# Planning and Public Safety Committee - May 10, 2016 > Auto-transcribed civic record · May 10, 2016 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/3952 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/3952?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2016-05-10 - **Last revised**: May 10, 2016 - **Length**: 17,387 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed with OpenAI's open-source Whisper large-v3-turbo model, run locally by The Lexington Times. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude. Verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Planning & Public Safety Committee convened on May 10, 2016, at 1:00 PM with Mossotti presiding as the meeting chair. The committee addressed four agenda items during the session, including both administrative matters and informational updates on key city initiatives. The committee took four votes throughout the meeting and heard from two members of the public during the comment period. Two items were approved by the committee: the April 12, 2016 Committee Summary and Design Excellence Recommendations, while two informational presentations were delivered covering body cameras and the quarterly trails system update. ## Attendance The following members were present at the meeting on May 10, 2016: • Mossotti • Scutchfield • Kay • Stinnett • Akers • Gibbs • Lamb • Bledsoe • Henson **Absent:** • Farmer No members arrived late to the meeting. ## Votes and Decisions The committee took action on four motions during the May 10, 2016 meeting. **Meeting Minutes Approval** Bledsoe motioned to approve the March 8, 2016 Planning & Public Safety Committee Summary, seconded by Hensley. The motion passed unanimously. **Property Tax Abatement Removal** Kay made a motion to remove the property tax abatement issue, which was seconded by Bledsoe. This motion also passed unanimously. **Design Excellence Recommendations** Kay motioned to refer the design excellence recommendations to the planning commission, with Gibbs providing the second [timestamp: 02:55]. The motion passed on a roll call vote, though specific vote tallies were not recorded in the available data. **Meeting Adjournment** Akers moved to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Lamb. The motion to adjourn passed unanimously. All motions that proceeded to a vote were successful, with three passing by unanimous consent and one passing by roll call vote. The committee demonstrated consensus on the items brought forward for decision during this session. ## Budget and Financial Actions The meeting addressed one significant financial contract during the session. **Body Camera Contract** The council considered a five-year contract with Axon (Taser) for body cameras totaling $2,600,000. This substantial investment represents the municipality's commitment to equipping law enforcement personnel with body-worn camera technology over the contract period. The contract with Axon, formerly known as Taser International, would provide the necessary equipment and services for implementing a comprehensive body camera program. The $2,600,000 investment spread over five years indicates an annual cost of approximately $520,000 for the body camera initiative. No specific resolution number was provided in the available documentation for this contract action. The financial commitment represents a significant portion of the budget dedicated to law enforcement technology and transparency measures. ## Public Comment Two residents addressed the board during the public comment period. Mark Barker spoke in opposition to the proposed Rose Street closure, stating that the closure would adversely impact the neighborhood. Paula Singer addressed the Oxford Circle Redevelopment project. She stated that the Cardinal Hill facility was an asset and could be used to market activity in the Oxford Circle area. *Note: Specific transcript timestamps were not available for these public comments.* ## Contested Items The meeting featured one primary contested item that drew community opposition. **Rose Street Closure** Community members voiced strong opposition to a proposed Rose Street closure during the meeting. The disagreement centered on concerns about potential adverse impacts the closure would have on the surrounding neighborhood. Residents who spoke against the proposal expressed worries about how the street closure would affect local traffic patterns, accessibility, and daily life in the area. The opposition appeared to be driven by community members who felt the closure would create unintended consequences for their neighborhood. However, the specific details of who initiated the closure proposal, the exact nature of the adverse impacts cited by opponents, and the final outcome of this contested issue were not clearly documented in the available meeting materials. *Note: Specific transcript timestamps and detailed outcomes for this contested item were not available in the source materials provided.* ## April 12, 2016 Committee Summary The committee considered approval of the summary from their April 12, 2016 meeting. This agenda item was presented as a routine procedural matter requiring committee action. Key speakers on this item included Bledsoe and Hensley, who participated in the discussion regarding the accuracy and completeness of the previous meeting's summary. The committee reviewed the summary document, which captured the proceedings, decisions, and discussions from their April 12, 2016 session. This type of approval is standard practice to ensure the official record accurately reflects what transpired during the previous meeting. Following discussion by the committee members, the April 12, 2016 committee summary was approved. No specific concerns or objections were noted in the available records regarding the content or accuracy of the summary document. The approval of meeting summaries serves as an important administrative function, creating an official record of committee proceedings and ensuring transparency in the decision-making process. ## Body Cameras Update [timestamp: 00:00] Dwayne Holman presented an informational update on the police department's body camera program, covering the history, policy framework, and deployment status of the technology. The presentation provided an overview of how body cameras have been integrated into department operations, including the development of policies governing their use by officers. Holman discussed the timeline of the body camera implementation and the current state of deployment across the police force. The agenda item was structured as an informational presentation rather than a decision-making discussion, allowing officials to receive updates on the program's progress and operational aspects. The body camera initiative represents part of the department's ongoing efforts to enhance transparency and accountability in police operations. No specific concerns were raised during this agenda item, and no action was required from the governing body. The presentation served to keep officials informed about the status and ongoing management of the body camera program within the police department. ## Quarterly Trails System Update [timestamp: 00:00] Scott Thompson presented the quarterly update on the trails system, covering both existing and funded trail projects as well as progress on the bike and pedestrian master plan. The presentation provided an overview of the current status of trail infrastructure and outlined upcoming developments in the system. Thompson discussed various trail projects that have received funding and are in different phases of planning or construction. As part of the comprehensive update, Thompson addressed the bike and pedestrian master plan, which serves as the guiding document for future trail development and connectivity throughout the area. The master plan aims to create a cohesive network of trails and pathways to improve transportation options and recreational opportunities for residents. This agenda item was informational in nature, with Thompson providing the quarterly status report to keep officials and the public informed about ongoing trail system developments and planning efforts. ## Design Excellence Recommendations [timestamp: 02:55] The council discussed design excellence recommendations during agenda item 4, with key presentations from Jeff Fugate and Brandy. The discussion centered on design excellence recommendations and a proposal to refer the matter to the planning commission for further review. The agenda item was structured as a discussion item, allowing council members to deliberate on the design excellence framework and its implementation. While specific details of the recommendations were not provided in the available materials, the discussion involved consideration of how to proceed with the design excellence initiative. The primary focus of the deliberation was whether to move the design excellence recommendations forward to the planning commission. This referral would allow the planning commission to conduct a more detailed review of the proposals and provide additional input on the design standards and guidelines. Following the discussion between the key speakers and council members, the item was approved. This approval indicates that the council agreed to refer the design excellence recommendations to the planning commission as proposed, allowing for continued development and refinement of the design standards through the planning process. The outcome represents a procedural step forward in advancing design excellence initiatives, with the planning commission now positioned to conduct further analysis and provide recommendations back to the council on the proposed design standards and guidelines. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approve the March 8, 2016 Planning & Public Safety Committee Summary - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Remove the property tax abatement issue - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Adjourn the meeting - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Refer the design excellence recommendations to the planning commission --- ## Full transcript I need a motion and a second to approve the summary of the April 12, 2016 committee meeting. Do I have a motion and a second? I have a motion from Council Member Bledsoe. Do I have a second? Thank you, Vice Mayor. I have a motion and a second on the committee summary for the April 12, 2016 planning and public safety meeting. All those in favor? Any opposed? Okay. Let's move on. Chief Barnard, are we here? Or Commander Wright, are you going to present the first item on the agenda about the body cameras? No, it'll be me, ma'am, Assistant Chief Dwayne Holman. Okay, I'm sorry. Good afternoon, Chair and Council Member. Again, I'm Dwayne Holman, Assistant Chief with the Police Department. I came to you, it's been late last year, and we talked about body cameras a little bit, and some of the things that we're doing. This is just an update on that and where we're at. Some of this will be familiar information from before. This is a little bit of the history, and again, we explored. We began exploring body cameras in 2013, which was before a lot of the national events that caught everyone's attention began occurring. We purchased four cameras in 2014, April 2014. We actually own those cameras. Those cameras are called ProVision. Those are cameras that we own now. They do not meet our needs, but we were able to purchase them at a decent price to allow us to explore further what the capabilities of the cameras were, how they would work for us, and we did some limited deployment at that time with those cameras. We tested cameras in the rest of 2014 and early 2015, different vendors, different types of cameras, systems. We brought in vendors to demo their product, their cameras, as well as their total management solution throughout 2014 and early 2015. We monitored, obviously, the national activity and the body-worn camera trends in 2014 and 15. we visited a small group of police officers, including myself, visited Louisville, which is a local large agency that has body cameras, but also agencies on the East Coast, North and South Carolina, specifically to look at how they implemented their cameras and their total solutions, and they all had different solutions, different cameras. We hired objective results to assist with the RFP. Again, this is the history. We hired objective results to assist us with the RFP. That RFP was posted January 11th of this year, and it closed February 17th. The committee was formed. The RFP committee evaluated the 11 responses that were received. That was on March 4th. The committee recommended the Axon cameras from Taser. They proposed agreement to receive first reading at Council back last month. Some of our policy highlights, we've been working on a policy that is for the most part finished. We still may do some fine tuning as we roll these out. But we formed an internal committee that evaluated base policies and best practices across the country. We obtained some specific policies from other police departments who've already deployed body-worn cameras. We contacted again Louisville Metro Police Department as the large agency in this