# Special Ad Hoc Committee for 2018 Goals & Objectives - October 17, 2017 > Auto-transcribed civic record · October 17, 2017 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/4371 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/4371?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2017-10-17 - **Last revised**: October 17, 2017 - **Length**: 21,564 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 Lexington-Fayette Urban County Council Special Ad Hoc Committee for 2018 Goals & Objectives convened on October 17, 2017, at 10:00 AM in the 2nd Floor Council Chamber, with Vice Mayor Kay presiding. The committee met to continue their work on establishing priorities and objectives for the upcoming year, focusing on two main agenda items related to their ongoing goal-setting process. The meeting centered on reviewing previous committee actions and continuing discussions about recommended goals and objectives for 2018. The first agenda item addressed the table of motions from the committee's October 10, 2017 meeting, providing members with a reference point for their prior decisions and actions. The primary focus was the continued review and discussion of the 2018 recommended goals and objectives, allowing committee members to further refine and develop their strategic priorities for the coming year. During the session, the committee took three votes on various matters, though no public comments were received. Both agenda items were informational in nature, reflecting the committee's ongoing deliberative process rather than final decision-making. This special ad hoc committee meeting represented part of the council's annual planning cycle, where elected officials work to establish clear priorities and measurable objectives to guide municipal operations and policy decisions for the following fiscal year. ## Attendance The following members were present at the meeting on October 17, 2017: • Kay • Brown • Gibbs • Farmer • Bledsoe • Duncan • Stinnett • Henson • Evans • Moloney • Lamb • Plomin • Scutchfield All members were in attendance with no absences or late arrivals recorded. ## Votes and Decisions The meeting included three formal motions with varying outcomes. **Motion to Add New Objective** James Brown made a motion to add a new objective to Theme D, Goal 2, Objective C. The motion was seconded by Henson but was subsequently withdrawn before a vote could be taken. **Motion to Amend Community Facilities Language** Vice Mayor Kay made a motion to amend language regarding community facilities. The motion did not receive a second and failed by voice vote. **Motion to Schedule Next Meeting** Farmer made a motion to meet on October 24th at 10:00 AM. The motion passed by voice vote without opposition. *Note: Specific vote counts and individual voting records were not available in the meeting materials. Transcript timestamps were not provided for these voting actions.* ## Contested Items The meeting featured one significant area of contention regarding community facilities in neighborhoods, which generated heated discussion among participants. **Community Facilities in Neighborhoods** A substantial debate emerged over the specific language and underlying intent of policies designed to ensure community facilities enhance neighborhoods rather than burden them. The disagreement centered on two primary concerns: the density of community facilities within specific areas and the overall distribution of social services across different neighborhoods. Participants engaged in extensive discussion about how to balance the need for accessible community services with concerns about concentrating too many facilities in particular areas. The debate touched on questions of equitable distribution and the potential impacts on neighborhood character and resources. The discussion revealed differing perspectives on what constitutes appropriate density levels for community facilities and how to achieve fair geographic distribution of social services throughout the community. Some participants expressed concerns about certain neighborhoods bearing a disproportionate share of social service facilities, while others emphasized the importance of ensuring adequate access to these services for residents who need them. The heated nature of the discussion suggests this issue touched on broader questions of neighborhood planning, social equity, and community development priorities. However, the specific outcome of this debate and any resolutions reached are not detailed in the available information. *Note: Specific participant names, voting records, and detailed outcomes were not available in the source materials for this contested item.* ## October 10, 2017 Special Ad Hoc Committee for 2018 Goals & Objectives Table of Motions The committee reviewed the table of motions from the October 10, 2017 Special Ad Hoc Committee meeting focused on 2018 Goals & Objectives. This agenda item was presented for informational purposes only. Kay served as the key speaker for this agenda item, presenting the table of motions to the committee members. The document provided a summary of the motions that were made during the previous special committee meeting dedicated to establishing goals and objectives for the upcoming 2018 year. As this was an informational item, no formal action was required from the committee. The table of motions served as a reference document to keep committee members informed about the decisions and proposals that emerged from the October 10th special meeting. The presentation of this table of motions represents part of the ongoing process to establish clear goals and objectives for 2018, ensuring that committee members remain updated on previous discussions and decisions that will guide future planning efforts. ## Continued Review & Discussion of 2018 Recommended Goals & Objectives The committee continued its review of the recommended goals and objectives for 2018, building on previous discussions to refine the organization's strategic direction for the upcoming year. Key participants in the discussion included Kay, Brown, Duncan, Stinnett, and Henson, who engaged in deliberations covering multiple thematic areas. The review process focused particularly on community facilities and regional planning initiatives, indicating these areas remain priority concerns for the 2018 planning cycle. The discussion format allowed committee members to examine various aspects of the proposed goals and objectives, though specific details of individual recommendations or concerns raised during the deliberations were not captured in the available materials. The collaborative nature of the review suggests the committee is taking a comprehensive approach to finalizing their strategic priorities. As this was a continuation of previous discussions, the committee appears to be working through a detailed evaluation process to ensure the 2018 goals and objectives align with organizational priorities and community needs. The involvement of multiple speakers indicates active engagement from committee members in shaping the final recommendations. The agenda item concluded as an informational session, suggesting the committee is still in the review and refinement phase rather than making final decisions on the proposed goals and objectives. This indicates additional discussion sessions may be needed before the committee reaches consensus on the 2018 strategic framework. The focus on community facilities and regional planning themes suggests these areas will likely feature prominently in the organization's 2018 priorities, though the specific goals and implementation strategies remain under review by the committee. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — withdrawn (0-0): Motion to add a new objective to Theme D, Goal 2, Objective C - **Motion** — failed (0-0): Motion to amend language regarding community facilities - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Motion to meet on October 24th at 10:00AM --- ## Full transcript Welcome to the Tunes. Thank you. Good morning. Good morning, everybody. Welcome. So, the October 17th special ad hoc committee for the 2018 goals and objectives. Welcome back to everybody. I believe we had finished themes A and B, and we are about to start discussing theme C. So, as we have been proceeding, if council members have questions, comments, suggestions for change, Please log in. Council member. Council member Evans. Yeah. let's see okay i guess i will um well i will give my my point about uh goal two item d um when we're talking about young professionals you know this was something that i spoke on early early on in my um tenure that i think we need to also be aware about the cultural diversity um because that's something i've heard even from from lexmark professionals that when when they are trying to recruit people of diverse cultures that, you know, they come to Lexington. And that really is something that deters people from coming. So I would like for us to consider that as well. And I would move to amend item D to read, provide entertainment and other quality of life opportunities that attract culturally diverse professionals of all ages and talents to Lexington. So moved. I have a motion and a second. Is there a discussion on the motion? Yeah, read it one more time. And I apologize. I didn't put this in writing. it's theme C goal to item D provide entertainment and other quality of life opportunities that attract culturally diverse professionals of all ages and talents to Lexington so striking through the word young and striking through the phrase and a workforce of all ages that is something that I've heard continuously in my personal experience a lot of a lot of my friends have left for that very reason they're professionals and they're not necessarily what we consider young but they have been transplanted here but then they end up moving for other opportunities not because they don't necessarily like Lexington but other cities have so much more to offer in just a diverse culture and so I think that's something we really should pay attention to and not just focus on age thank you further discussion on the motion seeing none all in favor please say aye I'm sorry it's not showing up are you logging in councilmember blood so thank you I support the question I'm quite I'm asking you trying to attract more culturally professionals here or you try to provide more opportunities of culturally diverse opportunities here well both both but I mean under this it states that we're providing entertainment and other quality of life opportunities for young professionals I think we need to expand that to diverse professionals to ethnically diverse expand the day the demographic beyond just young professionals. Okay. Thank you. See nobody else signed in? Thank you. Council Member Brown. Is the login not working or just people? I don't think it's not working. There we go. Council Member Brown. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I support the change, but were we scratching young, the word young? Because I would say that, were you talking about eliminating the word young as well? Yeah, I would strike through young and put the qualifier of all ages and not just young. Yeah, like I said, I support that, but I think it's good to keep the word young, I think, because that's also a target demographic that we're aiming to attract and retain. Well, we've got all ages in there, so that's why I felt like we were covering all ages, but while we were targeting young, I mean, it just seemed to be a cleaner way to amend it. But I think the focus should be all ages. and what can I ask the planning staff what what their rest with what they think about the change and how it may impact the elements and the implementation of this goal and objective mr. Brown I don't believe that the the suggestion that's been offered would would materially change the tone of what we're trying to do here. This was something that was developed in the 2013 plan, and in fact diversity is included in the goal itself for this section. And so I believe this just reinforces that, the statements that Ms. Evans has made reinforces that and I don't believe that this undermines anything else that we're talking about. Okay. Even though I agree that all ages speaks to, includes young, middle-aged and old, I think the intent and being specific about young is important. I think it speaks to the student population that we have in the universities in our city. And I would like to keep young as part of it. would i would move to amend and include young and culturally diverse professionals so moved the motion to amend the amendment and a second is there a discussion on the motion to amend the amendment seeing none all in favor please say aye any opposed that motion carries so where would you can we get a reading of what it would it would basically say it attracts a culturally diverse professionals in a workforce I guess I need to know what where you would like to insert Vice Mayor these are the notes that I took based on both motions that the new objective would read provide entertainment and other quality of life opportunities that attract young and culturally diverse professionals of all ages and talents to Lexington that's the motion as amended Council Member Scotchfield you still signed in I just I guess that's kind of I think it's all in the wording with this I mean I think we want to make sure that we are attracting a diverse workforce and I think putting these things in there obviously speaks to our intent I mean I think there's several different ways we can write it I mean I even thought we could say provide entertainment culturally diverse activities or something i mean anything along those lines i think and that's i think it's smart to have the intent be as broad as possible okay thank you anybody else wish to speak for the motion now as amended seeing none all in favor please say aye aye any opposed that motion carries any further questions comments suggestions for change on theme c Councilmember Massadi. Thank you. I know we've had a lot of discussion on goal three in reference to providing publicly controlled economic development land. And we've had, throughout my history anyways, we've had ED parcels that have sat for 20 years, trying to lure businesses to Fayette County, whether it's manufacturing or some other type of a user. And we've got Coldstream that's just now starting to come to fruition. I'm concerned about, you know, when it says publicly controlled, are we talking about pad ready? Are we talking with all the infrastructure there ready to go? Are we talking about water? Are we talking about electric and sewer so we can attract? Are we just trying to designate an area? And then we say it looks like that if we, the necessary to ensure it remains up to date. I mean, I just need to know a little bit more specifics about what we've got in mind there. Ms. Basadi, the main intent of this is to ensure that we have land that is available for economic development purposes when this community needs it. We have a lot of land that is available for that purpose now, but because it is not in public control or because the owners are not at a point that they are interested in developing it, then that land is not being put to economic development purposes. So the main reason by having the publicly controlled behind this is that this land could be made available immediately or as needed for job opportunities that come to the community. And of course if the public were involved in this we would expect that it's perhaps some of the incentives to induce opportunities to come here that we may need