, you know, required or make it in red, do something just to bring attention to it. Because I don't think, my personal feeling, you have quite a bit of the work you need to be doing than trying to do all of this. And it seems that we're creating a new board or commission all the time. Because there's been several since I've been on council that have been created. And some that aren't active at all that I'm a member of that hasn't met in a couple years or longer. So thank you. Thank you. Council Member Scotchfield, please. Thank you. I just had another thought. Council Member Brown and Council Member Henson bring up a good point. And, you know, I've requested from Ms. McCarthy and previously who serves on all of our boards and commissions, and they can provide us that sheet. I think it would be interesting and nice for us to maybe get a report on what openings we have. I know I've seen some of them, and we have people still serving on boards that terms expired, and they haven't been officially, I guess, reinstated to the board. And I guess it will be appropriate in work session maybe to put it into committee. but maybe request a quarterly report for what boards we currently have that are not fully staffed, I guess. And that, too, might help with public input or public knowledge of what boards we don't have full. Because I know we have, I've had several citizens, constituents that have asked me on a regular basis, you know what what board could i serve on and i have reached out and gotten vacancies now i don't necessarily know because it doesn't go to me when they submit their forms but you know if if the chair thinks that might be appropriate i can make a motion to put that into committee thank you okay council member scutchfield is do you want to basically just request your motion is to request that there will be quarterly reports sent to the council via email or do you want it to be a I actually think it would be beneficial because I don't think it will be a long report because all they'll be doing is giving information but to have it on record open to the public what boards currently have expired members basically expired members vacancies you know I think that would be beneficial to our public and I do think an update on all the boards how often they and this might not be public information but emailed how often they meet if they are currently meeting if they've met within the last year I think this is all very important for transparency I know at one time there was discussion about the information being available on websites, on LFUCG's pages. I don't know what the software that the mayor's office uses for the boards and commissions, So I would think that maybe what we should do is on September 1, we could actually have them come back and we could actually have this discussion. Maybe that would be better, I think. I think you're correct, because I think not all of the commissions would have websites, and some of them have websites that are hosted outside of the government website. And so it might be a good accounting just to take a look at all those things. Sure. So as far as I know we've kind of strayed away from the discussion of this ordinance, but that's okay. What we can do is we can have that motion after we finish the discussion of this. And do you all think that if this merits having to continuing this ordinance until we discuss that about the boards and commissions? What are you all's thoughts? Oh, Council Member Maloney, sorry. I just, and I, Bill Farmer and Council Member Brown, and I can't remember back, but we used to have these back in the 90s, because I remember when Pam and a couple would give to the vice mayor, and they would send a list around what boards were coming available. And I don't know why. I just noticed coming back I hadn't seen any of those because I was at the same call that Councilman Crustfield had. But people wanted to be on the board, and I just couldn't put that together. So what I would like to know why that stopped and how come it – maybe the administration would have to answer that because that's where it came from. And I think at the time, the vice mayor – maybe I'm wrong. I thought the vice mayor would pass it out to council members if he wanted some people to be put on certain boards. And I think there was a communication between the vice mayor and the administration, and they gave us the list every month or every quarter. I can't remember. But it was a good, we would put a list together, and it would answer some of her concerns that I agreed that I've been getting lately because there's a lot of people I was getting called that want to be on boards, and they don't know how to do it. So if we're going to do anything, we need to have the administration come back here next month and propose why that has stopped, how we can put it back up, and what we need to do to get, especially a lot of these board members that are staying on too long. How can we get them to get off? And, I mean, it's great that they stay on, but we've got people out there that are willing to take these boards and we're not putting them on there. So I would love to see that be brought back next month or when we come back to the next meeting. Okay. All right. Council Member Henson. Thank you, Chair. And I guess what the way I see it, what Meredith has presented to us is not relevant to other than, you know, because you're going to all of the boards and commissions are going to be processed the same way. So it doesn't matter how many boards or commissions or how many vacancies or anything like that that we have. So I personally think this should stay in committee. And maybe I would like to give more thought to if we even need this part of it. If you, as our council clerk, think it's necessary, then I think as a council we should continue this. But I don't think it's relative to the other discussion. So that's just my thoughts. Thank you. Okay. Thanks, Council Member Henson. I guess, and I agree that there are two different discussions, even though one impacts the other as far as the magnitude of number of oaths that are required. I'm just curious from the law department, the enforceability. I mean, clearly there are people that have not filed or followed the protocol here. And obviously I don't think, I think it's fair to say that we've never put anybody off of board or commission because they haven't filed the oath of office. Not that I probably need to say that publicly, but I think it's true. Well, in order to remove someone, it would take