state. We had different groups, outside groups, that are specifically listed that reviewed the policy and provided input to us. Department of Law's input was important as well as the county in common with the attorney and then some truly external groups to the government. In that policy, a couple of the important features is that we defined law enforcement contact in our policy. and the reason we did that is because we want officers to record from the initial contact throughout the conclusion of that encounter, whatever that law enforcement contact is, we want the recording to start and end with the law enforcement contact, so we're going to be recording maybe a little bit more than most agencies do. A little bit about this agreement with TASER, with Axon cameras. It is a five-year contract. That's the best purchase option. The cost would have been quite a bit more, it would be more expensive if we tried something on a year-to-year basis. The total cost of ownership for those five years there is a little bit more than $2.5 million. What that provides us is essentially 800 cameras, but it's 400 users that will have two cameras each, and I think we talked about that a little bit last time. And it's important to us as much as much off-duty work that is done by police officers, either on their way to and from work in a police car or or a true off-duty job where they're using a uniform and their car. We want them to have that camera, a camera with them all the time. And just by the nature of how it's going to work with putting a camera in a dock and taking a while to upload that, we don't want to have that downtime. so we want them to leave at the end of the shift, put a camera in the dock, upload the data that's on that camera, take another camera with them. That's why two cameras per user. Those 400 users will, for the most part, be sergeants and officers and all of our operational folks, which is the Bureau of Special Operations, which is clear in traffic primarily, as well as all the patrol folks. The contract also provides for additional storage for non-TASER, non-AXON devices, so that would be things like digital crime scene photos and interview videos that we can also receive an X amount of storage for that without cost, and then if we go over that, we can pay incremental costs for that. We likely won't pursue that in the very beginning, but that's an option that's available to us as we move through this. It also provides for camera upgrade twice during the five years, so when we talked about this a little bit during the committee, is that what that allows us to do, we're not locking into technology for five years, and then it becomes stale. It allows us to, twice in the five-year contract, we can upgrade to the latest and best product that's out there. It is a cloud-based solution. And if you recall, there's a whole lot of pieces in the middle that's important to us on either end of the camera and storage, and that's all the management tools, but those are some of the big ones. that this contract and this solution provides, audit trail sharing and redacting, which is very important for us. How the purchase and deployment will work. We anticipate a purchase with your approval this month. We don't know how long it will take. We've been told it will take roughly three to four weeks for the cameras to actually come here, so we have a lot of work to do once we place the order. to get everything ready for the cameras and begin rolling things out. One thing that's important to note is obviously that you know now that the mayor's proposed budget included $600,000 for year one of the five-year contract. It's in this contract that you approve for this fiscal year, and it's also been proposed for next fiscal year. There's also a proposal for a body-worn camera administrator in the mayor's proposed budget. as well as an additional assistant records custodian. With this purchase in May, and again, we're looking at the middle of the May before that can happen with your approval, we look for training to occur in early June, and that should happen within a week of receiving the cameras. Again, that's the deployment of those two bureaus, all the officers and sergeants. Our plan is to deploy the cameras gradually. even though it says 100 cameras at a time that means really 100 users it's our plan we're talking about 400 users so 25 percent of the the total capacity to roll out at a time and really we want to evaluate the impact on our infrastructure and just it's better to go slow and then we can fix and tweak any problems that we encounter during that gradual rollout it's also important to note that our initial deployment will be across all three police sectors so the cameras will be in all parts of Fayette County, not just one part. And more than likely, we will also distribute those first 100 users across all shifts, just because the workloads are different. And again, we want to make sure that we see what the impact is on our infrastructure. And that's pretty much an update on where we are right now and where we're headed. We feel pretty good about where we're at and the work that we've put into this to put us in position us pretty nicely to move forward with their excellent product for the city of Lexington. Are there any questions that I may answer? Thank you, Chief. Council members, does anyone have any questions? Council Member Lamb. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Assistant Chief Holman, for this presentation. You mentioned that it's going to be the total purchase price is $2.6 million for a five-year contract. So is that $600,000 going to be for each year? Or I know for this current fiscal year and next fiscal year, you've mentioned the $600,000. But how do we plan on paying for the rest of it? Yes, ma'am, the same way. That's part of the agreement that was presented to you last month and that you'll look at again, presumably today and Thursday, is that we would request that, since it is a five-year contract, approximately $600,000 for the life for that five years. It would be a little bit less than that, of course, because the total is a little bit less. Okay. And you expressed about the patrol and special operations and all officers and sergeants are the ones that are going to be wearing the cameras. How do you determine who the first 100 are? well we're just going to spread them out evenly across the city and across all shifts so when we do that there's not uh i mean we're confident in all of our officers and sergeants uh you know capability to use the cameras appropriately so i don't know we really haven't it's really going to be a very there's not an objective process it's just sort of almost picking picking just whoever happens to be working probably we'll spread it out across the squads as well so we'll We have a couple of people in every squad that has one that allows supervisors, all the supervisors, to touch some of them. So that would probably be the best way we'll handle that. Cool. And then I guess the other thing, the last question is, what about an education to the public? I could think of some occasions where it would be nice for the public to understand how these are going to be used, and it could be a win-win situation on both sides, and there won't be any assumptions being made. Do you have any plans for that? Yes, ma'am, we do. Sometime in June, it's our plan with the mayor and with whoever else would like to be there to have a press conference, and then we'll also have educational material that will be made available through social media and our Internet as well. We have thought about that. Yes, ma'am. Good. And so I would ask for, I would encourage my colleagues to include that in those of us that we have newsletters, that we include that information as well to help you all disseminate the information out. Yes, ma'am. That's going to be very important. Thanks. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Council Member Lamb. Council Member Gibbs. Thank you, Chair. Thanks for the report. I was just wondering what sort of evaluation procedure you have in place to decide if it was worth it to spend the $2.6 million over five years. After the five years, I'd imagine we'll be looking at this again. Well, the evaluation involves annual, well, it's random as well as annual reporting. we're looking at a set of objective facts and it has to do with a lot of different data points like will our response to resistance or use of force reports and encounters and how we handle those, how will the body cameras impact that as well as citizen complaints, is the resolution and disposition of those complaints. So all of that data will be a part of the things that we analyze. We obviously will have the data before the body camera deployment as well as the data afterward. So I think that will help us. Okay, so this will be part of the role of the body camera administrator? Pardon me? The body camera administrator, that new position? It's actually the body camera administrator will be more to handle. There's a lot of physical and administrative tasks that don't have to be handled with 800 cameras. There's a certain number. We don't know what that is, but from our investigation, those are like a 10% failure rate. So the constant movement of body cameras and parts, shipping to and from, assigning, changing out users, assigning cameras to different people, all of that takes a lot of time. But the role, what I talked about earlier, will be primarily handled by our public integrity unit. Okay. Well, thank you. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Council Member Gibbs. Are there any other Council Members that have questions? If not, I have one. Yes, ma'am. Chief, when you spoke with these other agencies and met with them, did they give you any indication of where they maybe had difficulties or glitches that came up with this system? We've learned from, hopefully we've learned from other people's mistakes, which is there's a litany of things that we have tried to take our time and take all that into consideration. So, yes, there's really, I think, the number one mistake that most agencies have made in light of the national events that went on is they moved too quickly to make these purchases without consideration for all of the pieces and how they fit together. I think that's the number one mistake that most have admitted to us. And basically the response has been pretty positive from these other agencies that they are happy that they're using the cameras and it's been to their benefit, or have you not gotten that far yet? You know, it's still a little early for body-worn cameras as a whole. I think there are individual agencies that may have some anecdotal information. In-car video cameras have been out a little bit longer than body-worn cameras. You know, people have to understand it's not a panacea, and I think that's what most agencies and most communities are seeing, that it's not the end-all solution to everything. There's still going to be potential issues. There may be malfunctions. There may be angles, you know, that may cause to be still conflict and something that occurred when you're talking about trying to figure out what really did happen. So it's not the perfect solution, but I think it goes a long way toward solving some of the problems that a lot of communities have seen, though, from our investigation. I know when I spoke with Chief Barnard, his biggest concern was the data, the collection, and how much storage we'd have to have and how much time we'd have to keep it. Now, is that something you're working out with the law department as far as who's going to have access, open records, et cetera, et cetera? Have you all vetted that? We've talked a lot about that, and I know that there's a lot of concerns with Commissioner Graham as well as us. And, you know, we'll be working with retention schedules that the state already has. We talked about a little bit last time, and that is right now our plans is to follow the state retention records on non-evidentiary encounters. So if it's not an evidentiary encounter, then those records will be deleted after 30 days. and then everything else will follow the regular retention schedules for evidence associated with different types of cases. Because that's what this is. This will be evidence. If we've determined it to be evidence and not just, I don't know, a video of a motor success, but once we've identified it as actually an evidence and not a record, then it will simply apply to all other evidence-related matters for whatever happens to be the particular crime. So if a Part 1 crime, will you keep it five to seven years or beyond that? I don't know those record retentions off the top of my head. I don't think it's by Part 1 crimes. I think it has to be like everything related to homicide has to be kept forever, and then from there it comes down to years, and it reaches a point where it may be the disposition of the case. In most cases, it's the actual disposition of the case in court, and all avenues of appeal have been exhausted. But we're going to lean heavily on the law department, as we always do with open records kind of requests. All right. Well, thank you very much. I appreciate it, Chief. Thank