to provide some of these infrastructure accommodations as well. Do you have any specific area that you've kind of targeted where you think this may be more appropriate than others? Well certainly we would look at some of the, if we were looking at acquiring land that's in the existing urban service area or land that would become available to the government, it would be in the areas where we already have designated it or it's near designated land for jobs purposes, such as in the cold stream area along the interstate or in the ED areas that we already have designated. So the areas that would be appropriate for this kind of development, the land is not ours presently, but if we had some sort of interest in it, it could be a way of helping to ensure that that land could be brought online when we needed it. So basically our objective is for us to own that land so we have control of it and then we can market it that way. Whether we own it or whether we're a partner in owning it, but we have a significant say in it so that it is not land that sits unused. used, that if we need it, that we have some sort of ability to activate that land for economic development purposes. And I think this is really, really important, no question. But my concern was that we had ED land for 20 years that we couldn't get anybody there. And these were developers who knew exactly what they knew what they were doing. It wasn't like they had this land and didn't talk to potential developers and whatever. So I'm trying to get an understanding if I think it's necessary, because I think you to be able to compete with these others that are trying to get the same other cities that are trying to get the same type of you know for jobs and so forth it's just what happened in the past that caused us not to be able to attract these jobs with the ed land that was already existing well we we know we believe a number of reasons but but one of them is that the property owner wasn't willing to or wasn't interested in working with the job that was at the at the moment looking to come here. And there's no reason to compel the property owner to do that. So that's one reason it hasn't come. But then through our work group, when we looked at updating the ED text, we also saw that cost was a reason, that land that's in the expansion area is subject to exactions. That's a reason as well. So there are a variety of reasons, but certainly we have seen where there is an active marketing of public or quasi-public property, that that land does get developed for economic development purposes. And so that's where we believe that if there was another similar model going forward, that we would have more land that we could be assured of that would be available for job development. I guess this is what I hear from a lot of people, and I'm sure the chamber agrees as well that they just they feel like they don't have the land here that's available to offer if someone wanted to come here and I'm just trying to get a synopsis of you know we've had this land and maybe it is cost prohibitive if that's what you're telling me the biggest factor is correct well that is a factor but it also has to be the willingness of the property owner to work with the the job that's coming here and that may or may not be a good fit either I know my time is up but I would really like to have somebody from the chamber speak to this because I know this has been a big discussion throughout this whole process. So I'll come back if that's okay, Vice Mayor. Thank you. Councilmember Stinnett. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I want, Mr. Duncan, I want to expand on a couple of items on goal three. You know, is this planning staff's wording or was this amended in the planning commission review of the goals and objectives? This is the wording that the Planning Commission worked up during their work sessions. This was not changed during the public hearing. Okay, but this is not planning staff's wording? The staff and the Planning Commission worked together on this. Okay, so identify. So where are we going to identify? If that's a true goal that public can control, where in that 5,600 acres are we going to identify? Well, there are some options that could be repurposed. There's land in the vicinity of Coldstream, for instance, that could be repurposed for this kind of use. There are other parcels that may not be appropriate for ED, but that could be useful for P1 and P2 type uses that would be elsewhere in the existing urban service area. So we believe there are a number of opportunities like that. and then other existing government-controlled land that could possibly be, or government-owned land presently, that we may want to repurpose for this use. So you have a list of those that we could actually see? Well, we've talked about them. This is one of those things, again, you're talking about other people's property sometimes. We've talked about them out loud. We haven't put them in writing or enumerated them necessarily. Well, again, go back to the word publicly controlled. The ones we've talked about, we don't control. What in this plan gives us the ability to control those lands that we do not own? Well, we're calling for a process that perhaps within, we're putting this on the table, first of all. We're making it an issue that we're aware of, but then providing the opportunity for us to have those negotiations with private property owners or other government property owners for some sort of exchange or some sort of purchase or something else like that. This just really says that this is something we want to do, and now we've got the authority to go and reach out for these type of outcomes. Well, I'm glad to have it in writing. I think there's some wording that's missing, though. I think the big indicator here is where do we really want this land? We want it along the interstate. That's our biggest asset for job growth in this community. So why wouldn't the word along our interstate corridor be injected into there? Because I guarantee you we don't want commercial land out Tayserick Road, Nicholsville Road, or Harrisburg Road in the middle of residential Mecca. So should we add that in there? We want to see it along the interstate because that's where we're growing and that's where we need to go. Mr. Senate, the only reason I would say, because we don't say it here, that does not preclude us from pursuing that on the interstate. But there could also be other job opportunities that are not so intensive, but yet equally important, that could be located elsewhere throughout the community. We've got a large parcel of B4 land along Nicholas, already zoned B4 on Nicholasville Road, that could be an office park or something totally not heavy, but something that could be a place for smaller businesses or startups. So my recommendation would be not to preclude other opportunities that we may not be thinking of, but certainly the interstate, I agree, would be a place where we would look, but I wouldn't want to just isolate it there alone. Well, I would just say that's our goal, is to concentrate along the interstate, because that's where businesses want to be that have any meaningful jobs. You're talking about jobs in retail and things along Lucosville Road. I'm not sure we even want any more out there, to be honest with you right now. I wasn't speaking of retail. I was speaking of other small businesses and techs and those kinds of companies that don't necessarily need the frontage of an interstate or the kind of impact that an interstate would provide but could still fit comfortably in close proximity to neighborhoods. I think we're talking about two different things. Economic development land is not small business office parks. We're talking major employers. We're talking things we want to attract to keep our revenue in the city afloat because we're losing it quickly. And if we don't do something drastic, we're going to be behind the eight ball in five years. So I look at it a little differently. I appreciate what you're saying about B4, but this goal is probably the most important goal in this whole comprehensive plan, in my opinion. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. Council Member James Brown. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Councilmember Stenet's point and what he was talking about kind of got me distracted a little bit. And I agree with a lot of what he said. One of the points I was wanting to make, and maybe planning staff can address it or speak to it and maybe come back, but when we're talking about creating jobs and prosperity, we have certain areas in our city that have small area plans that are a part of the comp plan and I think when we're talking about redevelopment and making changes in those areas that affect the people that live in those areas I think when we're talking about job opportunities and opportunities for those community members to be a part of the change that's taking place is there an opportunity in in theme c to add some verbiage or some some wording that talks to job opportunity and in in those areas specifically the areas that have small area plans to them with the concern of gentrification and displacement and the lack of opportunities can we strengthen that wording to give opportunities to the people that live in these areas Mr. Brown, if you're talking about providing opportunities for local people, particularly in the areas where they live, I believe something like that could either be brought out of Goal 1, as it's written, because we're talking about local assets, and that would certainly be the talent of the people who work here. That's something that the Planning Commission could explore through the elements based on this, or if you felt like this was something that we needed to include more specifically, I believe under goal one, augmenting or adding an objective would be an appropriate place to do something like that. So you're thinking in goal one, objective A, that may be the guiding wording to address that in an element? Is that what you're saying? Well, I think what, and certainly correct me if I'm misunderstanding, but I think what you're talking about is something more specific than any of these objectives themselves really call for. And that is something akin to where we have diversity and minority hiring goals in other areas. So in this case, we're talking about hiring residents of an area to work on construction projects in that area. Is that what I understand? Yes, sir. That as well as the opportunity to be employed by the development that may be coming to their area. So if you think that's an additional objective, I would ask if you could work on that and maybe bring us something back at the next meeting to explore and to consider to add to this theme. We can actually work on that and circulate that to everyone before the next meeting so you can have that in advance if you'd like. Yes, sir. Yes, sir. That's fine. Very good. okay thank you thank you councilman Maloney I want to follow up on council members standing I agree what he just said about the interstate because that is a to me is where we need to start developing and we and I know councilman Mazzotti would probably would like to have the chamber come up not like council member Mazzotti bring that up but since my concern is have we ever in in the history move somebody out of the urban service and trade off for another land have we ever done that before we put somebody out of the urban service who's already in the urban service move them out because we found out there's land better use that we need to keep it fair that we can move around and do that we ever done that before mr maloney in my understanding of the history of the urban service boundary we have contracted it one time and that was in the late 1960s and that was at a time when it extended well beyond even where it does now. We pulled it back and since then we have expanded it incrementally. I am not aware, now I'm not saying that it hasn't happened, but I'm not aware of where we have taken someone out of the urban service area in exchange for other land. What we have done that's similar to that is in the rural area, areas outside the urban service area where there is rural zoning, We have traded existing agricultural zoning for rural zoning in exchange for taking away some of the rural zoning in the same area. So we've sort of done a one-for-one swap in that way. But I'm not aware that we have taken someone out of the urban service boundary in order to bring someone else in. Well, the reason why I bring that up is because I'm big on good roads, saving people to get home safely, get to work safely. have roads already built like that but the problem is they we haven't finished and and as I look at overbrook farm I don't see that two reasons I don't see a good place because we you can't when you develop they have nowhere to go but that old Richmond Road or they don't take great go back into town it's just a bottom up there and I'm more concerned about the old Richmond Road neighborhood they have a real good gripe about traffic about that road being unfit and safe but when I look over on Winchester Road and I see where Man of War ends on right there on Winchester Road and we're just not very far from the interstate we don't have any roads that go through get to the interstates we got one and that's Man of War going to 75 but we don't have the luxury of having one road connecting all the interstates 65 64 and 75 and if you take that line straight across there by WKY TV and all that and go right there I look for that being much smarter growth for being on the interstate than being in Overbrook I think Overbrook is to me it's not a good low there's no road to go anywhere it's a two-lane road there's a country road I just feel like that's an unsafe area and I understand why the people out there over Richmond Road have it. I'm looking for the future of Lutton. We got great roads. We got Man of War. We got, well, what's the other road right there before you get where the costos on? Polar Club right there. I mean, those are good roads, but they stop. And you got an interstate right there that, to me, they may not want to develop. That's fine. overbook don't want to develop i just think why couldn't we not swap and but to me i see the interstate being more progressive in the next 20 years than overbrook and going back to what land we need on on the unit on growth we try to do a bond for seven million dollars to do export complex for land i personally see seven million dollars being buying some land out there for us that we can buy that we put the these folks i know can pay it back real quick the problem is you got where we got developers now they will they're going to want way more money than that what we have now but i see partnership with the university of kentucky on the other side where newtown pike road ends and going straight up that way the opportunity for the future for us to get land on that i just see so many good things happen with good roads that we don't use and putting two lane roads is not a bright idea and i was wondering if we could swap somehow do something like that and that was just an idea throughout there to everybody good roads are better than bad roads thank you councilmember massadi thank you vice mayor i'd like to go back to c again because i think this is real important that we get this clear maybe someone from commerce lexington could come up i have a few questions if you don't mind because here it says that we will amend the comprehensive plan if necessary which i understand what i want to know jenna is how many