under the charter, under 7.02. So that can be done, and I think that would just require it being brought to the council member's attention or council's attention. However, based on how the wording of this ordinance, it does say that this individual has, they do not necessarily take office until they've completed the affidavit. So if they've never turned it in, they're really not members of that board until they've actually done that, which, of course, does open up some other issues. As I said that out of my mouth, I realize that. So that being said, if they've not taken office, we can just appoint someone else in that position if they choose not to turn that oath by affidavit in to the council clerk's office. And I don't think that, Ms. Nelson, is there any type of way that you keep up with where the mayor's office actually sees that you all, who has not complied with this oath of office? Is there a? We have a spreadsheet in our office, so I could produce the list for you right now. Okay. We add all the current appointees after each council meeting and then make a listing when the oath form is turned back in. And then we have all the oath pages filed. Okay. They have a two-year retention. That's not interesting, but we do have to retain them for two years after people leave office. Okay. All right. Councilmember Bledsoe? Thank you, Chair. So let me just clarify two things. If they've not done that, my guess is they can't be used for quorum, and they probably shouldn't count a vote. Would that be accurate? They should not be for either of those two things, right? Okay. And I think that's pretty important. And having been on boards, it's hard to get everyone there. If one has not done that, that could easily nullify the meeting taking place. So that would be important. And I would support Peggy's, Councilman Henson's thought as well, that there are two different issues. I think both are fairly important. And I think anybody wants more transparency, not less, about where they are and how do I know if I'm available or if I can be part of one. Those are important things to have out there. It would be helpful for us as well. So thank you. Council Member Akers, and I should just say, I just now noticed that I'm not following parliamentary procedures because we have a motion on the floor without a second, and we're having discussions. so i've really totally failed at this miserably right now so uh but i want to not i want to recognize miss acre council member acres so if there's no motion then there's no i mean if there was no second then that motion failed i guess and so it's okay that we just talk okay thank you so yeah i wanted to follow up on on what you said also that so if they have not taken the oath then they're definitely they're technically not a member and so they cannot vote um so then we should be just removing those people from the from their positions or membership it seems and i know that on our website we list members of every board and commission so is Is there a way to signify then next to their name, you know, pending membership or some kind of, to show that they're not really members? I mean, if they haven't returned the oath, then they're technically not a member, so they shouldn't be included. And maybe that would, maybe they would see it, maybe their friend would see it and urge them to complete the oath and the forms. That'd be a process question I'd want to address with the mayor's office. Okay. And I agree as well with Council Member Henson. I think that your recommendations are really important, and I think that we need to move those forward. I agree that we should have regular reporting of openings. I have seen those before from Jamie's office, but I guess if people want to see memberships, you can go to the website or you can provide those lists. I don't know that we need to see exactly who all hasn't returned their paperwork or hasn't done that. I feel like that's a little punitive. But, so I would make a motion that we approve the recommendations in the packet and move those forward. So moved. Exactly. Thank you. Okay, there's a motion on the floor by Council Member Aker, seconded by Council Member Evan Henson, to approve the recommendations of the draft ordinance that's in our packet. Is there any discussion on that motion? Councilmember Scutchfield. I just think we've raised a whole bunch of questions that maybe we need to have the bigger picture with some of the other things on whether we even need this. And so I'm hesitant right now to pass it just to get it passed without making sure it's something we need. That's it. And I guess I am, I mean, obviously this ordinance has been on the book since 2009, and we have tried, tried, tried, tried to be effective with its requirements, unsuccessfully so. I mean, we have tried many methods. So I guess I would think that we could keep it in here until September 1st and bring it back with more discussion from the administration. And mine is not that we should keep the previous ordinance from 2009. I guess my thought is, do we need this ordinance at all? because we lived without it until 2009, and the difficulties, I mean, I serve on six boards right now. The difficulties we have getting people to get it done, to be able to start serving on the boards, it might be more red tape than is needed. That's the reason I say I can't support us doing it until we know for sure that we even need this in place. Council Member Fred Brown, please. Thank you, Chair. I don't have any real problem with your recommendations. I just think it's a little premature, so I'll move to table this until our next General Government and Social Services Committee. There's a motion to table. Is there a second? a table actually takes precedence over I'm sorry the motion to table takes precedence over the motion on the floor is so there's is there a second on the motion because if there isn't then it fails for lack of a second um i have council council council member acres and then Do you have the motion? Do you want to speak to the motion or do you want to? Yes. Okay. Councilmember Akers, do you want to speak on the motion? Well, if there's no second, there is no motion. I'm still waiting on a second. Councilmember Evans. Right. We're on your motion. Okay. I wanted to ask Meredith if what Councilmember Scutchfield is saying that we can maybe just do away with this ordinance altogether. What is your thoughts on that? What the law department, what are your opinions on that? Is that something that you think the council