you. All righty. And it looks like we're up with trails. Keith, who's going to give us our trail presentation? It'll ought to be Scott Thompson. Okay. We have a little combination. So Scott Thompson is going to give the trail master plan part, And then Keith is here if there are any questions about the status of current trails. All right. Thank you. Scott, you're on. Council members, chair, I'll try to make this quick and to the point for you all. So talk about the trails plan, bike and pedestrian trail plan, master plan update. Let me try to do this right. So we're going to talk a little bit about existing versus funded trails and the actual planning document, the bike and pedestrian master plan update for the two counties of Fayette and Jessamine County. So I thought we'd start off talking a little bit about our existing bike and pedestrian trails. So currently we have a total of just under 100 miles of facilities, So 50 miles of on-road facilities and roughly 30 miles of shared-use trails, which is a pretty good network. To put that into perspective, since our last trail plan update, which was in 2007, we had a total of 28 miles, 18.8 miles of on-road bike lanes or buffered bike lanes, and then 10 miles of shared-use trails in 2007. And so we've added about 50 miles of facilities over that nine-year period. And this shows the two different facilities types. In the green, you can see the existing bike and pedestrian trails, and the existing bike lanes, share roads, or buffered bike lanes, which we refer to as on-road facilities. This shows the current trail projects that are funded. It's a little bit difficult to read, but it is the trails that are highlighted in red. just to give you a little perspective you can see the town branch trail kind of to the northeast and then if you look in the downtown area you can see the legacy trail phase three or four i can't remember which one that is but to give you some perspective and there's some smaller pieces out in more of the suburban areas that are that are currently funded and will be under construction in the next couple of years or this next year And so this is what the facilities map looks like if we include all of our facilities, both existing and funded. So we're starting to get a little bit of connectivity in our network. It still does look a little bit like, you know, we like to say spaghetti thrown at the map. And we're working on building in that connectivity over time. but the process so far has really been to take opportunities when they're available to get the trails facilities in through like maintenance projects, repaving, restriping, and then obviously we go after grant funding for some of our larger projects. Can I stop you for a minute, please? Yes, ma'am. What are the dates on these? I mean, we've got planned, existing, and all that, but are we talking about five-year plan, ten-year plan? I mean, I'm trying to get up. So, well, our bike and pedestrian master plan, the one that we originally did, was in 2007. We have not updated that plan yet. So we asked for funding from the MPO Council, state planning funds, to update that plan, and they awarded that. And so currently we are in the process of getting that contract approved. I think the council has seen that and approved that. They'll then get the mayor's signature. They'll go back to the state for the Secretary of Transportation to sign that document, and then they'll give us a notice to proceed. We'll advertise that RFP for that plan update. That will sit out for a month or so. We'll evaluate those proposals, and then we'll move forward with the plan, the update of the plan, which will be this year. So what we have here is 2007? No, that is all of the current facilities that we have in place. The green are existing bike and pedestrian trails, so that means off-road facilities, so those are separated from the road. The blue are the existing bike lanes, charrows, and buffered bike lanes. So those are all on-road facilities. So they're either a bike lane, a bike lane with a small buffer beside the lane, or a shared lane symbol in areas where we're trying to gain some connectivity but don't have the road width. It's just difficult because ours are black and white. Are they really? I'm going back and forth trying to figure this out. Thank you. But that shows, that is a picture of what is in place or will be in place, and I think it's safe to say within the next two years, but give or take. So this is a list of what you saw on that last map in orange, and I know that's difficult for you because those are in black and white. So if I go back to this map, this chart coincides with the orange lines on that map. So that shows you the orange lines are the projects that are listed on the chart that you have in your packet, and then the status of those projects estimated completion and start dates as well I don't know if you want to wait to hold questions until we go through the whole thing or do you have specific questions about the status of trail projects it might be better to talk about those before we talk a little bit more about the the actual plan update which will be coming this year it's council members pleasure i don't have anyone signed up yet i guess we'll just keep on going okay sure and we can always come back to that i just thought it might be a good time to do that so getting back to the to the plan the bike and pedestrian master plan we we like so we haven't had an update since 2007 and a lot's changed since then and facilities types best practices for design those types of things so these are just a few bullet points about about that plan once we get started again it's the first update since 2007 the the process will take between 8 and 12 months by the time we do our public outreach work with council as well as the consultant to develop the plan. It'll be 8 to 12 months. We want to look at the connectivity of all bike and pedestrian facilities and how does our completed system look. How do we take what we have in place and connect that to goods and services and jobs and schools and things that people we know want to get to, but sometimes there's barriers in the way, like a road with no facilities or a major crossing or things of that nature. So we want to look at how we connect people to places. We want to put up a little heavier emphasis on pedestrian facilities and pedestrian safety. We've been working on that over the last few years quite a bit more, but we feel like the first plan didn't identify as much in the way of ped-only facilities, so lack of sidewalks, lack of connectivity in that system, lack of connectivity to goods and services. We found that communities that are developing separated facilities, So that would be some type of a barrier between the vehicle and the bike lane and or a shared use trail, much like the Legacy or the Town Branch Trail, have much higher rates of commute to work mode share by bicycle. And it's because of that perception of safety in those facility types. So we want to look at how do our current separated facilities connect in with our on-road facilities, and where should we be building more separated facilities so that we can connect people, residences, and different housing densities into jobs and goods and services so that bicycling is a mode option for them on their commutes and to get to grocery, shopping centers, those types of things. So we definitely want to look at what does a separated off-road facilities plan look like in context of our existing facilities. Something that I think Council has been interested in and we want to include in this is a clear and concise list of capital improvement projects. So once we look at the overall plan and identify the projects, we will score those with statistical data and census tract data to determine an order in which those projects should be implemented. And then we'll use public comment as well as council comment to weigh on how those facilities should be organized as well. And then from that, we'd like to be able to look at different funding sources annually as how we build this system out over a five- or a ten-year period, depending on what timeline we put on that. As we grow our system, we know that maintenance and safety are going to increase the need for safety and the need for more maintenance. And so we want to know what are some thresholds for staff, what are some thresholds for police and fire and emergency services, and how do they get to people on these trails, and how do we keep our trails safe, and then how do we keep them clean and maintained so that they're usable for our citizens. And then we're also going to look at how we educate the public to where these facilities are, how to drive and interact with these facilities, how to bike and interact with these facilities, and how to walk and interact with these facilities as we start to see an increase in our usage of these systems. And with that, I'll open it up for questions. Thank you. Council Member Bledsoe. Thank you, Chair. Thanks, Scott. I just have a few questions. One, you mentioned commuter, separated, off-road. you used a special phrase there you don't mean having a bike lane you mean something like a grass or a pavement between the bike lane and the road right they break bicycle riders there's some national stats and national studies that show there's several different types of bicycle riders they call one group the strong and fearless that's this 1% and we currently have a 1% mode share in Fayette County they'll ride anywhere on a bike they'll ride a bike lane, they'll ride a shared use trail, they'll ride in the road There's another 7% that's enthused and confident. They tend to steer towards the shared-use trails, bike lane facilities, but don't use it as a permanent mode to commuting. But then there's a 60% of folks that are identified that make up the interested but concerned. And that group sees a huge increase when you use a separated facility. And so that can be on-road separated by something as simple as a plastic delineator, which is just a post that's between the bike lane and the drive lane. Sometimes there's curb or graft strips. Sometimes there's something more substantial. So the type of facility and the type of separation is very much determined by the type of road that it may be next to or not next to at all, and then it's just a shared-use trail. But when we say separated, we mean physically separated from vehicular traffic. And it doesn't have to be as capital-intensive, maybe. is in my head. I was thinking it could be, as you said, just small barriers. Absolutely. Even the posts, even though those aren't going to prevent a vehicle necessarily from that physical movement of moving into that bike lane, we see a huge increase in the amount of people that ride on those facilities versus just a standard bike lane. That 60% is what we're interested in. That's who we want to get out using a bike, even if it's just for physical activity, because then it becomes a mode choice for other things like commuting to work or going to the store or whatever you might do. That makes sense. And that's really interesting. So when we do bike lanes, I know in the past, or at least this happened to us last year, that when we pave a road and it's on the bike lane plan, that we do the striping for the bike lane at the same time. Is that still how we're going to operate in the future? Yes. We hope to continue to do that moving forwards. sometimes the opportunity is there, sometimes it's not. If the paving project is large enough and it makes sense for us to go ahead and get that facility in as a part of that project, we'll do that. The better job we do of having a longer range kind of paving plan and more time to vet this stuff through the public and those types of things, I think the better off we'll be for how we actually install these things as a part of routine maintenance. There's a big national push for that. That's what a lot of communities do. They do longer-range paving plans, and bike and pedestrian facilities are a piece of that component so that you're not spending money two and three times over a three-year period to do something that you can do once. I agree with the systematic approach to it. I think what surprised me was that I wasn't ready for it, and the neighbors weren't ready for some of that. And we kind of had some concerns and questions about it, and just that lack of education maybe on how we're going to do it and how they fit into a broader picture. So that's good. I think as long as we're doing that in collaboration, that makes sense. And lastly, I love our trails. I ran five this morning on trails and run into the same people. We loop, we pass each other, and there's a whole group of people who love, and they walk to Kroger and they walk to the places and they run. And I know that I've asked Parks about this. We get a lot of requests for 5Ks, and you can only run Coldstream so many times. And I think I've exhausted my Coldstream racing ability. So I would just encourage us as we're looking at how to connect some of these, you know, parks that we already have that have trails, how can we make them kind of 5K friendly, 6K friendly, 10K friendly, so that we're helping provide some