companies users etc have come to you within the past 10 years and said look we'd like to be in lexington but we can't either afford the land the location is not good and we've had a turn away and I'm talking about big users I'm not talking about 10 acre parcels 40 acre parcels. I can't tell you that off the top of my head but I can go back and research it and get it to you. Several? A few. Several. And so they and it was a cross prohibitive was that the biggest? Cost prohibitive was one reason another reason is it wasn't necessarily the direction that the owner of the property wanted to go and I can't control that the owners don't want to sell so they're sitting on capital that they don't have to use so so in your dream if you could say well I'm sorry I can hardly hear because I've got ear issues but if you can make a wish how much land would you need acreage wise to be able to provide to potential users what would you say if I could do this that was publicly owned what would you consider a like 250 to 500 acres but 250 would be good we had the 100 acre park out in on the Bluegrass Business Park and we developed that very strategically over 20 years with very specific guidelines, payroll objectives, new jobs for the land so we didn't just allow an existing company to move to a pretty park. They had to create $140,000 of new payroll per acre. And right now there's 1,500 jobs sitting in that park, $65 million worth of payroll right now coming from those jobs out there. That doesn't even count the indirect and induced effect. so I'd like to do something like that and I want to be clear too that the jobs that we're recruiting and the land that I need is not just manufacturing so it's for all kinds of projects because manufacturing is important very important to us because they do create the most indirect and induced effect and everybody needs a job so we're working very strategically within strategic targets advanced manufacturing is one of them but I need land for professional jobs too okay because I know in manufacturing you know they go to a lot these outside counties because the land is so much less expensive. And plus we're not, we're, you know, a retail town. We're healthcare. We're not necessarily a manufacturing hub, at least I don't think we are. Well, we're a little bit of a manufacturing hub. We could be a better manufacturing hub. Some people just aren't particularly fond of manufacturing jobs, although they pay more than a retail job does, and they provide benefits, and they do a lot more than just, you know, a retail kind of job. But I think location is the key, too. I mean, and you don't want to put this out on a corridor that's a residential corridor or a retail corridor. I think that would be difficult, too. So would you think that your location would be more towards the interstate as has been discussed today? It doesn't matter. It doesn't matter. So that's for planning staff and you guys to decide where. You know, interstates, as Council Member Maloney said, are critical, but that's not for me to decide. And this needs to be pad ready. This needs to be pad ready. I'd like it pad ready. Of course we would. All the other communities around us have publicly owned, publicly controlled land that's shovel ready. And the Secretary of the Economic Development Cabinet would come stand right here and say the same thing. I have information from him that I can provide to you, a quote that says exactly that. We need shovel ready land for economic development projects. Okay, that's what I needed to hear. Thank you. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you. Thank you, Vice Mayor. In reading goal three, I guess my comment versus really a question at this point, doesn't that cover what we're talking about without having to get specific on locations? Identify, provide, and sustain. I mean, that's something we're going to do. We're not going to do it with us in this particular type of session. It's more of an implementation strategy, I would think. And that's just a comment and observation. I haven't gone through this planning process before, but that is a goal. And I think we can get into the trenches about that as we move forward. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you. Council Member Farmer. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Director Duncan. Do you remember an iteration of our comprehensive plan update? where we've had a positive economy a thriving economy that we have not expanded the urban service boundary i mean has there been a time in the past where times were good and it was time to update the comp plan and we did not expand the urban service boundary i'm just asking kind of a history question at the time of the 07 plan which preceded the recession right we did not expand the urban service boundary I remember that and at the then at the time of the 2013 plan there were many people grateful that we had not expanded the urban service boundary and and or people will always say we need to expand but there wasn't the March in 2013 like there was in 07 to do capital yeah it wasn't gonna happen and then of course the previous expansion was in 1996 which which was prior to my tenure here, but that was during an economic time that was good for the country in general. Sure. But there was a major expansion at that time. So I'm not sure, Mr. Farmer, if there's a correlation. I think... I was just trying to get a reference point because in reviewing this document, which is the essential document that we're talking about, I think this theme, theme C, is the important one in there and the one that has the biggest blueprint for change and how we're wanting our city to develop or to grow and I think it places a lot of it's gonna place a lot of responsibility on you in my estimation because we're specifically leaving out and I'm fine with this but I just think it's public discussion is public discussion but we're actively going to leave out the looking for the growth of large employment sectors and that's to me that the big change in the goals objectives because we're not we're not looking other than the conversation that the House members I just had we're not looking for those large sectors but we drop down into 2a and kind of add in a tick list of healthcare education high-tech advanced manufacturing agribusiness agritourism and the like to enable infill and redevelopment and i think that there's an outcome that's kind of going to happen here and it's going to happen when we get to the end of this and take a vote on it but i think that the value of the time spent is going to be how you administer this over the next several years which then brings you down to the last change the the identification of goal three that has the great catch at the end necessary to ensure Let me see. Amending the conferencing plan is necessary to ensure it remains an up-to-date and workable framework for economic development. That's kind of the outlet pass or the steam valve that you can open if we do get something that comes on the radar that's not part of discussion right now. And I just think there's just a lot. We're building a tighter box. We're absolutely going to build a tighter box. and we're going to have to be happy about it. We're going to have to rejoice in it because if we don't add space, we're going to have to add place. And that's what I still say you're going to have to do. And I'm sorry I'm sermoning you, but there's just a lot to say here. And I've not said a lot about this subject in public or in private, but this is really going to put a test of what people want and its outcome. And they're going to see it before them. they're going to see it in the space across the street they're going to see it in the space out in the back out the back door and when they travel somewhere and we're we as council folk are going to hear from people who are unhappy about this and that but we're going to have to remind them that the big deal is when you drive out of lexington literally you drive out of lexington there's farmland around you and you have to take pride in that every day and and i don't know there's this is going to be a source of strength in all this and i guess i'm kind of challenging you to be that because it's it's it's it's a tougher plan than we've ever really indulged in in my personal estimation because we're really saying now we really want infill redevelopment but we're not going to expand to make sure we get it which means we have to get it so we need infrastructure that's available we need opportunity that can be made and those are dollars we don't currently devote in the the budget but something we need to after we've adopted this i think you need to battle for those dollars when we get there we'll be back thank you sir thank you vice mayor thank you councilmember scutchfield thank you vice mayor i guess taking a look at theme c and councilmember farmer said it and several other have said it this is at the end of the day why we're here is to create jobs or to attract jobs. We can't govern without money to be able to do the infrastructure and do those things. For the most part, when I see any building, I'm seeing houses. And that is a temporary job. The house gets built. We move on to the next house to build or something to build. A lot of people have been asking questions about goal three, and they want more specificity. And I think there's, I think we need that from you all because when we go to the Planning Commission, we have very emotional people on either side that come and lobby you all, lobby the Planning Commission. And I don't think it's too much to ask for you all to go ahead and rip off the Band-Aid and be more specific in here. I think that gives us more guidance. When I take a look at Objective A, which is newly written you know one of the questions I have for you are you looking at trying to specify or look at corridors do you want to sit there and say Winchester Road should be a new medical corridor what are you trying to get with that one because it's so general that I can sit there and create anything out of it are you talking about goal 2a is when you say Yes. Well, there's really a two-part answer to that. The other one, the bigger answer, and you mentioned Winchester Road, and not only Winchester Road but Nicholasville Road, Richmond Road, North New Circle Road, several of our corridors, we want to completely review those, and we want to offer up an alternative for the way they have developed in order to increase development opportunities along the corridors. That would include residential, commercial, as well as employment opportunities. So when we're talking about reimagining Winchester Road, I don't believe we would say that we would select that as the healthcare corridor necessarily. What we would want to ensure is in place is the infrastructure and development opportunities for what kinds of economic development will be coming to town. if they choose to start congregating in one certain area, then the infrastructure and the opportunities are in place for that to happen. But we're not necessarily going to be defining where health care, where education, where high tech should be. We want to make sure those opportunities are available so that those people who are providing those services will choose to be there. Thank you. Council Member Lamb. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Mr. Duncan, don't go anywhere. I'm referring to Theme C, Goal 1, Subsection D, where it talks about fostering the success and growth of large employment sectors and provide readily available economic development land to meet the needs for jobs. That is being stricken, and my question is, 20 years ago when we added the economic development zoning category and created economic development property, obviously that's still important to our community. so by striking subsection D of theme C goal one does that affect or prohibit the economic development property that we already currently have zoned? Ms. Lamb that's the reason that that we feel that D was no longer necessary because we rewrote that as a new goal for this publicly controlled land so we felt like that was the crux of that there may be some other things in there as well which we feel are particularly the live where you work type opportunities we believe those are incorporated elsewhere but that the crux of this is to to provide that readily available economic development land and that's where we see that in our new goal as achieving that I guess my my comment would be on that that I don't want us to lessen the importance of property that was already designated for economic development should that come to fruition in the future. So I would, I don't have the wordage today, but I would like to think that we would also recognize that property that had already been designated for economic development, that we also recognize that that can be used in the future in addition to the publicly controlled economic development land. I believe we would agree with that Ms. Lamb and we would look at almost every one of the proposed goals and objectives in helping us to achieve that, particularly if land that has already been zoned for economic development purposes, the property owner seeks to do something different with that, we would look at this and say what's the justification for taking this out of the job creation inventory and we'd be very concerned about that. And so I believe that because zone changes have to be supported by the comprehensive plan, I still believe that we've got enough information here to help us hold on to the economic development land that's already been zoned if everyone believes that it still serves that useful purpose. Okay, so that is in your professional opinion that we will still be okay with the other economic development land? Yes, I do, because I believe, as others have said, this is, although these themes are not in priority order, but if you're looking at this, this one's right in the middle. And so it was somewhat intentional in that regard. It's bookended by these other things, but job development is certainly the center of what we're trying to do. And we believe that any attempt, any effort to change existing ED or I-1 zoning to something lesser would need to be reviewed against all of these to ensure that we're making the right decision there. Okay, I appreciate that. I mean, as my colleagues have already said, and I restate it too, that creating jobs is, you know, that's our revenue. and so we have to be very creative in trying to figure out how to do that going forward, and so I appreciate that. So thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you. Councilmember Henson. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I wanted to make a request so that I can, I think we're all looking at making educated decisions here about the future of Lexington, So I would like a more readable document of the urban service boundaries, exactly where they lie in our county, along with the available land that you had pointed out earlier. Jim, is that something you can, I guess, you know, the maps that we have, the many, many maps are very hard for me to read. So I just want to more of a visual, precise locations. and if you've given thought to where we might get Commerce Lexington there are 250 acres or whatever. To answer your first question, Ms. Henson, we can create a map that shows where roads intersect the urban service boundary and label those if that would help give you a better orientation of where the urban service boundary is. I think the roads would be very helpful, and blow it up so that it is more readable. But the other part of your question, and there may have been a middle part, but the last part you asked, have we identified land where we believe would meet the needs that Commerce Lexington has identified? And back to what Mr. Stanton and I were talking, yes, we have. We have suggested some opportunities, but we have not had specific contacts with or negotiations on those properties. But again, we're looking at the area around Coldstream Farm. There's some other land there that's adjacent to that that has not really been designated for future land use, but we believe could serve that purpose. And then again, there may be some city-owned properties that we would want to repurpose. that are already being used for another use now that we could repurpose. So those are the kinds of things that we've talked about when we're visualizing where a publicly owned or a public partnership could be for economic development land. And don't forget that I would like more of a readable visual map of properties that are developed within the urban service boundary. And we're defining that as vacant land and available, meaning that it doesn't have a constraint of an environmental issue. But again, developable and available are two different things, and whether the property owner is interested is not what's reported. We're simply reporting that the land is not developed for its principal use, but it could be if somebody wanted to. So yes, we can get both of those for you. That would be great. And, you know, and I know that, you know, in the past we have had, I always think about Toyota when they came to Georgetown. I believe Lexmark was probably, or IBM at that time, how you attract those businesses and offer incentives rather than, I mean, I would have to have a real good understanding of how you make it shovel ready or whatever when you really don't even know what you're going to need. but offering those incentives to bring those large employers here. We always know we're going to need road access and sanitary sewer, so at the very least we need those. And, of course, in a modern era we need fiber optics and good Internet connections and those kinds of things. So those are the basic infrastructure that we know, regardless of who's coming, that we would want to have those things available. Okay, thank you. When do you think you could get that information to me or to us? I believe we could probably do these in a day. We could get this back to you circulating tomorrow. I just have old eyes. Thank you. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you. Council Member Bledsoe. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I just wanted to make a couple comments. When I've been going to a lot of my neighborhood association meetings, they're all happening right now, the annual meetings. And what I hear constantly is, yes, we want to have a green space. We want to hold the boundary. And no, no more infill and no more development. They want both, and they want them both badly. And it feels very conflicting because, as we have said, we need more infill and development, and we're going to have to have jobs to maintain the growth we're going to need in payroll to meet the demands that we have now, and we're going to have the next several years. That's just the reality of what we need to do. And yet it feels very conflicting to the homeowner who says, I don't want more congestion. I don't want more people here. They can just go someplace else. So where we do economic development is very important. How we do it is very important. And when I look at the goal two, objective A, and we talk about jobs where people live, I think what we're leaving out here is just a market reality, which is I mentioned last time that people who want to leave senior housing or houses and move into senior housing can't because the market won't let it be affordable for them there's another market issue at work where people live and where the kids go to school and they're going to choose where their kids go to school or where they work nine times out of ten they just are and we have no control over that from our perspective but it's very much a market reality in how and where people choose where to live and how to live and how close to live to a certain school or a certain group of schools and I think that has a higher impact at least from what I'm hearing than where their actual job is people will live and work in Hamburg and go live someplace else because the school system in their minds is better or provides a different amenity or a specialty but they want their kids to have so I just think I don't know how we incorporate that and I'm not suggesting that we do but I think it is a very much a reality and how we think about where we do economic development in this city and how it's done that is it is important and pretend like it's not important I think is leaving out a big chunk of reality thank you Councilmember Maloney thank you need to ask you another question you said there's some land the city owns that we could work with them with what land are talking about the city owners I'm talking about ex any of our existing city-owned land that that we might want to repurpose again mr. Maloney I'm not obligating the city to do anything and it may be that we don't want to do things with this but some of our some of the land that we've been talking about public that city owned land recently and whether it should be continued for its existing use is a topic that could be discussed in light of creating an economic development of opportunity I like to know what's good what we tried to do the senior citizen center we went out and tried everywhere to find land the only land we found if we go was and I commend Sally Hamilton that was that with with behind south behind over Richmond Richmond Richmond Road back there it was hard to find any land for us to build any buildings on and the only land I'm thinking about that you all talking about is parks are you saying we'll give up parks now it's because I can't I just want to know what land out there that you're talking about the only one I can think of is parks I mean I'm not trying to if that's true my colleagues need to know that because they're gonna go back to their constituents if it's in their neighborhood and say we're getting rid of park because we're going to put a I just need to know what I want to know I want to know in advance and if you're talking about city-owned property what are they and let me know and let these people know so they can have tell their constituents and mr. Maloney if you sense my reluctance to be specific it is for that very reason I don't want my words to become a headline what I'm what what we've talked about internally are just options that we would offer as a starting point. And they may all be rejected, but they may lead us to another option because we started with this. So, for instance, we do have some city-owned parks property that are used as golf courses or that haven't been fully developed as parks that perhaps could be part of a negotiation for a swap or for development themselves. and again I've cautioned on both ends of my statement and in the middle that I'm not offering any specific redevelopment of any specific city owned parcel but this is the it could be a starting point for negotiation for acquiring land that we wouldn't necessarily have to purchase and that that's what I'm that's what we're talking about let me give let me say one the gentleman here is here for reason because he backs up to a a industrial park and i hear the no i went over there and heard the noise bam bam bam all day long and if i can hear it god help with this council can hear with it it's just the problem is when you start looking at that land and you put any industrial on any park those are houses that back up to that and the last thing i want to do is what happened to this gentleman is put a industrial or any kind of business behind this guy's house and you're you're gonna put it in a park every city park that we own or anything that we have it backed up to residential area and the last thing I want to do put any these kind of businesses which I don't think will go down there and that's why I want to be careful what we say about our land and if we're gonna talk about our land be specific and I know you don't want to be specific but every one of those plans that I'm thinking that we own is residential and when we put that senior citizen center up council member farmer had some people out there didn't want that in their neighborhood but it did turn out to be a blessing i just don't understand that i i'm here for jobs and the interstate is the only property that i know they can't get the neighbors mad at you you can't get the farmers mad at you because they don't want to put the million dollar horses out there and uk did have all their cattle out there but now you can't put them out down in the sales so there is laying out there that we can use in partnership with it but but I just want everybody on this council to realize they're talking about your district if they're going to be on any parks or anything because it is your you all know I know I used to be a council member over there that's the last thing you want to do is try to do what this man here is having a problem with so I just want you all to go back and be sure that you before you throw any of our city pop up there that you look at with any residential and be sure the jobs that we're trying to create are gonna make a lot of noise and a lot of traffic and I don't want to be putting them in these neighborhoods and I've tried to be as respectfully as evasive on that as possible because I'm not talking about specific parks or properties but saying that those could be starting points for consideration and there may be some city owned property that could be appropriate for certain types of economic development or certainly for for a trade or negotiation for other property that would be suitable for that thank you councilmember lamb thank you vice mayor mr. Duncan I hate to really follow up on this but I really feel like I need to I know that our general services has identified and has a database of all city property and my question to you is has planning you know you have maps that show all the infill you have maps that show vacant land do you have you all gone to the extent of having a map identify all city owned property for planning purposes have you all gone to extent we have yes we review we have those maps as well they've they've not been necessarily presented because we're not at that level of detail that that kind of work would come more in the in the element stage of the plan that the Planning Commission will be working on specifically we were targeting targeting areas that we wanted to either better develop as a park or redevelop for some other purpose but yes we know where those are we're aware of those and that's why some of those came to mind as potential opportunities for consideration in negotiating a future publicly owned or publicly controlled business park. Well, I will ask that those maps or that map, whichever, that I would like to see that. I would like to have that information shared with my colleagues and myself just to see what we're talking about. I mean, you know, we all think we know where all the public land is, but I guarantee you there are areas in this city that we probably don't have any clue that the city owns a piece of property. So I think it would be nice for us to be able to be educated on that. I'm not trying to get in the weeds, nor am I trying to cause, you know, well, I just think it would be important for us to be able to see that information. And that leads to my next question. And, you know, we talk about infill and redevelopment. And I know you all have created maps that show infill property. And so my question is, is when you identify infill, what criteria do you use when you're identifying the property? And I guess I would specifically ask, you know, if it's private property, do we know if, in fact, the property owner is willing to move forward with the redevelopment, or is that not in the criteria? We don't have, and we didn't, we've never really, at least in the 2013 plan, and not this one, created an infill map. We have the defined infill and redevelopment area that was created about 20 years ago or so, within which there are different regulations. There is a relaxation of the regulations inside the infill and redevelopment area. But we, for the 2013 and, again, this plan, we're considering all vacant land in the urban service area as infill opportunity, whether it's a single residential lot in the middle of town or a thousand acres on the edge of town. We consider it all infill. And so to your question and to Ms. Bledsoe's concern, that's also why we talk about changing the strategy for developing in these areas and looking at more design and better connectivity and better infrastructure and better compatibility of uses. Now, that doesn't necessarily mean that we think that if it's a single-family area that everything ought to also be single-family detached. There are ways to make other uses compatible with single-family detached housing, but certainly the infrastructure is extremely important, the connections, the sidewalks, the access to green space and open space, and anything else that can be done. That's what we're talking about when we're talking about going forward and how to do infill better. even such things as the orientation of buildings, particularly apartment buildings or commercial buildings, and how they interact with the people who are already there. So that's important as well. And so we want to develop more specific criteria and judge the zone changes and development plans that are coming before us against those criteria as part of the infill. But we still think that that's an extremely important component of our growth strategy is infill, and we want to do whatever we can to make that viable and i appreciate that and i think that there are um i think there are opportunities for us to learn how to engage property owners that are around or connect to or in the neighborhood of property that's identified that's either underutilized or identified as infield so i think that's a very important part of going forward how that is how that moves forward and how that happens is and I'm out of time but I think that's very important as we move forward so thank you thank you Councilmember Fred Brown thank you Vice Mayor I've kind of remained quiet because I wanted to learn from my colleagues you know where their feelings were on this particular theme, especially goal 3, which is that has been added in the red line version. That's one of the things added that we didn't have in the 2013 comp plan or previous comp plan. The first question I have, Director, is where does our infrastructure as far as utilities, storm sewer, sanitary sewers, where do they go? Do we have any of that out beyond the urban services area? And I want to look at a specific area between Parris Pike and Richmond Road because that's where the interstate connections are. I think that's probably the land we're looking at that Council Member Maloney had alluded to. I'm aware that we have extended sanitary sewer to the Blue Sky Rural Activity Center. And as I understand it, that service was sized for to accommodate Blue Sky, but it does extend from the urban service area to Blue Sky. I am not aware that sanitary sewer extends any further east beyond the urban service boundary in those areas. Okay, and one of the things in the development that we've incorporated is