could even do to just do away with oaths of office for people? Can we just appoint people to boards and have no oath of office? My office is just the neutral authority selecting the paperwork here. Keith wants to weigh in. For what it's worth. There are boards and commissions that have to take an oath by statute. Okay. Theoretically. State statute. Yes. And arguably, you don't need this ordinance for boards and commissions that you've mandated take this oath. The council did that in 2009. So for whatever reason they decided that, this council could certainly decide that it's not applicable and necessary for all these boards and commissions to take this oath. So you know, every appointee to a board and commission gets a packet related to open records and open meetings information. So it's not that they won't be getting information. They will still be getting information. I think you just need to decide, do you want to continue to require every voluntary member of every board and commission in this government to have to fill out an affidavit like this oath. Now, part of what went along with that change then was training for all boards and commission members. And again, all these board and commission members have to appear for a training session at some point. And you really just need to decide it's not legally required. It's something that the council decided should be required. And like I said, they still get information on open meetings and open records. Even if you do away with this ordinance, they're still going to get that information under state law. Thank you very much. Council Member Maloney? So we can go ahead and go back to where it was in 209, and all I've got to do is make a motion that we remove the 209 amendments and go back to, what, 209? You would have to get an ordinance repealing this ordinance in front of the entire council like you would any other resolution or ordinance. But you could make a motion that this committee report out with a recommendation that this ordinance be repealed. Okay. Well, I'll make a motion. We'll pour it out to make this motion. I will withdraw that motion because I support just doing away with it altogether. It seems much more efficient, and so I will withdraw my motion. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Thank you, Council Member Akers. I want to recognize Council Member Evans before we – she had a question before. I'm not quite sure where we are right now. I guess for an argument for having the oath would be that people affirm that they will take those duties seriously and that they are going to uphold whatever laws and rules and all that. So I struggle with saying, oh, do away with it and just kind of let them do whatever, especially when every board member doesn't have training. And I think that's something that we're lacking with state boards to local boards, that I think we do need members who are going to be educated on what their roles and responsibilities and duties are, whether it's just open records, how to conduct a meeting, what their real purpose and their real role is. So I guess I'd just be a little hesitant to just completely do away with it, but understanding that this is apparently just a logistical nightmare if we're not going to do it in person, because that's normally how it happens. And I'm not completely opposed to doing away with it just for all those reasons. But, you know, I'd like to see in the bigger discussion that we do talk about the board training, if we're going to do away with that oath. Because, you know, that's something when it's done in person, people tend to remember. You know, that's an affirmative duty that they know they took. So I guess that would just be my two cents. But I'd like us to further discuss what we would like to see in place of just removing the oath and creating better board members. So. Council Member Bledsoe. I'm still trying to think about, thank you. I get what you're saying. And I think that's valid, very valid. And yet, doesn't we have a whole lot of accountability to making sure they do the training? If it's not enforceable, I hate to say what's the point, But it's, you know, what's the point? So I think there's got to be a balance there between making it effective and yet also letting them know that it's serious. And if they've put in attendance requirements, if you miss so many, you're out. Or something that holds a little bit more oomph, if you will, to the actual board or commission they serve on, without having to make it a burden on making the responsibility on the board and commission, not on our clerk, I think would be maybe where we want to go with that intention. So, yeah, thank you. Council Member Scutchfield. And I don't know if it's appropriate for a motion to continue the discussion until these. I don't think because we have one motion in front of us regarding a resolute or an ordinance. and we're now talking about whether this ordinance is needed or if it needs to be changed in a certain way or repealed, I think we need to have a lot more information before we can make a viable decision about what we need to do. So, I mean, I guess I think I'd like to see an idea of how it could be, how it would be changed to be less onerous on the council clerk and how it would be an affidavit, but lesser than what it is. if we could have that maybe for the next meeting or the next meeting that the chair chooses to have this in front of us. I don't feel like just having this in front of me, I can make a decision one way for, against, or something in between at this point. Thank you. And I will say perhaps what we could do at the next meeting in the September meeting, perhaps what we could do is ask the administration and there there's a whole lot of information or history as far as the training of what mr horn was talking about there's there's a that's a whole lot of information that i think would be you we could be updated by about that information and what transpired and when all of this was came about in the beginning and i think that history probably would be very helpful in going forward and trying to make this decision. So I know Council Member Maloney is on here to speak, but I would be in agreement to continue this discussion until the next meeting and then have more information about the history as it relates to it, to Council Member Maloney. I mean, I'm willing to pull that motion. The only reason why I did that is because everybody agrees what's going on right now does not work. But I do want to keep it in the committee