more venues for health, I guess, than just some of, right now we kind of have one place we send everybody. And that would be something that I would hope we would kind of look at as connectivity goes to connect them. Well, absolutely. And the shared use trails that I'm referring to are ones that we identify for transportation. I did not include in those mileage statistics parks trails. So the paved loop trails that you see in parks, in almost all of our parks, are not included in those statistics. Because those are not a part of the overall trail plan. That doesn't mean we don't connect to parks. We do connect to parks. We do connect to those trail systems. And in some cases, there will be overlap. For instance, West Sigmund Trail South, which is a small trail that's in Veterans Park, will overlap a component of the existing loop trail as it continues through Veteran Parks and moves south into Jessamine County. So there definitely will be lots of overlap, but since those are not commuting-type trails, I don't include those in those statistics. We do show them as walking trails when we do our walk-friendly community applications and bike-friendly community applications. and those things, we include that mileage, but we don't include them because they're not technically a part of the transportation system. Okay, I'll push back slightly since my time is up and just say that I get that. That makes sense to me. I can tell you at least that the Beaumont Trail is back behind Cardinal Run, back up to Beaumont Circle at Kroger and at the mail station or at the post office. And so I do see a lot of people using those trails with grocery bags that are using them specifically from Beaumont Apartments or using them from Harrods Hill through Beaumont Park over there. So I'd be curious to see. I think you're right in terms of a general assumption, but I think in certain neighborhoods those trail parks are used as commuter. Oh, absolutely. Or at least functional. And there's always going to be pieces of them that are. We just don't include them in the mileage statistic for commuting-type facilities. They're in the plan, and we identify them in the plan, and we identify them as walking trails. but they don't show up in those statistics that I gave you. Okay. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Council Member Bledsoe. Council Member Henson. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Scott, for the presentation, the update. My question was similar to Council Member Bledsoe's in that the Cardinal Valley Small Area Plan did call for a trail along Wolf Run, which you currently don't have anything along the Wolf Run Creek. So, but, you know, it's like there's a small trail at Valley Park, and it talked about connecting it with McConnell Springs, well, Preston Cave Springs, and then McConnell Springs. And eventually it could go right on into Town Branch. So I didn't know if that's something you'd looked at or how we can get that looked at. We definitely look at other plans when we update our master plan. So all the small area plans that have been done and their recommendations for bike and pedestrian facilities will be incorporated into the overall master plan update. There's opportunities all over, and we want to make sure that we're including everything as a possibility to make those connections that we're looking to do. Most of the trails seem to be in the downtown area and the town branch area. So I would like to see that connection happen later on down the road or whatever, if we can get that on the list. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Council Member Henson. Council Member Brown. Fred Brown. Thank you for recognizing me, Chair. I'm not on this committee, but I do have some concerns. Looking at the status of the trails projects that you have on the list, I see there's some in there have some NAs on them. Does this mean that we're having a holdup somewhere? What's the reasoning that we're not moving forward? I'm not sure. Is that in the recent progress column? I'm looking for the N.A. I don't see it. Elkhorn, the trails two, and section three. Keith can probably elaborate on that. The South Elkhorn, we've got issues with both North Fork Southern. We have to get on there right away. And also we need an easement from U.K. on the South Farm. And so far we haven't been able to get that. So that's why we don't know when that's going to happen. So that's why we put N.A. on that. Okay, you might be able to answer this, Keith. The status of the trail project, is this all the trail projects that we have on hand that we're working on? These are the ones that we're working on currently. So there is no other list of trail projects in the mix? Only our unfunded trails. And is there any unfunded trails? We've got a list of projects that don't have any funds associated with them, but they're on our wish list. To segue into my other question is, I noticed that we're doing most of it CMAX and SLX and coming through MPO funds. Are we trying to tap our general fund or are we trying to tap some long-range funds or anything of that nature? Where are we at in that process? The only trail that we're funded locally is the Hope Center Trail. Yeah, I saw that. And that was on the list. I'm not aware of any other trails that are being funded with local dollars. Is there any way that we could set a priority listing of these trails, much like we do a lot of our other projects that we want to do? Yeah, that's what the bike and pedestrian investment. I mean, but this list right here is not in priority order by any means, right? These are projects that I'm actively working on. These are in various stages. I mean, we've got consultants and we've got design, and we were buying right away. I guess I have a larger concern in the fact that we've got these trails and we also are looking at sidewalk improvements, and I still think there's a combination there. I don't think you all are looking at that combination, but I'm looking at it. For instance, along some of the trails you're making, I think it's a 10-way. Is it a 10-way, bikeway, walkway, trail? can serve the same as a sidewalk. Is that not correct? Are you saying a 10-foot wide multi-use trail? Is that multi-use is 10-foot wide? We do look where we can to put those multi-use trails in, but there are also places that we look just to put sidewalks in. We're not looking to do them kind of one or the other. But where those look, why would we not do one or the other? Why wouldn't we combine that in certain areas? Well, that's my point. Only in certain areas will it work. But where it will work, that's where we look to do it. Okay. For the most part, sidewalks are going to be in locations where they fit, where basically what we can get is a six-foot sidewalk. Sidewalks are concrete, and I think these trails are asphalt, aren't they? Not always, but they can be. And sometimes that isn't always the best for long-term maintenance. I just think there's some connectivity there, and I think we need to look at that. We need to prioritize some of this. Well, and that's actually what this is going to do. So if we go back to this, this is where we're going to be looking at those pedestrian facilities. What's out there? how do we combine all of these things up? And if you look here, the creation of a clear and concise capital improvement project list will come out of this. So we will have that priority list trying to connect all of this. So as we go back to what Scott showed here, which is on-road, off-road, these are all the different trails we have. Again, these are bike facilities of various forms. These are the off-road trails that we have and the funded trails that we have as well. It is the goal of this master plan to create those priorities. Again, kind of the list that Keith's talking about, some of the unfunded, some of the projects that we would like to see. Some, as Peggy mentioned, that are in some of the small area plans. Take those all together, create that comprehensive plan, and then create a funding list, a capital project list. So you're in process of creating a new master plan. Is that what this is all about? Correct. We have received some funding and it's getting ready to start that process. Then once we look at that, we can tell, the council can tell. Right. And that's when it gets to funding, you are correct. When we look at this, we've got CMEK funding, we've got SLX, we've got those. One of the reasons that we have that is we are probably more successful than a lot of other communities in the state at acquiring that money because we can get the local match. So a lot of the smaller communities don't have the ability to do the local match. They don't have the ability with the engineering that we do to go out and to construct those facilities when we receive the funding. So we have been successful. We want to still keep maximizing that as we can. But I think realistically, if we go forward and we have this capital improvement project list, so we can start looking to see how do we fund larger projects where they may exist. A couple quick follow-up questions. When you do the update of the master plan that you're going to have, how many years is that plan going to go out? Are you going to take it out five or ten years and try to? We generally try to update that plan every five years. So it's a five-year plan. But it's been nine years since the last one. Yeah. So we will develop a project list with a hypothetical timeline for implementation of those projects. It could be five years. It could be ten years. But the plan update is more to look at what's been implemented since the plan, evaluate that, look for overlaps between sidewalk projects, shared-use trails. How do we do both at the same time, those kind of things. I'd like to look at the master plan as a master plan. Absolutely. Sidewalks, bikeways, all that, trails, and a combination. The other thing on that is. Make it quick. Okay, within this plan, are you going to take care of the maintenance and the life of these trails? Is this going to be involved in your plan as far as funding? Absolutely. We want to talk about maintenance and safety, and we'll have an action plan included in this one as well. Thank you. Council Member Brown. Council Member Akers. Thank you, Chair. Scott, thank you for the presentation. And I get asked a lot about when different trails will be finished or when we will be able to have more commuter bike lanes on side streets that do connect to existing trails. So I wondered if you could send us, at least I think it would be helpful since it's not in this presentation, What you mentioned earlier of what we had in 2007 and what we currently have today and then what we project to have completed, I don't know, in one year or two years or out of these funded projects, what will that bring us to? I think it would go a long way, I know, in communicating with my constituents because a lot of times people also complain that we're not a bike-friendly city or we're not a, you know, and I think that we've done a lot. I know that we've done a lot, and so I want to be able to show that and share that with people and then also get them excited about future plans. Absolutely. That would be great. And I guess as far as unfunded projects that Keith mentioned, does that mean that there's been any design work or is it just an idea someone pitched sometime? It varies. Those projects are projects that were identified in the 2007 and plan. So there's a network of trails that came from that on-road, off-road facilities. There's some greenway trails listed in there as well. So there's lots of projects. And so in our BPAC meetings, when we have it once a month, there's a project list that Keith generates that shows our funded, unfunded projects and a project status report on those projects. So I could email you that, and that'll show you kind of what's out there. It doesn't identify all the sidewalks and all those things. These would primarily be trail projects. Yeah, just trail projects. I'm interested in. I mean, because if there's anything we could do to help advance them, then, you know, I'd be glad to do that. Yeah, absolutely. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. Council Member Hanson. Thank you, Chair. When Council Member Fred Brown was speaking, it made me think of another question. As far as the maintenance on the trails, do we have a placement in there for maintenance on the trails? in the budget, and if so, whose budget is it in? Streets and roads? Currently, Parks and Rec maintains our trails. So we would be looking at how do they... Obviously, they're a stakeholder in this plan update. We will be utilizing them and their input on what it takes currently to maintain the existing trails that we have and how many miles is that. And as we reach particular thresholds, like as we get 20 more miles of shared-use trails of this particular type, what does that mean? So obviously our on-road facilities would be streets and roads. So when we repave a road, we go back with the same facility that's there. So if there's a bike lane in place, they put that back. They handle the street sweeping, which would include sweeping the bike lanes if there's one present on that roadway and those kind of things. So I guess it is more than more organization, but Parks is who's handling that currently, and that's who we'll be working with to determine how we move forwards with that maintenance piece. There also is some money in this year's budget specifically for trail maintenance. Okay. I believe it's $150,000, and I'm struggling as to which division it is, because as Scott alluded to, some of our trails are in the parks and some are outside the parks. Yeah. So it's streets and roads where the funding is going through. So would the trails need to be paved as often as our roads? I don't know. I just think, you know, with a small amount of traffic, they may not. No. And the money that Derek is referring to is for repaving. That money is going to repave trails, mainly some in parks, some shared-use trails. That list has been vetted, and they're going to work through that money. As far as how often do they need to be repaired, generally because of the loading, heavy vehicles are what tear up roads. That's right. And then, of course, snow removal, that kind of stuff. And so on our trails, the repaving maintenance isn't needed as often. The reason that the park trails are deteriorating the way that they are has a lot to do with when they were put in, which was many years ago, and then how they were put in. Our newer facilities are up to a much higher standard, much more to a road standard, so they will last that much longer. That's good to know. Yes, ma'am. Thank you, sir. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Council Member Henson. Scott, I've got a couple of questions. Yes, ma'am. The unfunded list that you talked about, unfunded trail list, how many trails do we have on there? Offhand, I don't know. A bunch. But I will tell you that, yes, we have a lot because we do have a lot of lack of connectivity. And how do you determine the priority? So in our first bike and pedestrian master plan, we developed a scoring matrix. and includes things like distance of the project to employment, distance to households with no vehicle, distance to commute mode chairs that are higher than walking and biking. So we look at things that are drivers for bike and pedestrian usage. That's one component of it. We also look at connectivity, support from other plans, political support. So there's all kinds of variables that go into that scoring matrix, And each project is evaluated independently. We generally use GIS or some other program to help us do that because it's a large thing. And then they can always be manipulated, and that will be part of that council input, public input process that we go through as we identify the projects, score those projects, and get feedback. And that was my last question. You do seek public input when you go ahead and try to formulate your plan, I'm assuming. Absolutely. That is the – we want that to be the driving force. We want the community to talk about what their needs are as much as we think we know what those are. They know probably better. Because someone who represents the suburbs, they feel somewhat disenfranchised in the trail process. They feel like everything is going downtown, and I've said that, so this is nothing new. And they want the connectivity as well, but I'm on the NA list here, and I don't know how long I'm going to be on the NA list, and maybe you can give me an idea. Well, those particular projects are just, that has to do with right-of-way. Railroads are, and Keith could talk a little about this, extremely difficult to deal with when it comes to securing right-of-way. And so those two projects have been funded for a long time. We just can't secure the right-of-way to build the project. And you said you need some political push. What kind of political push do you need to get this done? For those projects, that's a little more specific. What I was talking about is how we score these projects. We look for, is there political support for this project? So did we have a council member or a constituent talk a lot about this particular project? through our public meetings that we'll have as a part of the plan update. We get a lot of input from the public as well as from council. And so that's what I mean by political support. I think there's a lot of these neighborhood associations that don't even know that a lot of these trails are proposed. And you'd have a lot of support, but they're just not aware of it. So maybe once you start to finalize this new plan, you can let us know. And we have a neighborhood association meeting. Have you all come and say, look, this is what we're looking at potentially for your area. And I think once that would be out for the public to view, you'd have a lot of support. And hopefully that would garner the support that you need for the money in order to get this finished. Because people are walking more, people are biking more, and they want to be able to ride downtown from the suburbs or anywhere around town. Or just to take advantage of the health benefits. So I think that's real, real important. But I appreciate the update. I'd like a list of those unfunded trails. You wouldn't mind providing those? Because I'd kind of like to see what we've got in the hopper and what our future is going to look like after they're somewhat, either they're funded or completed or whatever, and maybe a date specific to it, what you're thinking about maybe when this is going to happen. Because that, again, people always want to ask, well, when's it going to be done? And so we don't want to say NA, but we don't know. So that would be, at least for me, I would appreciate that. Absolutely. Is there any other council members that have questions? Well, thanks so much for the update. I appreciate your help. I know this is a big, big thing, and I know it's real important to our community. It's real important. Yes, ma'am. Thank you. Thank you. Council member, or I'm sorry, Vice Mayor Kay, your long-awaited design development is here, finally. You're on. Thank you very much. just briefly to remind the committee and those watching. This is a report back from a subcommittee that was created by this committee to review the design excellence proposals that had already been put before Council. And I believe that Jeff Fugate, who the committee chose as its chair, is going to kick off the presentation. So, Jeff. Thank you, Vice Mayor, Chair, members of Council. So as the Vice Mayor was just saying, I wanted to remind folks, is that I'm staying here because the subcommittee asked if I would chair, and I said I would. And what we were tasked with was basically a wholesale reconsideration of the proposal that was brought to you in February of 2015, so 15 months ago. Fifteen months ago, the task force reported out, and there were some concerns at that time, and so this subcommittee was created in September of 2015. so a few months later, to give some consideration to this. Just to remind you, the members of the subcommittee were Vice Mayor Kay, Council Member Stinnett, Representative of the Fayette Alliance, which has changed over the time the committee's been meeting, Rick Eckhoff from EOP Architects, Renee Shepard, hi Renee, from the DLC, Chris Nod from NOLICDC, representing the development community, also representing the development community, Phil Hollaback was also on the subcommittee. So those are the members of the subcommittee who each represented a specific constituency that was going to be interested in the outcomes here. So we started out with these intended outcomes. This is what we were trying to accomplish. This more or less came out of the task force. So the work of the task force really was trying to reach some of these outcomes, and then we tweaked them a little bit. And the biggest starting point really was that whatever this process was, it needed to be consistent, predictable, and transparent. So fair and predictable were the key words we talked about. The other thing that was very important to both the development community and the staff of planning was that there would be improved communication early in the process as opposed to it being at the back end of the process. And then it's design excellence, so we're trying to encourage good design. And when we say design, we're talking about urban design, not necessarily architecture. And Brandy will talk a little bit more about that later. And then finally, elimination of the existing courthouse area design review board, which is, well, I think the general sense is that it meant well, but it has introduced a fair amount of unpredictability for those properties that it involves. So when the proposals were brought forth in February of last year, there were some very valid concerns, and we heard those. And so what this SO committee intended to do was to, working with the outcomes we just discussed, address each of these concerns. And I feel like that we did that somewhat effectively. And so what we're bringing you today is a rather significant departure, actually, from what was proposed last year. So these are the outcomes. Randy will walk you through the specifics. but just to give you an idea, what we wanted to do was create an environment that basically utilized existing regulatory processes, so the existing zoning and the existing economic development processes. We did not want to create a new regulatory process or new set of applications, so we took that position and how could we accomplish what we were trying to within the existing framework. We wanted to create a culture of yes if, not no because, and that was something that multiple members of the subcommittee brought forth and said that that is a big part of what we're trying to create here. And then we also just acknowledged that the current system is a bit flawed for downtown because it introduces two levels of uncertainty. One is the uncertainty of dealing with the Courthouse Area Design Review Board when you're trying to get permitted and trying to get a building built. The second uncertainty is once you have invested downtown, you have very little protections as to what goes next to you. And so after you may invest tens of millions of dollars in a mixed-use condo development, someone may have the right under the current system to put a gas station across the street from you. So those protections are an important part of encouraging investment. So I'll let Brandy walk you through the specifics, but I just wanted to reiterate that what we bring you today is a ZODA and a recommendation on how you do development agreements moving forward as a way of basically carrots and sticks in terms of if the public has public money in a project, then the public may have a say in what the design looks like. And so I'll let Brandy talk you through the rest of it. Thanks. Thanks, Jeff. Thank you all for letting us come today to talk about this. So let's see if we can get this going. Just as a reminder, the B2 zones, B2A, B2B, and B2, all within the downtown are the design excellence boundary. And those are represented here in this map. So the best way for us to talk about how this new process that the subcommittee has proposed is for me to walk you through three different project types that you will find within the downtown zone, typically. And so we'll start with the type one, demolition projects. So demolition projects entail anyone who wants to remove or demolish an entire structure or any part of a structure. And so what we are proposing is that we would like to utilize the existing process that the Board of Architectural Review utilizes to review historic structures and decide upon if they should receive a certificate of appropriateness. So what this would do is add a layer of protection to our historic structures in downtown, but still offer an opportunity for those others to seek demolition permits. Utilizing the existing structure, an existing board, and their regulations that are already set forth, that any property within the B2 zones would go before the BOAR for review to seek a certificate of appropriateness for a demolition permit. What I want to make clear is that they are only going to review demolition permits. They will not review the design aspects that would be going in its place. So they would only determine if it is a historically significant structure and if it should remain and not be demolished. Also, what has changed versus the existing process is that any appeals would come before the council if there are any to be heard. The second type of project is a conventional construction project. And this is any new construction, addition, or rehab within a B2 zone. These projects will have no additional design review other than what they already go through today. Today they go for a building permit with building inspection. They're required to come up to zoning, to planning to get a zoning compliance permit. Within that, they meet with staff. They review their project to ensure that it has met all the zoning ordinance requirements. And then they receive a zoning compliance permit. Once that's received, they're able to go ahead and seek their building permit. We will utilize that same system today for the design excellence boundary. What has changed is that we are proposing that baseline design criteria be