that if we do provide that land and it becomes developable, the developer pays for that, those infrastructure items. Isn't that correct? Isn't that by the exaction fees that we have? Well, that was the 1996 model when we expanded the Urban Service Boundary. We created the exaction program so that the users of this land were responsible for that. And that's still in effect, right? The exaction model or the exaction fees? Yes, it is for the land that was expanded in 1996. Any future expansion would need to be reconsidered on how we do that. This goal 3 to me is I guess it's okay, but it's pretty vague. I don't know. It doesn't box anybody in. And then my question, that's just a statement I want to make. My question is, is it or can we legally get a portion of this land out by the interstates and have it owned by the city? Now, I say that, and looking back on our history, I think University of Kentucky bought a big parcel of land out in Newtown Pike. Is that not correct? And that's their land that they've developed. It's a farm. But they had the foresight to go out there and get that land. And it's agriculture, but it's in the urban service area. Now, is it not possible for this city to look at that same plan and do something? A lot of communities are doing this. They have their own properties, 250 to 500 acres, that would be owned by the city and be developed for economic prosperity and economic growth. Is that not possible, or am I asking something that's probably not legal? Or have you even thought about it? No, that's possible, and that could be the outcome of what we're calling for here in goal number three, is that the city actually owns the property. The city could be a partner with it, or the city could have a significant interest in it, but the city could also own it outright and then contract to have it developed. Well, we could, but doesn't it have to be in the urban service area? Wouldn't we have to expand it? It does not. The city owns property right now that's not adjacent to the urban service area. So we could, with our power and by legal means, we could do that. We could expand the urban services area for economic growth. And I don't know. I mean, you'd have to redraw the line, wouldn't you? Well, we may be talking about two different things. First of all, there could be discontiguous property that's owned by the city that's used for this purpose, that's not connected. And if the city owned it, then it would not be subject, of course, to the comprehensive plan. I think we would want to explain why we were doing that and what public purpose that served. But it's the same thing if we were also to acquire property either existing or adjacent to the urban service boundary. At that, we would have to decide whether to move the line. For instance, Masterson Station Park is owned by the city, but that is not in the urban service area. Masterson Station subdivision is, so we wouldn't necessarily have to move the urban service boundary line for our own property. Well, my time's up, but I wanted to throw that thought out there because I think land's not going to get any cheaper. We've got to look at 10 to 20 years ahead, and unless we get some of this property so that we can have some direction in it and can look at it as far as economic development and bringing jobs in here I think it's not gonna get any land not gonna get any cheaper thank you Thank You councilmember Stinnett Thank You vice mayor mr. Duncan I want to clarify two things you said one you say you do not have a map that shows readily available land inside the boundary today or you do have one we have the map of the vacant land we could show that yes but it doesn't mean it's it's available it doesn't mean it's for sale it means it is developable there's no technical constraints on it that could that it couldn't be developed it's not necessarily for sale though okay can you get that to us again and email it to us yes we could send that and then on item on theme c number d that councilman lamb brought up earlier why did they take that out why was that struck out well we believe because that the the crux of that statement is talking about providing readily available land uh we have we feel that uh goal three the new goal three addresses that okay and then the infill piece of it where do you feel that's adequately addressed because it kind of it's kind of two parts we we have that still in goal two objective a so the very last part of that enable infill and redevelopment that creates jobs where people live okay so that's why they struck it i assume okay very good thank you thank you uh councilmember stendard if you'd take the chair i'd like to comment Vice Mayor Kay. Thank you. A couple of things. We've focused pretty strongly on what I would consider traditional economic development strategies in this conversation so far. And while I believe that's important, it's only one piece of how we can create jobs and prosperity. Last Friday there was a conference here in Lexington, the University Cities, There were some economists there from away and some from here. The one phrase that stuck with me from one of these people, he said, jobs, basically the new economy, jobs follow people, people follow place. And what that means is that it used to be that people went where the jobs were, and now jobs come where the people are. So we need a trained workforce. We need people ready to take jobs. We know, at least anecdotally, that we don't have enough people who are ready, willing, and able to work in the building trades. We know that the same thing is true for restaurants and other elements of the hospitality industry, as we have jobs that are looking for people. And so training and education are really important. It's also the case that Lexington has a relatively low unemployment rate. Now, not all of the people who want jobs can get jobs, but when you look at what the situation is here right now, we have a low unemployment rate and we have a relatively strong growth in our numbers of employment. So I guess I just want to provide some balance to the notion that somehow we are in a dire situation, and if we don't do something dramatic, our economy is going to collapse. We are focusing on a lot of the things that we need to be focusing on, and I think we just need to remember that quality of place is what is attracting people to Lexington and who are coming because this is where they want to be. And some of those people are the people who are creating new businesses and they don't need the usual kinds of support that we think of. So just part of the balance. Thank you. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Are there any further comments, questions, or any motions at this time? Council Member Farmer. So if discussion is done on Team C, I guess we're ready to approve it then? Is that what we're doing? We are. There is one language change that the staff is going to bring back on Goal 1A, which has to do... Is that the change you were debating when I came in at about 10-15? emphasis is the question of language that speaks to the people who need jobs where they live under underserved populations we would get that back otherwise we'd be ready to move on from this section so do you want to leave it you want to move on I'm ready to move on it unless there's a motion thank you okay so we'll have that one language change coming back on theme see that that would allow us to move to theme D. Council members, if you have questions, comments, proposals for language change, please sign in. Council member James Brown. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Picking up on the conversation that we had at the last meeting in reference to community centers, I was proposing to make a change in Goal 2, Objective C. And the new objective would read, Ensure the location of all community facilities enhanced existing neighborhoods in which they serve. So I'll make a motion to add that new objective to Theme D, Goal 2, Objective C. motion is there a second yeah it was it was with the information that I shared last week it was it was in addition to addressing community centers I mean community facilities is there a second I have a second thank you any discussion on the motion comes member Henson Councilmember Brown, I second the motion so we could have more discussion. So can you explain a little bit more about what your intent is? Yes, ma'am, and I appreciate the second. What the intent is is just to reinforce that, you know, moving forward, when more infield and redevelopment opportunities take place, when development plans come forward for community centers that the Planning Commission and the staff can reflect back on the comp plan and look to see if these developments are improving the desirability of these communities that they're looking to place them in. And this would just reinforce that and add another level to examine the development that is being proposed for these communities. Thank you. And I guess there shouldn't or there's no need to have a reference to small area plans. I would ask the planning staff to maybe answer that question. If there needs to be a reference to this to refer to small area plans in regards to the additional objective. Mr. Brown, I think that that might limit this because we only do so many small area plans, and some neighborhoods never get covered by a small area plan. So I believe leaving it broader would be more beneficial for the community. I just wanted to make sure that it is included because it is part of the plan, correct? You mean the small area plans? Yes, Ms. Henson, any small area plan recently adopted, and certainly the ones in your area, would be brought forward as elements of this comprehensive plan. Thank you. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you. Council Member Farmer. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Council Member Brown, the verbiage is ensure the location of all community facilities enhance the existing neighborhood in which they serve. Is there an instance in which community facilities have not enhanced a neighborhood in which they serve? Is there a background for this? I think part of what the background could be is, and we're going to have conversations about this coming forward, maybe offline, about community centers in the community facilities and the strain they may put on the neighborhoods or the communities that they're near. just because it might not be compatible to put certain type of community centers near or right adjacent to neighborhoods and communities. For instance, some community centers, there may be increased pedestrian traffic, and it may warrant additional services come to that area, and it just may not be something that is beneficial to the communities that they're being proposed to be located in, if that answers your question. Thank you. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Council Member Fred Brown. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I guess the question on the verbiage here, I'm not sure on this. It says to ensure the location of all community facilities enhance the existing neighborhood in which they serve. I'm not sure, first word, ensure. I'm not, are we saying it's a must that we have a community facility? And where are these in existing neighborhoods? We've got a lot of existing neighborhoods. A community center usually, if we're talking about the same type of facility, is usually located in a park. and that's part of our development plan of trying to get community centers in a park or around a park or around a school. But I'm not sure what you're saying here related to that. And I apologize about the confusion. We're talking about community facilities. I know we keep saying, you know, sometimes we use the word community center, but we're talking about community facilities. that could you know it sometimes it can mean it could be pertaining to a school or medical facility and to ensure that they enhanced the existing neighborhoods I don't think it always needs to be looked at as a negative it may be looked at as a positive you know this neighborhood is being built with all these additional residents we need to ensure that maybe there's a school nearby to address the needs of this community the same thing with with the health facility maybe we need to ensure that there are there is access to a health facility also near a development in a community that's being developed so and and I think this is going to be looking at future developments more so than existing developments I don't think we're talking about relocating current community facilities I think we're just going forward we just want to make sure that these community facilities enhance the neighborhoods that they're being located in I guess I'm having a problem with what is a community facility you know that's yes if if planning doesn't mind to give the official definition of a community facility and I apologize this is a continuation of what the conversation we were having last week so it's kind of maybe I think goal two there that's support a model of development that focuses on people first I think that already says what you're trying to say I don't I don't know if you're getting into the weeds here and and trying to shore up that particular goal too but you know it just doesn't it doesn't work with me thank you Thank you. Councilmember Stinnett. Well, I was going to ask what a community facility, how we're defining it. So do you have the definition? Or does planning staff, do you have the definition as it's stated here? Mr. Stinnett, I don't have the zoning ordinance with me, so I'm sorry I can't read it verbatim, but it is a fairly broad idea of uses. schools and medical facilities certainly are community facilities but there could be other things that are sometimes more troublesome for neighborhoods such as rehab centers and shelters and day centers and facilities like that so i believe that mr brown is speaking as much to those kinds of facilities that are not necessarily for the neighborhood like a community center would be or an elementary school would be but are uses that bring people into the neighborhood who really have no other connection to the neighborhood and then the concern about the impacts following that. Well I appreciate that but I think we're kind of crossing the line here and being very subjective as to when we say ensure I mean basically we're saying we don't want these things in neighborhoods and you know I don't remember us having a choice when we place certain shelters or certain adult day centers or whatever it may be or some people don't want elementary schools right next to their house to be built I mean look at Squires Road they don't want the traffic but this is very subjective when I were interpreting this I think as Councilman Brown said under goal 2 that addresses it and I think we need to leave it there because if we go any further I just think we're opening ourselves up to a something I don't think we intend to do if we're trying to prevent things from being in neighborhoods. Thank you. I would just like to respond to the conversation that we had with the planning staff. I don't think the intent is to prohibit any community facilities. I think it's just to make sure that they're gonna enhance the neighborhood. And I think when we're talking about insure, I think it's about actually looking at them for what they are and how they're going to serve the community that they're going to be placed in and how that use is compatible with the neighbors i don't think it's any different from you know when zone changes come to us and and we have to take a look at at at the plans that have already been reviewed once and approved i think this will give the planning commission and staff guiding principles when when looking at these so maybe we don't have to review them twice. So I guess it can be viewed as subjective, but I think it's broad enough to take a look at these facilities, whether they're going to be a positive or a negative. Mr. Brown, if I may add, it's not just whether the facility should be there, but if it's going to be there, are there ways to ensure that it can be compatible? And that's through location, orientation, buffering, other considerations about operations and lighting and that sort of thing. So there could be some very specific things that the Planning Commission can address with these types of uses that would not prohibit them, but that would make them more compatible to the neighborhood. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Evans. Ensure is an interesting word, but I appreciate what you're getting to. Because the issue is, and this is why I think I'm frustrated because this isn't more specific, that we're all up here thinking about very specific situations and circumstances that have come. And this is no knock at you, Mr. Duncan. It's just frustrating because we're all thinking of very specific issues because we had an issue, I don't know, about a year ago over in Beaumont where the probation office wanted to go. But then there was an uproar for that or against that, But I would have said that would fit in. It's an office. But there was an uprising in issues from that neighborhood that then prevented that from happening. I think you have the same concerns on other sides of town when they start hearing of different things are going up, whether it's a homeless shelter or day treatment, whatever. Those are real issues for people, and I think we need to have real conversations about that because if we're talking about really figuring out what this city is going to be, I think we have to deal in real situations. And it's this fluffy language that I just can't get over. But, I mean, that's the situation that we're going for that you're talking about, and I appreciate that because I have the same issue with Community Inn. in Industry Road. Not my district, but my neighborhood was the next closest one to it. So, you know, I think it's a real situation that needs to be addressed, and I don't think the first goal to address it, and it says support a model of development. Well, that's just saying we need them. I think council member James Brown is trying to go towards something more specific about where do they go and then what would have to happen in that neighborhood and what will it look like for it to be compatible or make it more palatable whatever but I guess those are just the two situations that are coming to my mind where it's an office you know over in Beaumont. Belmont's full of offices. It seemed very compatible to me, but we've got, you know, and I'm not picking on Councilmember Blitz over there. It was just the scenario of, you know, we talk in prevention and reactive, and I think that this is the situation I think Councilmember Brown is trying to get ahead of, because we've all gotten those emails on various issues. Yes, they are facilities that are very much needed, but we do need to think about how they can best be incorporated. And maybe that's a word to use, incorporating community facilities throughout the city. I don't know, but I think the message that you're trying to get is well taken. I think it needs to be addressed because that is. I mean, you'll get the same emails that I get, and Council Member Smith gets, is that the North End gets dumped on. I'm tired of seeing that. I'm tired of reading them, and I think this is a way that we can try and address that. and maybe it's not the right verbiage, but, you know, I think thoughtfully incorporating community facilities into existing neighborhoods, maybe that's the language that used to be had, but I do think it's something that needs to be addressed, at least because it's going to happen, and I do think we need to be thoughtful in how that happens, and it needs to be in writing. thank you councilmember Maloney I too want to agree with some of my colleagues on this is for instance we have a lot of community centers in the first 11th 6th and we got 5,000 acres that you all were trying to develop over the years I think it should be fair that we put the same burden as if we did on and I want to be balanced it should not be all in one area and make an emotion like this things like to me we're just sending a map it's all gonna have to be in one area and I think it should be fair for everybody and there are great programs and I we have the Hope Center in my dish I mean in Peggy district it is a great neighbors and and I know when we do this 5,000 acres or whatever I don't see a problem moving those kind of programs you got the community center of what you just talked about it just all seems to be in one area and we should be balanced and would you put the language in there it just seems like to me you're just trying to make sure that they do not span anywhere else so I would I'm not going to support this motion thank you councilmember Bledsoe I thank you vice mayor and I I think Councilman Evans raises excellent points. And I think to clarify, that was one in Palomar. It was the state. The probation office was the state office. So we didn't have control over where it went. I fought it very hard, as did my neighborhood, and the state changed their mind. But it wasn't a decision of its body. So I just wanted to clarify that. And yet I very much think it can be read both ways. And I think that's what makes me nervous about putting it in writing, is that the very same language that one district will use to say, I don't want it is a very similar language someone else is going to use to say I don't want it and then we have nowhere to put it and I don't know how best to have that conversation that I think is a very legitimate one and one that we do see having it being lumped in certain areas one of the biggest issues with moving that office to Palomar was there was not a transportation to really make that work for people who were going to be using it the infrastructure wasn't there yet it will be one day and it will make more sense. So I don't know how to have the conversation and put it in writing. The other question that I wonder is I know when we put things in writing sometimes they're open for constitutional challenge, which happened in one of the things that was passed regarding homeless shelters several years ago. So I'm just curious, in this wording, or any kind of specific kind of wording, I'm sure you thought about that. But what is your response to it? That's a very good point. And to remind us what the goals and objectives are, although you can run your finger down any page and find some specifics, they're not meant to be specific. This is meant to be an aspirational document that forms the basis for the laws and policies that will come out of that. So saying this, I do not believe, this is not a law. By putting this in the comprehensive plan, it's not a law. It's a goal that the Planning Commission would use to consider. And again, I think they could use it both ways. And the way Mr. Brown has written it, the way I read it, is that it does help us to ensure that this gets distributed across the community and not just concentrated in one area, that it opens it up for other neighborhoods to say that this is where we need these types of facilities. But more specifically to answer your question, by having it as a goal written the way it is or in some sort of similar fashion, that does not bind us to a specific law or policy. And then that would come afterwards, and that's where we would need to ensure that we've written it in such a way that meets all the constitutional muster. Okay. And that – I appreciate the answer. It still makes me nervous about the wording, and I appreciate the intent immensely. and I think it's worth the conversation. I just don't know how best to have it and I'm not sure this is the appropriate place to do it. And I really don't have a better option for you in terms of what I would suggest. So thank you. Thank you. Before I recognize Council Member Henson, Council Member Stinnett, if you wouldn't mind taking the chair again, I'd like to be recognized. Vice Mayor Kay. Thank you. I think the existing language clearly is problematic for many of the council people. So I'm going to make a motion to amend the language and see if we can get closer to what the real intent is. And in my, at least the way I understand it, the real intent is to say there is some parts of our community, and they are mostly low income which bear the burden of most of the social services that are somewhat problematic in our community that's the case you can look at a map you can think about it talk to people anecdotally but there's no question in my mind that right now certain parts of our community they're They're an undue burden. Language, I think the intent of the motion was to have the planning commission take that into account when they're looking at requests for either rezoning or variances, et cetera. So I'm going to propose alternative language in my amendment, which says consider the impact of the density of existing community facilities when new services are proposed. I think this gives the Planning Commission a tool. I think the language is clearer. I think it's more about the intent. I'll repeat it. Consider the impact of the density of existing community facilities when new services are proposed. So moved. There's a motion and a second. And Vice Mayor, was that a motion to replace? Because it didn't sound like much of an amendment. It's not like you were just. It's an amendment that replaces the existing language with new language. All right, so we have a motion to replace the wording for item C. Any discussion? Council Member Brown. Thank you, Chair. I'd just like to ask Planning, how does that rewording affect the intent? or is that, I mean, does it still fall along the lines of what our original conversation intent was, and is it broad enough that we can address it in the elements and implementation? Mr. Brown, with all due respect, I believe your version is broader than this, and I believe that the way that the vice mayor's proposal is written, at least in my reading of this, and again there are 15 of you that would read it differently, focuses on what's already there and not looking to expand those. And I know that's as opposed to what I believe a broader version would say, Beaumont needs this, Heartland needs this, Winburn needs this. And that's the broader version would allow us to say where these facilities should be or where they're underserved or that sort of thing, as opposed to this one, that we're clearly looking at a concentration of existing facilities and wanting to ensure that we don't overburden the neighborhood that already has these facilities. Both of them are good. I think they may lead us to a different outcome. All right, Councilman Farmer. Director. in the proposed goals and objectives document that we're vetting through, is density discussed anywhere else in the document, or is it just mentioned? Mr. Farmer, if we talk about density in any other capacity, it is in relationship to residential. And I'll ask them to scan right quickly to see if we say that word, but that would be the only other place that I believe we would refer to density as residential. Thank you. I wasn't sure about the original motion, and I'm less sure about the amendment. I just think, and I understand you're trying to make better a situation as proposed by another council member. I just think if we're going to do this the way it's laid out, the entire document is about greater density. and I don't I'm wondering do we really want to draw attention to density in this capacity because what I hear is a way to mitigate density when in in fact the entirety of the of the goals and objectives is about bringing higher density so I kind of see it as counter to the original and maybe counter to the whole situation thank you anyone else have any discussion on the amendment Councilman Henson. Thank you. I know that there are people in my district that would very much appreciate this. You know, because for sales road corridor is often referred to as the social service corridor. and no disrespect to any of those agencies, but I think this would hopefully prevent more agencies from being concentrated in one area. But then again, I look at the reality of it. Folks that utilize these services do not live in Beaumont. And so, I guess I'm thinking about not supporting either. The amendment, and we did run into some problems with some verbiage in our zoning, although this is not the same. I guess if we could have our law department perhaps look at the wording. We are wanting inclusiveness in our document and I don't think this really allows for that. Council Member Brown, I really, really appreciate the intent of this and Vice Mayor but I think I'm going to have to step aside on this one. Thank you. Next we have Council Member Scutchfield. Council Member Henson, I agree with you. I think because we've talked about our intent, I believe speaking to the legal department would be very well recommended because I worry about what has been said. regarding this amendment. That's all. And then, Councilman Brown, was this to the amendment? Yes, sir. Okay. Councilman Brown. Yeah. Well, I guess, and I will say this, just because of how comfortable my colleagues are with the verbiage. I wouldn't have a problem with letting planning and law take a look at it, maybe coming back with something. But I will say that the original language, planning and legal, was involved with that. It wasn't something kind of willy-nilly that we just thrown out there. It took a lot of time into consideration, so I just want to state that. And then to Councilmember Farmer's comments about density and the plan, I think that's true, and I think that's what we're trying to address, but I think what we're really talking about is growth and how our city grows and moves forward. and I think addressing high concentrations or high densities of certain certain things in our community are something that we should address and can address so so thank thank you all for your input but uh any other comments questions on the amendment all right seeing that all in favor of the amendment say aye any opposed all right doesn't sound like that passes vice mayor I'll turn it back over to you unless you're going to make another amendment. Thank you. Thank you for that. So this brings us to now the proposed original amendment language. Is there further discussion? Vice Mayor? Councilman Massadi. I think that we need to have an official vote on that for the record. I mean, I'm sitting over here and I can't tell you who voted yes or no. and I'm just thinking of the person I think it's queued up here and this is on Vice Mayor Case Again this is just reiterating the amendment to the amendment so that we don't have we don't have everybody logged in. You have to... Okay, so the two, Council Member Henson, you were a no. So those are three no's. Okay, thank you. That vote reflects failure of the motion. Now the original motion to amend. And all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. I'm sorry, you're right. Council Member Masardi. I thought we were going to go ahead and send this to law and forward to planning and you're going to come back with something. Is that correct, Council