to talk about how what we used to do a long time ago, how everybody, council members, got informed on how board members were coming up. And we used to do that. I want to continue that. But from what I understand, this is not working. And that's why I wanted to make the motion to get this out. And then we can come back and continue to work with this if you want to. but my intent was just to fix something that is not working okay and and if there's nobody else to speak on this issue i i would recommend that we just we make a motion to postpone it until the september 1st meeting and that way we can get more information regarding the history and um And then we can come to a more definitive, you know, to figure out what exactly we need to do with this. So is there someone that moves? Okay. Council Member Gibbs made a motion and Council Member Bledsoe seconded to postpone it until September 1st meeting. Is there any discussion on the motion? All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Thanks. okay well thank you thank you nelson thank you and thank you law department for y'all's discussion um so i guess we'll move on to the the next presentation which is about cell tower cell tower and um it's regarding the location approval and revenue from cell towers and just this is just for information so that we can become better acquainted with the process and we appreciate everyone involved in that. Thank you. Mr. Damon. Thank you so much for having us. Just going to give you, this is just going to be an overview of where we've been in this process and where we are now. So we'll start with, let me know what we're going to go over today. Planning is going to come up here and give you an overview of the planning process. So that's the KRS overview and the zoning ordinance overview. And then I'll come back up and let you know what our role as general services is in this process. And then also some previous process challenges and what our current process is. And then, of course, time for questions. so let me have barb reikers come up here with planning to go over some of the planning process thanks roger good afternoon what i would like to do is set the framework for how we got to where we are as far as regulating cell towers in bayette county for any new build of a cell tower It has to have a uniform application, and that has to be submitted to the Division of Planning, and we submit that to the Planning Commission. The requirements of a uniform application are listed in KRS 100, Section 9865, and it has all kinds of information that's required. They have technical information such as soils and bedrock information, how the tower's going to be constructed, how it's going to be supported. they have to document that all the property owners within a 500 foot radius have been notified they have to provide a justification as to why this tower is going to do the or cover the needs that they have they have to give us a site plan and an elevation and that's just part of the information by the time we actually get an application in our office it's about that thick that we have to go through they have to submit a copy of that to us so that we can submit to the Planning Commission, and that is because the Planning Commission is the local body that has the authority to regulate cell towers in Fayette County. And if the Planning Commission does not act on the application within 60 days, the Public Service Commission assumes that it's been approved. They just deem it approved. Unless the applicant has given us a request in writing to extend that deadline, which is the case with the application that we have in the office right now. we got in an application on June 23rd, and they wanted to be able to put up the sign because the sign has to give the date and the location and everything of the meeting when it's going to be heard by the Planning Commission. And the 60 days would have been either August 22nd or August 23rd, and they wanted the hearing date to be set for August 27th. So they submitted with the application a letter asking that it be extended to August 27th, and then they're required to let the Public Service Commission know, and it's the responsibility to let them know that it's being extended, the 60 days is being extended. Our laws are subject to both federal and state laws, and federal law is the Telecommunications Act of 1996, and then state law is KRS 100, Sections 985 through 987. There is a federal policy that has stated that wireless communications is critical nationwide infrastructure, So therefore, we cannot put barriers on or prohibit placement of towers in the community. But we can regulate them, and that's how and where they're placed, as long as the overall impact does not preclude them from being located. We can't put such distance requirements on them that they can't be located anyplace. That's where Article 25 of the zoning ordinance comes in, and that was created in 2000. It gave the Planning Commission limited capability regarding regulation. it was revised in 2003 but before it was revised planning commission can make a recommendation once they reviewed an application they can make a recommendation then it went to the public service commission and the public service commission if they didn't like the planning commission's recommendation they would overturn them well it was revised in 2003 and the planning commission was given sole authority by the state legislature based on house bill 270 and that was to regulate cell towers and that's when we put in place our current locational standards and the design standards and then in 2004 we had some other minor revisions to make it be in compliance with the engineering manuals with regard to floodplain floodplain management we have towers on both public and private properties we have several in the irving county government parks and when they they are located on private property, we go through the uniform application process. When they're located on public property, it's a totally different process. And as you know, the government is exempt from its own zoning requirements, which sets in motion a different process. The council can set its procedures for consideration of a cell tower, but part of that application process or part of that review process should be a public facility review that goes to the planning commission. that's a totally different process they don't have any any approval authority they don't have any public notification as opposed to the uniform application has the requirement for the