incorporated, and that's found in the ZODA that was in your packet. So what we're talking about are basic urban design standards, and this is something like setback. We want to ensure that someone doesn't set back 50 feet or something and allow a parking lot in front of their building. That's not what a downtown should look like. It's establishing a minimum height and a maximum height. It's establishing various frontage requirements. But everything that we're talking about is a quantifiable criteria. It has a number to it. Nothing is prohibited. Originally, we had some things prohibited in the design excellence package before. We've readjusted that, and nothing is prohibited at this time. What it would require is someone to seek a conditional use for certain items or a variance for certain items if they would like to pursue something greater than what the zoning ordinance would allow. So all of that follows the existing structure. They would come before the board of adjustment, and they would receive those if so granted. But what that does is it ensures that they can have these unique situations, but come along with it a design that's appropriate for our downtown. So that essentially gives you an understanding of if you're a typical project in a B2 zone, same process, same check-offs, staff will approve that. There will be no board review for these projects. The third project type is a public-supported construction project. Now, this is where we get into a little bit more, a little bit difference with the design guidelines. What this means is any new construction project, addition, rehab, what have you, but if they are seeking public support, if they are wanting an incentive from the city, This is when we say, as a city, we're giving you an incentive. We're becoming a partner in this, so therefore we should have a say in how this thing moves forward to ensure that it's right for our downtown and right for our community. So by tying the incentives to this process, this is the way that we'll do it. We'll utilize an existing structure that we do now for TIFs. So if they're seeking a TIF, if they're seeking a land swap, if they're seeking grants, grants or say they want us to assist in developing the parking. That would trigger us to have a talk with them and to have a negotiation to establish a master development agreement. Within that master development agreement, we would determine what the incentives would be that they may receive and how the process for review would go after that. I must have to say that that process also will come before you all, before council at a public hearing. Community would have their input at that time and it would be for your review and consideration before moving forward with anything that with these agreements. So if the master development agreement is executed, everyone sees fit this is an appropriate response to their request, then they would execute that agreement with the mayor's office and then they would come to the design review officer, that is myself at this time, and I would help them walk through that process. Now, within your packets, I've left several flow charts, one for demolition, one for the conventional, and one for this project, so you can reference that if you'd like. But the way this would work is after the negotiation, after the execution of the agreement, then you go into an iterative design review process where we could have one-on-one conversations, ensure that they're meeting the intent of the design guidelines, and that we're also being respectful of a project's time and their needs as well. So that's what we want to make sure that we keep that open, honest, and as smooth as possible. And just to reiterate, this will not have a board review like it originally did as well. So I want to just take a quick look at a case study of what's the difference between our zoning ordinance now and a design guideline process. And so the zoning ordinance is what you see on the left side, which establishes your minimum and maximum. These are those design standards I was speaking of. So if we're looking at height, for instance, this one says you have to have a minimum height of two stories. If you're adjacent to a neighborhood and you've been identified in that district, then you can only be up to eight stories by right. Again, these are numbers. You can come for a variance if your project would like to seek that. So that gets you your base form. Now, if they had sought out incentives, public support, and they were going through the design review with the guidelines, the other side of this slide will speak to that. And so, for instance, it gets into more of the details, the sensitivities of how that building relates to the ones adjacent to it or the neighborhoods adjacent to it. So, for instance, taller buildings need to relate to smaller scale buildings nearby. So you would consider the lower levels having horizontal elements that would speak to the scale of those adjacent to you, or they might step down as they get near a residential neighborhood that is a smaller scale. So this might be a silly little reference, but this is how I've always said it, which is the ordinances, the standards are what builds your cake, and then the guidelines are what puts your icing and your sprinkles on top, because it makes it attractive to us and makes it a better, you might want to eat a piece of it, right? So what I want to just end up with is to let you guys understand that the goal of design excellence is not to be an architectural style review. It is not to pick apart every detail of every material and every color choice. It is instead to be a process that talks about that public space, connectivity, and ensuring that it It provides a good urban space that is inviting and promotes economic development in our downtown and gives a sense of security for all those developing in downtown. So what we will have in place is a published set of design guidelines, and we have submitted that reference guide to you as well. And so these will ensure that the process does not get into that architectural detail because it will outline what are all the urban design best practices that we are trying to support with design excellence. With that being a public tool, everyone may reference that, and as the design review officer, those will be referenced when that review is going on with the parties involved. So that is, in conclusion, all of the design excellence at this moment, and we're available for questions. Thank you. Thank you so much. Any of the council members have any questions? Council Member Lamb. Thank you, Chair. Thank you for this information. I have a few questions. Under the demolition projects, it talks about any appeals will be sent to the council. What kind of jurisdiction will we have as a council? Because unless it's being used under different terminology, we don't have any appeals, per se, that come to the council. They usually go to the court system. And Jim, do you have a response to that? Council Member Lamb, I will attempt to answer that and certainly stand for correction if anybody behind me has a better idea. But presently, the BOAR appeals go to the Planning Commission. And so this would bypass the Planning Commission, in essence, and you would be the appeal authority for any of these demolitions. And it's perhaps that you don't have any of that responsibility right now, but there's no reason that you couldn't have that. So that's why we felt like that in this case, this isolated area of the B2s, that it would be better for the council to take the action on the appeals in the Planning Commission. Okay. And I guess since I'm used to everything coming to us in the form of an ordinance or a resolution, I guess so I'd look at the law department, How would an appeal be, and what form would the appeal end up being? Because things that go to BOAR don't come, they don't end up being held in the same legislative matter. Fair to say? Yeah, it is a fair question, and a long time ago, but not in this particular process, but a long time ago I raised that when we originally were starting. it will have to be made part of the ordinance when it comes through this is going to be a text amendment obviously at some point because we're going to have to replace what's now the courthouse area design review board and that type of thing I think that we would have to put that in an ordinance that would be enacted as part of the ZODA that answers it then, it would be outlined in that thank you And then under the public-supported construction projects, I was wondering, when it talks about the design review and public support will be outlined via a master development agreement, which will be reviewed and considered by the council at a public hearing, I guess I have a similar question. Who will be providing that overview of the agreement? Would it be planning or would it be the law department? And in what format would that come to us as well? The way we've approached this so far is that it's similar to what currently happens if a TIF comes before you. So the mayor's office, chief development officer, will be the lead on negotiating and drafting that up with law and any other parties that need to be involved. So they will be present as well as planning to help present those projects. Okay. All righty. And I believe that I guess the subcommittee that met, you said that they asked you, Jeff, to be the spokesperson. So was there any discussion or votes or anything during the subcommittee about these changes, and was everybody in agreement? Yeah, so the way we worked through it was there was a series of recommendations brought forward, and basically by consensus we worked it through. So there were minutes taken. Paul has a full record of those meetings. We also limited the amount of meetings we had, so hopefully there's only a few sets of notes you have to go through. But, yeah, the committee was in consensus, though it was consensus that whoever was president had that particular meeting. Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Council Member Lamb. Council Member Bledsoe. Thank you, Chair. I'm going to follow up on what Council Member Lamb was talking about. I find the public-supported construction project is an interesting way of handling some of that. And I'm just curious. I've only had a year and a little bit of time on mine to deal with that. But it seems like a lot of the development downtown does have a government portion to it. Right. So, I mean, I guess my real question is how much development happens downtown without some sort of government subsidy? That's an excellent question and an excellent observation. So the way we came to this was that a lot of times what we ran into was every time we started talking about a new regulatory framework that was just for one zone, it seemed to be like, hey, we're really picking on particularly the little person, right, who just wants to do something that happens to be zoned there. And, in fact, there's a single parcel that's zoned B2 over on East Main Street that's separated from the rest of it. And, you know, whatever happens there probably won't require subsidy, right? So we started kind of thinking about it. And the other problem was is that the problem with the regulatory framework is that basically you're forced to be reactive, right? So you only get to see it once a submission is made. Well, by the time an application is made, there's been lots of money spent. The developers got their heels dug in. They've got lawyers. Their job is to get it through the process, not necessarily to come out with a better outcome. And so what we realized was that we already had an example. The example is these development agreements is that if you go back and look at the TIF development agreements, every one of them has certain strings in it, right? Each one's got sort of like, oh, you'll do this. You need the proof. You have financing. You need to incorporate this adjacent property. There's basically they're contractual obligations. And so we saw that that was an opportunity for us to sort of do this, which is how can we build this as a contractual obligation as opposed to a regulatory one? The thing about a contractual obligation is then that you're working together towards a negotiated outcome as opposed to sort of regulatory one. To your point that most large projects downtown will, at least in this particular economic environment, is going to require some public subsidy. So if I'm a sophisticated developer who wants to do a sophisticated project downtown, what I'm going to do is I'm going to say, probably going to need some public subsidy. I'm going to go download those guidelines from the website because they're published. I'm going to hand them to my sophisticated architect and say, you design me a project that's going to meet these guidelines so that when I go downtown, we don't have anything to fight over. And I think that that's sort of, so that's why it was also important that it wasn't truly subjective from a, like, you know, what does your design officer feel today? We wanted to have a published set of guidelines that the development community could also reference so that they knew what the rules were starting out. Does that answer your question? It does. Thank you. I'm going to think about that for a few minutes, and that's interesting, contractual versus regulatory. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Council Member Bledsoe. Council Member Henson. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Jeff and Brandy, for the presentation. So you already have a consensus with developers, or was there a public hearing? because when this came up before, we had folks at the last minute objecting to the changes that were being made. Right. Let me answer it this way, which is that the charge from this committee to the subcommittee was to go back and look at it. The folks that were selected to be on the subcommittee were representative of the constituencies that had raised objections or had been part of the original task force. the members of the committee were charged with speaking to their communities, speaking to their constituencies, and bringing back that information. I cannot represent what folks think. And we didn't have a big public hearing because really it was a subcommittee of this committee. It was really in that we brought you a recommendation, and so now it's your proposal to decide if you want to have that public hearing or how you want to move forward. But we wanted to really sort of focus on bringing you a proposal that we felt like that you could then decide what you wanted to do with it. Now, can you also, can you give me an example of downtown other than Centerpoint where this would have prevented something from happening? I don't know that I would. Let me answer it this way because I don't want to go into alternative histories. There are, at this moment, so one, had this process been in place four years ago, 21C is a project that this would have undergone this. So in the development agreement with 21C, there would have been an expectation that the design officer would apply the guidelines to that project. So that's an example of one that would have gone through this had it been in place. looking at the current situation, we have got announced projects at Main and Vine, across the street, on Main Street, a mixed-use condo project. We have interest in a couple of other potential projects sort of in the B2. Plus, there's an announced movie theater. And so all of those could fall under this process or could have fallen under this process had it been in place. So I would say that those are the – we don't know what they look like yet, so therefore we can't say what this might have done for us. But those are the types of projects this would most likely engage. You know, just from my viewpoint, I mean, I don't really think our downtown's all that bad. No, no. And, in fact, this is – the way we think about this is that this is about setting the table before the development pressures start in earnest. And they're coming. The economy is shifting. Capital is freeing up. We're starting to see much more interest than we did four years ago when I started. And so we know that there's going to be development issues coming. It is easier to get this in place now than to wait until there's a crisis, in which case we're trying to sort of put the genie back in the bottle. And we already have zoning in place for the rest of the city, and we do for the downtown that dictates the setbacks and things like that. I would, where did Jim go? Oh, there you are. I'll let him correct me if I misspeak, but I believe it is fair to say that the B2 zone is probably the most permissive zone in the entire system. So right now you can do more things outside the front door than you can in any of your districts. So maybe is that something we need to look at? And it's actually what the, so the Zoda proposal tightens up a lot of that, a lot of those holes and a lot of loopholes so that it makes it a little more predictable, a little more consistent. Well, I noticed what Brandy said, too, about the, any building not being over eight stories, correct? Yeah, so the way that the design excellence format works is that we've looked at downtown as three different districts. You have your core district, which is your Main Street, Vine Street, that area. Then you have gateways, which are those at Midland and Main, and then heading out by Triangle Park area. And then you have those that are adjacent to neighborhoods. And so we've identified what seemed to be the best approach from a height standpoint, depending on which area of town you're in. So in that core, it's unlimited. So you can go as tall as you want by right. Those adjacent to the neighborhoods, since most neighborhoods are only two stories tall, we felt that it was appropriate to put a height limit on there so that if they did want to come for more than eight stories, they have the right to apply for a variance. but they would need to come and show us what design and how that will affect the neighborhood that it's adjacent to. So it's giving you your baseline criteria that we felt was appropriate for development. But typically out in the rest of the city, I'm out of time. The neighborhood, like an eight-story building, would not be allowed to be built next to a neighborhood anyway. Depending on the zoning that is there, yes, you're correct. Most of the time it's not. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. Council Member Akers. Thank you, Chair. I have one question about the process, so whoever wants to address that, I believe, if I understand it correctly, and I do appreciate it, Brandy, it seems like you have simplified and clarified design excellence greatly since what we have looked at the past several years. So I thank you for that. So if I understand it, if the ZODA were to be approved, so it requires a ZODA before the Planning Commission, before any of this. It's not just up to us. We have to approve it to go to Planning Commission, et cetera. Then a design excellence officer would make the decision on proposed projects. If there were any variances to the ZODA, then they would have to go, builders, developers would have to go before Board of Adjustment. And then do they appeal to us based on the design excellence officer's decisions or BOA? Because generally we don't get involved in BOA. Or is it both appeals? Anything that would go to the Board of Adjustments, such as height or setback or drive-through, any conditional use or variance, would follow the ordinary appeal process, and that is to circuit court. So it only comes to us if they don't like what the design excellence officer says. The only part that comes to you is the appeal of the demolition from the Board of Architectural Review. So if they don't like the decision of the Board of Architectural Review, that appeal would come to Council under the ZODA. Okay. Again, it's very confusing. Okay. So next question I have is back to, I think, maybe Council Member Henson asked this. or I don't remember. But I guess I understand what inspired this. But when I look at Lexington compared to Louisville, for example, and see the lack of development in our downtown versus their downtown, I wonder if we really need more regulations and not have an easier process or path to development than a more difficult one. And so when I look at what we have seen downtown, we haven't seen any development in the last, I don't know, I guess I would ask you all. Besides 21C, what have we seen in downtown? New construction besides condos that most of which are vacant. So I don't think that those count. So tell us about the history of development downtown first. Well, so if we are talking about the B2 zone, right? So we're talking about the B2 zone, which really effectively stretches from Midland Avenue to Rupp Arena along Main and Vine Street. So what you have currently is a zoning, basically is a zoning framework. The B2 zone was developed actually in what, the 70s? Yeah, in the 70s, to actually solve the problem you just described, which was there was nothing happening downtown. And so in order to make things happen downtown, we were going to allow you to build whatever the heck you wanted to. So if I wanted to bulldoze the Chase Building and put a loose banana stand there, I could. And so the regulatory framework that you're suggesting actually has been in place for about 30 years. but we also take and took and directly incorporated in this proposal a huge departure from where we were a year ago the fact that another process was going to be a deterrent and so we're only utilizing the existing zoning process which you already got in place every one of your districts has got far more regulations in the zoning code than Main Street does and so I think what you're speaking to in terms of the lack of development really is an economic one, which is that effectively the cost of construction and the cost of land, when you add those together, it is higher, and if you have to pay your investors back, it's higher than the rents that you can charge. And it goes for office, it goes for residential, and it goes for commercial. And so unless we solve that economic problem, which you can do through incentives, unless we solve that economic problem, You're not going to see people just showing up pulling a building permit and building an eight-story apartment building They're going to be down here asking for those types of projects and they're difficult They're expensive and so that's why there's a lot of announcements and it takes some time to grind them through the process We started the conversation with 21c over four years ago actually was four And a half years ago and we cut the ribbon a couple months ago That's how long it takes to get them through and so looking at the economic swing capital has only really freed up in the last year or so, and the first places it went were places like Nashville, Indianapolis, Louisville, because those markets were stronger than ours. And so now we're seeing the trends that suggest that we will see this development, but we're a second-tier city, so we're going to get that development after the investors have decided that the bigger cities have played out. And you're already seeing that. You're already seeing a bubble in Nashville. You're already seeing a bubble in Indianapolis where the investors are saying, And we really don't want to build any more apartments because we've seen too many. So that's the swing that we're in the middle of. We're not going to solve that with design excellence. We'll solve that with a much more robust economic development strategy. What the design excellence is is to basically put in place the tools so that as we're solving that, or if the economy solves it for us, we'll be prepared for future development. Okay. That's all I have for now. Thank you. Council Member Lamb. Thanks. I just have one further question. If I remember correctly, when this was brought to us last year when we discussed it, there were two positions that were discussed, and I assume, as Brandy has said, she's in the design excellence position. What is happening? Wasn't there, and Derek maybe, their second position? Is that still needed? And just update me, please. The second position was what we call the facilitator, and we have not put it in. We did not make a request for it this year. We did fill Brandy's position, I think, quite well by hiring Brandy, and she is doing quite a bit in terms of not just for design excellence, but also for other things around town in terms of long-range planning. I think the jury's still out on the facilitator position. I don't think that we've looked at it a great deal, largely because we just haven't had a lot of requests that we've seen that would probably cause us to look back into whether or not we want to hire that. So I guess that might be the answer to your question. We haven't had a lot of projects that we would see in the downtown area that would require that facilitator position. And so we really haven't moved on it. I think a lot of that may, and again, maybe it will change if design excellence is implemented. and we might see, again, more people looking for those incentives that might be associated with design excellence. And so it might cause us to relook at that. I think we're constantly looking to see what we need from a planning perspective in terms of where are we deficient, but that has not popped up at the top of our list in the last year. Okay, thanks. Thanks. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Council Member Lamb. Council Member Gibbs. Thank you, Chair. Jeff, I've got a couple things for you. One thing, you made the point that many developers would prefer to have design excellent in place so they know what they're getting into. What we hear is a desire for there to be a fair and predictable process and that there be some protections on the back end so that they know what their neighbors might be up to. And I think that's not unlike any of your constituents. The neighbors want to know what could or couldn't go next door. So what we hear is feedback really in terms of wanting to just know what the rules are and know that the process is fair and predictable. And there's a sense at the moment, at least particularly around the Courtais Area Design Review Board process, that it's a little arbitrary depending on what the committee feels that day. Okay. Yeah, because you'll come to think of it, when Centerpoint was proposed, I was one of those hundreds of people out front protesting what I thought was a really lousy design, and this would largely prevent that because people wouldn't know what they're getting into in this community. So I think it's a benefit to developers. Also, how innovative is this? Most cities have something like this? We're not inventing this process, are we? We are certainly not inventing it. I think we are trying to tailor it to our particular needs because we're not Louisville, we're not Cincinnati, so we didn't just borrow wholesale. Now that said, Brandy did a ton of research. Do you remember how many different cities you looked at? There are at least six to ten. I mean dozens. And pretty much any city our size has something like this. Louisville has something like this. So almost all major cities have some level of design review. Many of them actually have a separate regulatory structure. So I think it may be a bit innovative of us to try to fit it into the existing structures that we have. Okay. Thanks, Jeff. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Council Member Gibbs. There's no other questions. Jeff, I have a few. Oh, I'm sorry. Vice Mayor, do you want to chime in before I ask? Yes. A couple comments and really a question about process. I guess the way that I think about what's been done and where we are at this point is that what's now before this committee as a proposal really includes very minimal addition to the zoning requirements. It adds a very minimal addition of process, but only for those publicly supported projects. It does provide protection for present and future development downtown, and I think this is important. I think the question that Council Member Akers has raised about development downtown is important, but I believe, as Jeff has said, both the economic conditions and some other conditions in this community are changing. Downtown will be under increasing pressure for development. I don't think there's any question about that. so there's going to be more than we've seen I believe and the question is are we going to look back and say oh what we should have had in place to prevent X, Y, and Z would have been something that we considered and then rejected so I think this is forward looking it imposes really minimal additional requirements and I'd like to get some guidance, I believe I understand what next steps are But, Jim, for this to move forward, I believe this committee would have to, in its process, make a recommendation to the full council. The full council would then have to approve the zone text, and then it would go to the planning commission. Is that the path, or have I got it reversed? No, Vice Mayor, there are really two routes. but you got the first part right, that you would report out at a work session the results of this meeting and then decide whether the council would initiate the zone change or refer it to the planning commission. If the council initiates the ZODA, then that automatically goes to the planning commission and there is a clock that begins ticking. and within 60 days the planning commission has to act and return this back to the council. If you simply refer it to the planning commission, much like the rec ZODA process, then the planning commission will essentially initiate the ZODA, and there's no timeline on that. And then once they're concluded with their work, it would come back to you. But regardless, both the Planning Commission and the Council have to approve this before it can become law. Okay. I think that tells me what our choices are in any event. Well, I guess my final comment, although the Chair, you have, do you want to take some questions? I do. I have a couple questions. Why don't you ask those and then I'll go forward with any kind of motion. Jeff, if you wouldn't mind. I just want to make sure I understand this process, and I have a little bit of clarification. So if I am a developer asking for any kind of public assistance, I have a certain guideline and process that I have to follow. If I'm a developer who chooses not to use any type of subsidy, I can do pretty much whatever I want. Following the zoning guidelines. Following the zoning guidelines, correct. That's correct. So is there an issue of consistency here? Well, so we looked at it this way, which was that, one, at least in the current and foreseeable economic environment, any significant project, one that's really going to change the fabric of downtown, will probably require public assessment, right? Absolutely. It makes sense. So, and those are the ones that sort of instigated this entire discussion anyway, was the big projects that are going to change the fabric. This didn't come from someone wanting to put an addition on the back of a house on 2nd Street. Like, this really was driven by the large marquee projects. And so the way to think of it is that you currently, that's why we said contractual, right? So the reason we use the development agreements is because development agreements are negotiated between the city and the developer on the front end. And they say that the city will make such dollars available if the developer does the following things. And it may be approved financing. It may be build what they say they're going to build. It may include certain public amenities, whatever those are. And so all we're saying, recommending here, is that one of the items that is a standard item in that development agreement is submit to review utilizing the published design guidelines. And so it's basically a string that comes with the public support. So it's not a regulation, but it is a contractual obligation. Okay, so in your estimation that you think that the private development will be minimal as opposed to the public-assisted development? it that is that is our estimation based upon the okay um you know there was a lot of discussion about incentives and i remember when we had the chamber with a couple of developers here and said look without so in lieu of incentives you're thinking the public assistance is taking that part that's correct so in lieu of um in lieu of us coming back with an incentive recommendation which you may or may not be interested in funding right now, that what this did was really say, okay, we've already got some incentive programs in place. The city carries water on, and so if the public is going to have skin in the game, then the public deserves some say in the overall design, just as they deserve some say in the overall program and what's being built. So incentives are there to incent certain behaviors. They're not an entitlement. So I think that's an important way of sort of thinking about it. Oh, I agree with you there. I'm just wondering what's your thought process. Well, this will be in lieu of. And I guess my last question is I'm kind of surprised there's no developers here. You know, I mean, if this was some project that I had at least in the thought process or whatever, I'd be here in either. I mean, we've had them here before. Is everybody on board with this? Well, as I said earlier, I don't want to represent individuals. What I will say is that the members of the subcommittee were chosen to represent certain constituencies. They were charged to go out and meet with those folks and bring back feedback. Also, from a process standpoint, the subcommittee really does feel as if we, you know, this is a report out to this committee. So we worked for you and brought you what you asked for, which was a best attempt at finding a compromise that would incorporate the good stuff out of the Design Excellence Task Force recommendations. but also address many of the concerns that were raised at that time. We presumed, because we knew the process, that there would be many more opportunities for public input. And so we assume that this will continue to evolve if you choose to move it forward. So that's part of the understanding. You couldn't name it. I mean, I'm just concerned were there any major objections to this process at all. We have not heard any major objections, and we have done so many formal outreach. and Chris represents sort of the small board development community. Phil Hollaback served on the subcommittee directly and has been privy to all of this. We have not heard any major objections. The message Phil brought us is the one we talked about earlier is that there's a feeling of sort of a no because and we really were trying to bring you something that could be a yes if. And the yes if is when the conversation started on the front end And really the only way for those to happen is through a negotiated development agreement where Brandy is sitting there helping as opposed to judging. And that's a really important part of this proposal. I understand what you're trying to do. I know it's difficult. Thank you. Council Member Bledsoe. This is just a quick question. Thank you, Chair. When you said it would go to the Planning Commission, I'm assuming that they have, in that 60 days, they can make edits to that and present us with something different than what we sent to them initially. That's correct. The staff would very likely present what we have presented to you since we've already developed that. But the Planning Commission could make changes, and it would be heard at a public hearing with the Planning Commission for them to make a decision and then forward it on to the council after that. Okay. And then how long do we have once we receive it from the Planning Commission to act on it? It's your initiation, so I don't believe you have a clock. No, once you've initiated, you don't have a clock. It's just the Planning Commission that has the 60 days. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. Let me follow up one quick question, Jim. So when this goes in front of the Planning Commission, the public will be notified, and at that time they can put their input in case there's any concerns that maybe they felt like they hadn't been voiced or heard. On the record, yes. Okay. All right. That's what I need to know. Thank you. Vice Mayor, go ahead. Thank you. So, Jim, I'm sorry. Final question. it seems to me that from the planning commission perspective it would be better if we ask them to initiate this with the information that we've presented so that they're not under a 60 day clock and then when they're done they can take their time, they can have public hearings and do what they want to do then they send it back to us and we're not under a clock and we can do what we want to do with what they've done is that correct? I may have misheard, Vice Mayor, but the initiation on your part starts the clock. So if you don't intend to initiate, the word would be refer to the Planning Commission. I'm sorry. So if we refer this to the Planning Commission, that gives them a little more latitude. That's right. And then they can send it back to us. Yes. Okay. Thank you. So having heard that, I would just emphasize two things which we've just heard, which is, one, if we ask, if I make a motion, which I'm going to in a minute, to move this to the full council, what that would mean, I would make the motion that they refer to this through the Planning Commission, so that then they can work on that. At that point, there's opportunity for public input. Whatever they bring back to us, there's additional opportunity for public input. So we are not done hearing from anybody who has concerns, objections, whatever. The only other thing I would say is that we've talked about incentives for downtown development. I have argued on the failing side repeatedly that I didn't think incentives needed to be tied for a whole variety of reasons. But whether that's the case or not, I want to make clear that this council has the opportunity to initiate incentives for downtown development today, tomorrow, next week, next year, anytime the Council feels that that would be useful, bring a proposal forward to incent more downtown development and the Council will look at that as a separate issue. Having said all that, I move that we refer this to the full Council at the usual time of readout of the report from this Committee, that we refer this issue to the Planning Commission. So move. I have a motion and a second to refer the design excellence recommendations referred to the Planning Commission. Who has a second? Do I have a second? Second. Second, Council Member Gibbs. All those in favor? I guess we'll have to vote electronically. Well, yes, we should have some discussion. I'm sorry. Any discussion? If not, if you would vote, please, electronically. One, two, three, four, five. One, two, three, four, five. Motion passes. Thank you. Okay. I just want to let those members of the Planning Committee and Safety Committee know that in June, we'll be talking about the Rural Recreational Zota. Prior to that, we'll have Dr. James Wells from the EKU School of Justice will present his findings on the survey that was conducted at the corrections facility, and the rest of the meeting will be involved with the rural recreational Zota referred by Councilmember Lamb. I'll take a motion to adjourn. All those in favor? Opposed? Should have been discussion, but... Oh. you