Member Brown? Before we vote on this, are we not looking at a new goal based upon discussion with law and planning? Yes, ma'am. I was going to make a motion to rescind my motion and see if they'll take another look at it. Okay, so you basically withdraw the motion. Yes, sir. Is there any objection? Seeing none, that motion is withdrawn. Okay. Thank you. Yes, sir. Council Member Stennett. Thank you, Vice Mayor. On this same theme, goal number three, item B, Mr. Duncan, When it says maintenance of historical, residential, and commercial structure, are we saying historic commercial structures? Is that historic applied to both residential and commercial structures? Mr. Stendert, this would apply to the official historic structures that are covered under the H-1 or part of a national register. that's what this is referring to, something that's been identified in some capacity as an important historic structure. And the idea is to encourage the protection and the reuse of those structures through incentives. Whether it be residential or commercial. Yes. The way it's worded, I can see, no offense to our attorneys in the room, but coming in here arguing something differently. So we may want to clean that up and make sure we're understanding exactly what type of structures, any historic structure, I mean, for instance. But on item C, what incentives, when we say develop incentives, what incentives can we develop that we haven't tried the last 20 years to preserve historic sites or structures? What are you talking about there? What are we looking at? The incentives, of course, incentives can always be financial if we're looking to encourage redevelopment. but other things if there are barriers to the development or the redevelopment of those sites, particularly the rural settlements, they're in the rural area and they have a mix of urban zones and rural zones, is there something else that we can do to interdict that to help keep those viable and draw people back to them? So I think we'll be looking at regulatory incentives as well as certainly financial incentives. Well, obviously financial incentives are throughout the whole document. I mean, money, it all comes down to money when you want to look at a lot of this. But going back to the regulatory, you mentioned coming back to us on zoning changes. Will the historic piece, because those of us have been around a while. We've all heard that the H-1 or the historic requirements are too far-reaching sometimes. Are we looking at changing those type of zonings and making them a little easier to do business with, the city, in regards to those zones? How are we going to balance that? That's a very, very good question, Mr. Senate, and that's one that I know internally we struggle with. In fact, the Planning Commission just had a zone change last week, and we won't say any more about that should that come to you. Please don't. But it was running up against that, that very kind of thing adjacent to a historic district. And changing the ordinance, those guidelines are developed at the federal level by the Department of the Interior and adopted locally. I think to the extent that we put our local stamp on those, those are the kinds of things that we can look at again and see, has this one worn out its purpose and do we need to do something different? The Division of Planning will have a member on the Historic Preservation Commission, so I'm also hoping that in doing so that we can influence and at least hear what it is they're talking about. So ultimately, to answer your question, yes, I believe that would be something we'd want to consider to see is there are there impediments that would still not compromise what we're trying to do historically but still enable the redevelopment and reuse absolutely because if we're talking more infield this is going to come come more often I think the current restrictions or requirements are meant are meant well and good intentions but I think they're like you said there's times when it impedes what we're trying to accomplish community-wide because for instance windows you know I know if they had vinyl clad or whatever type of windows triple pane back then they probably would have used them so you know there are times when people want to be more energy efficient they don't want to pay more but when we cry when they put in glass from you know a century ago this doesn't make a lot of sense we need some more flexibility uh to become more green just for that issue alone so i'm glad to hear you say that and i'd be really interested to see what we can do to really make this easier for everybody thank you thank you chair thank you councilmember bledsoe i thank you vice mayor councilman sent it asked exactly the same concerns and addressed them that that I was getting ready to ask. I think developing incentives is great, but they're financial, so they're gonna cost us to do it. I'd much rather see us figure out a way to keep the intent of some of the regulations, to keep them historic, but provide some flexibility in how they do that. It becomes a cost game in the end as well. People wanna buy those houses, and then they look at how much it's gonna cost to bring them up to fix them, and they go, now it's cost prohibitive, I'm out again. And so we don't have that investment going on in some of those neighborhoods because of that. And so it becomes, again, just a cost game. So I'm glad to hear you say that you're looking at some flexibility and some regulatory incentives. I would rather do that than do the financial ones, to be honest, just because I think we're spending more money, taxpayer money, to do something that I think we can do other ways. So thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Evans. Under goal number two, objective A, can you explain what the secured by design, is i'm trying to think of a neighborhood where that would have been um used in in the sixth district since i've had some neighborhoods built since then and now securified design is a is a system that is really meant to provide it basically the the term defines itself where the the buildings the orientation of the buildings the types of uses the connections the road and pedestrian connections are all laid out in such a way that the neighbors are keeping Derek says he knows a little something about this so why don't we let him speak to it be happy to have him come speak the easiest way to describe it is it is a kind of a crime prevention through environmental design so it looks at the whole development so a lot of it deals with as Jim was saying street layouts a lot of it is also the actual design of the buildings and the physical layout of those buildings so windows on the sides there's there's about eight different elements that go into it it's a program that was started over in England that the police department here also works with and they will work with design guides so there are some design guides for residential for multifamily that are currently exist it's one of those things that we try to encourage developers to do in England it's been very successful for over 20 years at reducing crime with new development so that's all those things that we would just like to keep encouraging the police do it is a free service and there are some certifications that come with it thank you and it's also incorporated into affordable housing so thank you see no one else signed up to speak on this theme that would allow us to move to theme e maintaining a balance meeting planning for urban uses and safeguarding where we're land. Council members if you have questions, comments, suggestions for amendments please sign in. Yes, sir. Could I speak on, you want to go into theme E? Is that correct? Yes, sir. I think it may be, maybe not, but I think it may be more controversial than any of the themes that we're going to be addressing. And the time element for that is certainly, I don't think we can finish this. And I would suggest we go to theme F if my colleagues would agree and maybe get that one passed or out of the way and then reserve E for a complete meeting because I think we have one more meeting, if I'm not mistaken. That's just a suggestion because of the controversy. My suggestion is to alter our plan and go to theme F at this point and then hold theme E for the meeting on Thursday. Unless there's objection, that's what we'll do. So theme f implementing the plan again council members if you have suggestions for change questions or comments please sign in council member lamb thank you vice mayor um you know anybody that knows me i'm always about wanting to be more transparent and educate the public about the government and and its process and how that the public can become more knowledgeable and so it empowers them to be able to be self-sustaining on all issues. And it's talking about engaging and educating the residents about the planning process. I guess I would ask Mr. Duncan, I know we're not supposed to get in the weeds on this, but do you have any ideas of how you all intend on doing that? I mean. Ms. Lamb, in fact, this is one of the areas where we do plant a few specific flowers, if you'll look there under the objectives. This was the first time that we used social media as a means of outreach. Now, it was more of a providing information. It wasn't really a receiving information. but we'd like to build on that too. And we've got some people who are accustomed to dealing with us in that way. So that's one way of dealing, of providing more information. You know, continuing to hold the types of engagement sessions that we had with On The Table from time to time. Certainly not, we couldn't do something like that frequently, but from time to time. That's another way of pulling people into the process. We've also talked about ways of improving the zone change process and reaching out to neighborhoods early on as a way of getting them involved. So I believe there's a number of things that we can do, particularly with electronic outreach to bring people in and provide better information to them. Well, I actually went on to Acela yesterday or last night trying to see, because I've I've had many discussions about the appearance of it being cumbersome or not easy to navigate. And I think that the part about navigating through it is, okay, it's just understanding all of the terms that are used inside the CELA and in just the planning world that are, I think, probably the most difficult. So perhaps, and I know you all have a number of definitions on the very front page or the first web page of the Acela, but maybe you could go to a little bit deeper instruction on that because of the attachments that are on each of the cases, especially the zoning map amendments, and to see if they're, just to give more explanation of that. that's something that I thought of last night. That's something we'd be happy to look at. In fact, we've got some of our cell experts in the room, so we'd be happy to follow up on that. Okay. I just think that educating the public about more definitions so that they can understand what they're looking at, and I appreciate that very much. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you. Any other council members wish to address this theme? council member James Brown thank you vice mayor I guess my question is or my comment is about increasing regional planning I'm not sure of all the surrounding counties whether or not they have their very own comp plans and and who does and is there is there a way to incorporate their comprehensive plan and their process into ours and what we do just so they complement each other. With all due respect, Mr. Brown, I think we do it best and to incorporate the others would not enhance the plan that we do. Now, the other community's plans may be suitable for their needs, but our process is different and inclusive in a way that other planning processes aren't. So, sort of to answer, you didn't really ask this question, but you wondered, I believe all of the surrounding counties have a comprehensive plan. So all of them that touch us have planning in some fashion, and some of them do it in ways that are similar to ours. Woodford County, for instance, has a strong urban service boundary, as does Fayette County. Others have different priorities, different development priorities. So it's the kind of thing that by statute we are required to communicate with each other and we do as we update our Comprehensive plan in the elements we notify the surrounding counties that we're doing so and they do likewise with us But that's that's generally as far as we take it is just understanding that they're going through their process that we're going through ours Okay, yeah, and I appreciate that and I know you have to take care of home first and do your due diligence but you know I think it's very relevant the results of their comp plan and their directions and how it ties into ours and how we move forward as a community because you know it's Fayette County but then you know we're talking about people driving into work driving into Fayette County for employment and we're talking about housing opportunities that exist not in Fayette County that may exist in surrounding counties. I think it's very important to be in cooperation or collaboration as we all develop. And I think I would like to see more teeth to us working together and building this regional partnership, whether it's something that we have to look at in state statute to make it happen or if it's something that we can do down here to encourage it even more, I think it's something we have to explore. And I would like to see it, I mean, I guess it is what it is, but I would like to see it more as a priority and not just code three but to move it up in priority. But we can continue to explore and discuss that. Well, again, these are not listed in priority order, and I think just by the mere fact that we single regional planning out as its own goal with attentive objectives shows that this is just as important as some of the other issues that we're talking about throughout the goals and objectives. And we do participate. We are a member of the Regional Planning Council, and we participate in their meetings that are hosted by the Bluegrass Area Development District. We've got the MPO, where we have the transportation between Jesmond and Fayette County. So we are actively engaged in regional planning, and we wring our hands, too, just as much as you are that there isn't more that's done. It's not so much the statute limits it, it's just that individual local governments are making their own decisions. Thank you. Councilmember Mossade. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Director Duncan. Going back to the objectives as far as engaging and educating the residents of Lexington County, I know Councilmember Lamb brought out the be a cello. And I know I've heard that from various constituents as well, that it's kind of difficult to navigate. But maybe something even, and again I'm not telling you how to do your job, I'm just saying what I hear from my constituents is when you send out the notifications that there's going to be a zone change, maybe it's something as a primer from A to Z. This is the process. This is when this happens. This is when it happens. I know they get the notification I know they are told what the typical the zoning is but I think you know some of these neighborhoods because we're going to be focusing so much on infill and redevelopment our elderly neighborhoods and they're not real computer savvy or some maybe not even have the access to a computer so would it be you know difficult to insert okay this is the process this is what happens on from day one to day 21 or 21 to 48 and this is what we're talking about because i think a lot of them feel like it's it's the process not so much the the um that they can't get access to the maybe a cell but how do we get involved in the process what do we do that's a good question because we do have that information available on our website and certainly anybody who receives a letter from us about a zone change in their area is aware of where to go to get more information, and it's usually online. So that's a lot of our communication. As far as broadly making available how the process works, we're happy to continue to do that. We've done that through the Fayette County Neighborhood Council. We've met with their leadership and their representatives, and certainly any neighborhood that wants us to come and talk to them, we'd be glad to do that, and we've done that on several occasions. But I'm afraid the Internet is the best method of ensuring this information is widely available. Now, there are maybe easier ways to do so, and there's a program called Building Eye that takes a cellar to the next level and makes it much easier for people to just see what kinds of developments are happening and what stages they are in across the community, and we'd like to see that incorporated at some point. So there are things that we can continue to do as we progress with improving Acela that would make it easier, but still it would require people interacting in some way with the Internet. So your thought is not incorporating some kind of a brochure or a piece of paper when they receive the notification would not be helpful? We could do that, but again, it's sent to people who are being affected immediately. It's not something that would be broadly disseminated across the community just as general information. Right, and I understand that, but sometimes these people don't even have a neighborhood association. You know, they get this notification and they don't have a neighborhood association to fall back with and say, okay, you know, what are our options here? Absolutely, I agree. If we can look at our notification information that we're sending out and make that simpler and easier for people to use, I think that's a very good idea. Simpler, just the process. I just don't think they, a lot of them just don't understand. And you'll hear that today at 1 o'clock. I've gotten several emails already. I'm not sure if the council has about some of the, they felt that notification issues were not as transparent or they just didn't know. So I'm just kind of giving you some feedback from constituency that I hear from that I guess it's all about the processes we've talked about. But maybe simpler the better. That could help. Absolutely. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Floman. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I wanted to just emphasize on goal three, increase regional planning and concur with Council Member Brown and the importance of this as we move forward. District 12, as you all know, is contiguous to all of our counties in the central Kentucky. And we need to be aware and we need to protect those boundaries in a way that it makes sense. And so 51%, I think you alluded to this, 51% of our workforce comes in from outside the counties and even further than the contiguous. And so I just, again, want to emphasize as we move forward, I had mentioned and I think some of you attended an initial conversation about regional planning. And I would hope that it is a priority as we move forward because it's going to be very important to us in 10, 15, 20 years ahead. So thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you. Councilmember Scotchfield. Thank you. I do think we have to figure out a way to communicate better. Our waste management division does a phenomenal job of making sure that they get a mailing into people's mailboxes that explains when there are certain things coming up. I know this might be cost prohibitive but they're doing it and this is something that is affecting every single one of us every day. I think educating is key to why things are being done when they're being done and I encourage you everybody doesn't I still like to have something in my hand to read it. I know that there's a push for Kindles and internet but I'm even my 16 year old says I prefer a book. People like to have something in their hand to read. I think we need to do a better job. Thank you. Councilmember Lamb. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I guess I'll add two little points. One, I know that each of my colleagues, we all have newsletters and I believe we have community meetings and neighborhood meetings and so I would encourage that that we take the opportunity to invite planning representatives, not to spread you guys too thin, but invite them in to educate our community and our neighborhoods about the planning process and take advantage of information that they have available already to, again, to empower our residents and neighbors so that they understand the planning process. I mean, at the end of the day, it's all about educating the public And what they do with it, once they're educated with it, is their own, you know, it's their own, excuse me, it's to their own. So, but I do think that, excuse me, I think that we need to take opportunities to educate our neighbors and our constituents as much as we can at, you know, every opportunity we can. The other point is, and I was going to mention this in the committee today, but I feel like this is an opportunity to also say it. I've been trying to figure out different ways or ways that we can educate the public more on the front end about when property is going to be considered for a zone change and when it's coming forward to the planning commission. and one of those opportunities is when the developer or the petitioner has posted a sign on their property. And I know that sign is to be posted 14 days before the hearing, and I think that that is an opportunity. There's an opportunity to look at that. I know that's the way it's outlined in our zoning ordinance, but maybe we can utilize that as a tool also so that if somebody doesn't have internet access, that they can still see a sign that's posted on the property. So maybe there's an opportunity to up that game and change the sign to make that more educational for the neighborhood. So I just wanted to throw those two thoughts out there. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you. Seeing nobody else signed in to speak, I'll just remind council that we are set to meet Thursday, this Thursday at 10 o'clock, to continue. I'm sorry I thought at the last meeting that I had proposed that and no one had objected and we sent out a memo. Did people not get the. I'm sorry did the council members not receive an email from the from. So we have, you would prefer next Tuesday? Sorry, repeat, we had in our original schedule we had what time? On next Tuesday? That's for public hearing. Yes. I have confidence. And then we've got the... So if the other option is on the 20... The other option is the 24th, that same morning, which means we would have to complete the work. We would not be able to circulate the draft for the public hearing until later in that day. Let me back up. How many people cannot be here Thursday at 10? Okay. That's exactly right. That's exactly right. And I guess I misunderstood. I thought we had agreement about that date and I thought that an email went out notifying and we can check on that. Next Tuesday at 10 o'clock, is there anybody who cannot be here then? Then unless there's objection, we'll meet next Tuesday at 10 o'clock to take up theme E. Unless there's further business, entertain a motion to adjourn. Councilmember Lamb. Vice Mayor, before the motion is recognized, Councilmember Lamb. I just, I mean, I guess my question is, is the purpose of the public hearing is for the public to understand what we have. So does that give, I mean, I'm looking at planning, Mr. Duncan. How are we going to educate the public from between 10 and 11, 30 or 12 on that morning by 5 that afternoon as to what we're proposing? I mean, you know, that's kind of doing the public dirty, if you ask me. Mr. Duncan? Well, Ms. Lamb, I'm in an odd position here because if you were the planning commission, I would be responsible for that. but you're not the planning commission so I'm not sure what my responsibility is in notifying the public about your public hearing. And you know that's a very good point. I don't know what my role is other than sitting up here and deciding on things. So I guess I'll ask my colleagues what was the anticipated process for this to get it out. This is my first goals and objectives, so I don't know what has happened in the past. Council Member Masotti. What about a thought? Since we meet on the 26th, we have a council meeting, maybe we can, we've got a confirmation hearing too, I was just thinking maybe we can make the public hearing on the 26th. Can we move that? I think the public hearing is going to be, it's going to take some time. it will not i don't think it'll be a short public hearing i think there are a lot of people who want to weigh in on this plan and we need to allow adequate time for that right now we have a hearing that's scheduled to start at five o'clock if we can allow it at least two hours and i think we'd have a hard time doing that when we have a public meeting a council meeting council member bledsoe thank you vice mayor and i'm agreeing this is my first one as well but i thought the public hearing was just our ability to listen to the public, not for them to respond to what our plan was. It is our, that's exactly right. It's an opportunity for people to come to the podium. In that case, I think that it's fine to have a public hearing at that point so that they're not responding to our end goal. We're listening to their comments in hopes to incorporate it into our plan. So I think it'd be fine. Thank you. Councilman Maloney. I my question is why are we in such a hurry because I remember when they did in 96 we were a year behind and they did it right it's why can't we just I mean I'm not saying be a year from now nothing but if we got a problem and we want to do this right the last thing I want to do is rush and and it seems like we're rushing everything and I don't see a problem delaying a week or or a day or or whatever I just think we need to do it right and we did it right in 1996 we took a year longer than we're supposed to but it was done right I mean my question is and I know you all have a plan I'm this is the council I'm asking can we can we allow there's there's a maloney can we get an answer hurry and we got to do this right I want everything he wants to read everybody wants to read it right I got to represent my constituents would you let the director answer your question. Vice Mayor, members of the council, statute which was changed in 2008 requires that the council take action on the Planning Commission's recommended goals and objectives within 90 days of their action. So in 1996 that rule was not in place, but statute has changed that, so state law compels you by December 7th to have adopted the goals and objectives with your own words or the words of the planning commission prevail well i'm going to follow we the statue says that now who's going to take me to jail if i go past 90 days i mean if i want to ask a few questions and uh i mean if i want it done right i mean we've done a lot of things that statue says and we do go a little bit about past the statue actually that mr maloney that that is i think we ought to vice mayor which right that that's a legitimate question because no one's going to put handcuffs on you but any developer or any neighborhood could say then that the planning process is compromised if we have not followed statute and any decision made by the planning commission or the council related to zone changes or otherwise could be called into question because of that so my question goes in thank you the that we are not expanding the boundaries we're staying inside the boundaries we're already doing what and that'd be different if we were gonna expand the boundaries if somebody came in I've yet seen by proposing I just mind it's a one-day deal guys might not a year or 30 days or whatever but I just think we gotta do this right I'm not in a hurry and I think we ought to do it right that's all my thing is and if you from what I hear everybody's wanting to crunch everything in and you want to hear it, you want to ask questions I don't see what's wrong leaving it awake or three days short or whatever it is. That's my answer. Thank you. Councilmember Lamb. I just you know I always like to go back to the record and this is just for clarification that this was at the last ad hoc committee that Vice Mayor Kay announced that the October 17th meeting will start at 10 a.m. rather than 11, and he also requested that council members place a hold on their calendars for October 19th at 10 in case we need to add a meeting. And obviously I forgot about that. But also the point about the public hearing is that to schedule a public hearing you have to do 7 to 21 day notification. it's too late to re-notify or re-publicize for public hearings. So I think going forward that if we can discuss, obviously we have to discuss goal E. And so I think that those that can be here can be here. And then, I mean, we'll still have one last meeting, right, to finalize things, right? There is one meeting after the public that we have scheduled, unless unbeknownst to me people object, we have one more meeting scheduled after the public hearing to make a final determination about what's in the goals and objectives. And that meeting is what day, please? Excuse me? And that meeting is what day, please? Just while we're talking about dates, let's just talk about, make sure we all are. Vice Mayor, I have that is November 7th at 11 o'clock. Okay, alrighty, so. Correct, November 7th at 11 o'clock. Alright, so. Final meeting and then that would allow us, given the council's calendar, would allow us to move to put it on the docket and give it two readings before we adjourn in December. Right. Okay. Otherwise, as the director has told us, if we can't put it on the docket and vote on it by then, then the document, as it was submitted to us by the Planning Commission, is what will prevail. So I guess I will make one more quick point. Was it anticipated that we would have gone through all of the themes prior to the public hearing, or is it okay? It was anticipated that? Yes. well then I guess we need to have something next Tuesday so got some member Fibre so there would be room for a motion to have two more meetings like this one on on the on both the 24th and on the 31st to give us capacity Halloween we don't we have a meeting scheduled right now after the public hearing what we do not have at the moment is one more meeting scheduled before the public hearing it's been suggested that that same day Tuesday morning we convene at 10 o'clock and consider theme II and create a draft that people would have very short notice to look at but that's seems to be where we're at but right now that's the next most likely time to yes and I would move to have a meeting on the 24th at 10 a.m. so moved. Motion and a second. Discussion on the motion? Seeing none, all in favor please say aye. Any opposed? That motion carries. Is there any further business? Seeing none, I will now again entertain a motion to adjourn. A motion and a second without objection. We stand adjourned. The End