notification of property owners all they can do is make a finding that it either is or is not in compliance with with the comprehensive plan there is a 60-day time limit for review there's no extension on this 60-day limit as there was with the uniform application KRS 100 requires a public facility review for any change in property, any sale, any disposition, any acquiring of property. They require a public facility review. And so if everybody complied with that, we would have a bazillion public facility reviews going to the Planning Commission every month, but we don't because people don't always comply with that. But it applies to the urban county government. It applies to state properties. It applies to the public library system. It applies to utilities. It applies to the public school system. And we do have several public facility reviews that do go to the Planning Commission, but like I said, we don't have as many as we probably should. We have location criteria and design standards. And a cell tower can be located in any zone. We do discourage residential zones and agricultural zones, but they can be located in those zones if they can't find another place for them. And we ask them to make every attempt to locate where there's minimum adverse impact on a residential district. They can't be located in a floodplain. They can't be located in environmentally sensitive areas or geologic hazard areas. They should not be located in historic districts unless they are an alternative design. They can't be along or within 1,200 feet of a scenic byway as designated by the state of Kentucky unless it's an acceptable alternative design, which would be maybe a clock tower or a flagpole or a tree. something like that those are all acceptable and I know it's hard sometimes to make a tree that's tall enough to look like it like it would accommodate a cell tower and not be taller than the rest of the trees and so that's kind of it like depends on where it is okay we have location criteria they can be like I said in any in any zoning district and then we also have design standards we have setback restrictions in residential and agricultural zones we have a one-to-one height-to-yard ratio, which means for every height, every foot of height of the tower, we have to have a one-foot horizontal distance to the nearest property line. And then in the other zones, such as the office zones, the warehouse zones, industrial zones, it's a three-to-one height-to-yard ratio, meaning for every three feet of tower height, we need a one-foot distance to the property line. Monopoles are allowed in all of the zones. Guide towers and lattice towers can only be in the commercial zones and in the agricultural zone. We require an eight-foot security fence and landscape buffer around the entire lease area, and that is to screen the equipment and the base of the tower. The tower isn't to be lighted unless it's required by the Federal Aviation Administration, and that's generally when a tower is 200 feet or taller. And then we recommend co-location as much as possible and that always leads to taller towers because they have to provide the ability there's like a 10 foot difference or 15 foot difference between antenna requirements and so if if you did shorter towers which would be easier to screen then you would have to have more towers and so we recommend that they do the taller tower so that they can have co-location once we get the application in the division of planning we have 60 days to review it and make a recommendation to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission has to hold a public hearing or a public meeting so that they can either approve it, approve it with conditions, or disapprove it, and that public meeting includes the opportunity for public input. And then the Planning Commission's decision is communicated in writing within 10 days by the applicant to the Public Service Commission because they maintain a database and they like to have the information as to where towers have been approved in the state of Kentucky. Then that can be appealed to circuit court within 30 days if somebody doesn't like planning commission's decision but it has to be within 30 days and if you have any questions about all of this i'd be happy to answer them unless you want to wait until after roger's presentation we can both help thank you Okay, so that's the planning process for cell towers. I just want to let you know what general services role is in the process. We do receive requests from cell tower companies because based on Article 25, like Barb was mentioning, it's recommended that the companies come to look for government property before they go look for private property so since that's a strong recommendation in the article they come to us first so we receive those requests and then we have an application that we send to them we receive back and we also just distribute that application which I'll talk about in a little bit to other divisions and departments. Then we negotiate the, if it goes through the whole process, we, General Services negotiates the lease and then also requests the legal review from the law department. So why is it in General Services? Well, traditionally, cell towers on government property have been handled through us because we had a previous staff member that had a lot of expertise in technological fields. So telecommunications, cell towers, some of these areas were in general services. That was part of the reason. Another reason specifically for cell towers is because a lot of our cell towers are located on park properties or on a government building. Since we handle both facilities and parks, it makes sense that we would handle those leases. We also had the two that were on top of the government center building, which we only have one right now, but we had two at the time. And it doesn't really fit in another department for those reasons. So that's why it comes to general services. So we have had some process challenges before we put together this new application. When we were looking at our previous leases in our process for getting to the point of going into a lease, we just noticed that there was a lack of review by the other departments and divisions that should review the application before it moves forward to council. There was also some confusion on the part of cell tower companies regarding who they go to to start the process. Since they were being asked to go to government first, sometimes they were coming to parks, sometimes they were coming to us in general services. We just wanted to make sure that it was a lot more clear for them as to who they start the process with and what the process is like. And also, we were getting a lot of requests from cell tower companies for long-term leases. That's become something that's pretty common. We still get that. But having this process and having a draft put together, a template put together that we can show to them or that we can tell them this is what we do now, it makes it a whole lot easier because in the past, We, when we received that pressure, it was hard to answer as to why we don't want to go into a 100-year lease or a lease that just goes on forever, it seemed like. And then also, we were looking at some of the previous leases and we felt like the way that they were structured, I mentioned up here that the revenue was an issue and that was an issue in the leases, but there was also some other concerns regarding the leases as to how much ability we had to do anything to the lease versus cell tower companies seemed to have all the flexibility. We had very little flexibility in the leases. So what we did is we developed an application. We started beginning of last year and we completed that application in December. I've handed out an application to all of you so you have it in front of you to take a look at it. The second to last page in the application actually has the application process, but I'll go over a few things within it. We developed a process with a review of the application that starts in the Department of General Services and then notification of the district council member for that location. Now, it doesn't necessarily have to be, it can be disapproved even at that point. But if it is approved and it moves forward, then we would send the application to the other departments and divisions that we need to get information from, whether it be water quality or whoever might need to review it. Of course, we sent it to planning and other divisions to get their review before we moved forward with a draft lease that we would work with law on. But we are using the template that we came up with when we drafted the first lease by using a consultant along with the law department. And that was actually the T-Mobile lease that's on this property. on top of the government building. We used that as the initial template, but then we had to change it a little bit for when it's on a park property, since it's a slightly different lease. And actually, the first lease that we utilized for a template for that type of lease was the Castlewood Park lease. I do also have... Can we bring up? Okay, great. These are the locations that we currently have leases on government property. You can see there are a number of different areas. We have two in Veterans Park. That's really the only location where we have two towers. The others are all in separate locations, many of them parks. Like I mentioned before, we have the one on top of the government center here. and the the only one on there that actually has not been built yet but we do have a lease is the castlewood park location so if you have any questions i'd be happy to answer questions or we have barb here to answer questions regarding um the planning process thank you mr damon and miss rackers thank you all for your presentation today um miss councilmember scutchfield you had a question earlier and I was do you want to? Okay. Okay. Council Member James Brown? Now this application thank you chair. This application process this is just for cell towers that are going to go in public parks? Well the application process is for any request for a cell tower that would be on government property. The reason why we get so many requests for cell towers on government property is because Article 25 of our zoning ordinance recommends that they first look to government property. There may not be a government property available in that radius that they have, but if there is, then they first look to that first, so they talk to us first, and they can fill out the application, and it goes through us, and that starts the process. If the application is denied, then they would go back to look at private property and they would go through the planning process, like Barb was mentioning, that whole process of having to do that application as part of the planning process. Okay. Now, where in the process is there an opportunity to notify the public? Well, actually, we have several portions of this process. We first talk to the council member and work with the council member to inform them. We also go on-site to look at the particular site that they've asked for. And the council member not only can come with us to do that, and we have done that on a few different occasions, actually most occasions, But also members of the public can come with us, which we've also done at a couple of our locations. Then as we go through the process, it's given to the council member, and we can hold neighborhood meetings. We can do any type of public meetings that the council member would try to work with the council office to do those types of connections for the meetings. Then we'll also, even though, as Barb mentioned, we're not necessarily required to do all the things that you do through the planning process, but we'll also have a public facilities review as we go through this process, even though it may not be required, but we'll still have that as part of the process. Can I add something to that? Sure. With the public facility review, people don't have, I mean, they have the opportunity to come in and speak about it and listen to the presentation, but anything that they say, it doesn't matter because Planning Commission cannot make an approval or a disapproval recommendation. It's only to see whether it's in compliance with a comprehensive plan. So it's best to have up front before you go through the public facility review process to talk to people, neighborhood meetings, whatever, to get that in place, get people's input then, and then go through the process of the public facility review. So when it goes to planning, there's an opportunity for the public to be notified? Well, if it goes to planning as a uniform application on private property, then the public has every opportunity to interact with the Planning Commission, present their opinions, whatever. They have that opportunity with a public facility review, but it's giving them a false sense of their ability to influence any outcome because the Planning Commission cannot disapprove or approve, and it's on government property. It's exempt from zoning. So it gives them a false sense of not exactly security, but a false sense of their ability to influence a decision. So it's better to do it up front before it goes to planning. So the upfront meetings would be essentially to decide whether or not you're going to move forward with the process. Actually, we can even decide that before we do anything with the public. We can decide that with just general services and the council member. However, if we decide to move forward or if the neighborhood does decide to move forward, then the public facilities review can be helpful in deciding what types of changes need to be made to just the regular regulations. If you want ornamental fencing or a better look to the cell tower, that's when you would make some of those changes, although you can make those decisions even before you go to the public facilities review as well. But Barb is right. You can't say yes or no at the public facilities review. Those types of decisions need to be made before we get to that point. And the recommendations as far as any kind of ornament of fencing or anything like that, they don't have to do what the Planning Commission recommends. That's the thing with the public facility review. It's got no authority to impose anything, really. It's a recommendation only. and a lot of times they comply with what the Planning Commission recommends, and a lot of times they don't. Did that answer your question? Let me add one other thing to that part. That's absolutely correct for the Planning Commission's concern, but this body will have final say over any lease, and so if you wanted to make something that the Planning Commission recommended part of your lease with this company, you could put it in your lease. so you're not without authority to achieve some of that stuff if you're aware of it and you want it in the lease that they may decide that then they're not interested in leasing your property. But the council ultimately has to approve any lease where there's going to be a cell tower on public property. Thanks. Council Member James Brown, do you have any more? No, they answered my question. Thank you. All right. Council Member Maloney? The question I have for you, you and I worked on over there, certainly we were looking at putting a cell tire. And I was told, I said, why are we putting it here? Because they want and said they need a cell tire in this area. So there is no private property. And we become the city, it becomes automatically somewhere we have to put this cell tire. Is that correct? If there's no private property. The location that I think you're talking about, there may be private property, but they are going through our process first in that situation, not only because of Article 25, but also because of a legal concern, which I don't, Keith would have to answer that. So what I'm understanding, if they wouldn't apply for somewhere and said, I want to put a cell tower somewhere in this facility, and they get approved by a public service commissioner or whoever, we have to find somewhere for them. If they can't find a private property, then they come over to the city and say, you're going to have to use your property. That's a legal question because I don't know if they would be required to be on public property in that case. They can't ever make you put a cell tower on your property, the public property. They don't have that authority yet. Whether or not it will eventually come to that, I don't know, because I've compared this before cell towers to the railroads of the 21st century. Everybody wants this service, and that means there's going to be more and more towers. And that is the one complicator with the Federal Telecommunications Act. You can't deny a tower if it would deny service or have the effect of denying service. So if a cell company can demonstrate that without the tower, they're not going to be able to adequately provide service, then there may be a federal override on it. But that doesn't mean that you, the council, ever have to agree to put a cell tower on public property. It's frequently the better choice if they're looking at private properties, if public property is available. And it's not unusual for localities to have that kind of preference for public property versus private property because of the issues you run into potentially on residential properties, particularly in neighborhoods. So with these circles up there that we have cell towers, are those on our property or are those all the cell towers? Those are just the ones on our property. There are significantly more cell towers in Fayette County than... So what I'm concerned about is, as I look at the development that's going on in Lexington, we're going down Richmond Road and we're going down Leastown Road. So Madison Station and Jacobson Park could be a prime location for some of these cell tires if there's no private property in that area. Yeah, they could be potential locations, especially large parks like that, I mean, are potential locations. But when I initially asked for this map, I was given a map of all the cell towers, and it was a ton of dots. So there are a lot of cell towers, and these are just the ones that we have leases for that are on government property. Okay. Let me ask you. I mean, the last thing I want to do is try to put it on any property. But if we can put it on a building, do we have to go through a zone change to put something like that on a building, like on this building or any tall buildings that are out there? Like, for instance, if you go out Harrisburg Road, you've got the corporate drive. You've got a bunch of tall buildings there. Could you put them on those buildings without having a private care or whatever? If it's just an antenna, all they would have to do would be get a permit from building inspection. If it's a total cell tower construction, then it has to go through the uniform application process. It'd have to if they're putting it on a building. If it's a new tower construction, if it's just an antenna on a building, then no. They don't on a building. Okay. So do we push for that a lot? I mean, can we help? Like, I mean, like, for instance, we've got Hamburg out there with a lot of buildings out that way. I mean, the last thing I want to do is try to put something like this in our park. Unless it comes down to where there is no opportunity, I can see that. But do we ever try to push that direction? Well, as part of this process, if we deny the application on government property, then we don't really push a location. Then they go to private properties and negotiate to see what private properties they may be able to locate on. Okay. I'm just curious. Thank you. Councilmember Bledsoe Thank you Chair, I'll be real fast I know on Southland Drive they had a cell tower on private property and one of the individuals in the Southland area decided to appeal the decision by the Planning Commission and took it to court Is there any update on where that is? I'm just curious if we follow that on our side at all I wouldn't have that information, the law department probably would Keith, do you have any update? Do you follow that? A bit more Yes, but I can't tell you the exact status of it. I'm assuming that it has not yet been briefed in the local court. There's a process that stuff goes through. We're aware of it, and the answers would have been filed for it. But we can get an update on that. I'd be curious. I've looked myself and tried to figure out somebody that would be helpful just for future. Thanks. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, committee members. I actually have a couple of questions. Ms. Rikers, in your presentation, you talked about conditional approval by the Planning Commission. I'm just curious what an example. That's approval with conditions. I mean, they could say it's approved if you set it back even further from the property line, or if you make it less tall, or if you put ornamental fencing around it, or whatever. Generally, there aren't that many conditions placed unless we see something that needs to be said. If they haven't offered some kind of mitigating design standard or whatever, if they haven't offered some kind of mitigating factor, then if we see something that's needed, then we would make a recommendation with that recommendation for approval. would make a recommendation is that that is a condition for approval. Just like any other, like with a zone change or with a board of adjustment something, you know, you make conditions of approval, and if they agree to the conditions, then, you know, then the board or whoever generally approves it. That's what that is. Okay, thank you. And then one last thought is I know that continuity in between administrations, I know sometimes that can be difficult, And I'm just wondering if there would be any value to creating a CAO policy or something that addressed this process so that it, I mean, obviously it's not something that's going to go away. It's going to be, I mean, continue. And I just wanted to know from the administration's point of view if there was any thought that as far as what general services, what your department does right now, if there's any value in creating a CAO policy just to address this so that going forward another administration down the road doesn't have any question as to what to do. My thoughts. I personally would be in favor of that. I think that's a really good suggestion. It's probably not at my level to make that recommendation. I'm looking at Commissioner Reed there. To be quite honest, I hadn't thought about it, but I think it does sound like a good idea. probably our position is different from the previous administration due to a number of factors changing laws, etc. But I, for one, am much more reluctant to move on these towers quickly before an awful lot of consultation, an awful lot of study, before we put more into parks. So I think an overall policy is a good idea and be happy to pursue that. That might be just something that just to look into and see if it could prove beneficial down the road. That's all. That's just my two cents worth there. So are there any other discussion or questions of the committee? I think that I don't even know. I appreciate your time and effort into this presentation. I know it's provided a lot of information and insight to especially me for being new on the council, and I really appreciate all your time. Thank you all for today's presentation. Thanks. I guess, committee members, we've got two minutes. I was going to go through the referrals real quick. The workforce investment training, do we want, does anybody see any value in keeping that on the referral list, or is there a motion to? Second. Okay. Motion by Council Member Gibbs and seconded by Council Member Evans to remove item number one, workforce investment, from the referral. Any other discussion? All in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Thank you. The aquatics program design, Council Member Scotchfield, do you? At this point, when do you think we could probably bring that back for review? I know they're just starting their survey now and going through the parks. Would you say August or September maybe? I think September would probably be better because, I mean, we just had the one steering committee meeting. We'll have the one at the end of July. That'll really, I think. All right. If that's okay. That would be good. And then, Jeff, regarding the Parks Foundation, have we hired that person as of yet? I believe you're talking about the grants person. Yes. No, we are going to start interviews this week. The advertising closed yesterday for that position. So maybe again, maybe September? September, October would be helpful. Okay. Okay. All righty. And thank you, Council Member Scutchfield. um council member evans uh will you be ready for a a review of the ethics warden in september at september in september yes i can't get that word out okay and um i've reached out to miss isabel taylor about the bluegrass international center to see if there has been how that board is moving along and uh i'll give an update on that in september uh is there a motion to remove cell towers from the agenda? No, second. Council Member Evans, seconded by Council Member Scotchfield, to remove. Any discussion? All in favor? Say aye. Aye. Any opposed? All right, thank you. Number seven, we'll keep that ordinance in and move it forward until September. And the number eight, Council Member Bledsoe, the extended social resources. I think that we had talked about having that on September 1st, if that's okay with everybody. I think that sounds good, as long as Council Member, you can pull that off? Yes. Okay. I'm hesitant to wait any past that. I would agree. Okay. I think that we're good on September. So, all right. Is there a motion to adjourn? I'm moved. Okay. Council Member seconded by motion by Council Member Scutchfield, seconded by Council Member Evans any of I can't talk all in favor yes goodbye thank you