# Special Ad Hoc Committee for 2018 Goals and Objectives - October 24, 2017 > Auto-transcribed civic record · October 24, 2017 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/4375 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/4375?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2017-10-24 - **Last revised**: July 15, 2026 - **Length**: 22,384 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 met on October 24, 2017, at 10:00 a.m. in the 2nd Floor Council Chamber, with Vice Mayor Kay presiding. The council considered five agenda items focused on economic development and land use planning objectives. During the meeting, the council took five motions and votes, heard eight public comments, and approved four of the five proposed measures. The council approved three language revisions to development objectives: adding a new objective to encourage developers of government-funded or subsidized projects to employ local residents, revising language to promote collaboration with service providers on neighborhood enhancement, and amending language to remove the word "intense" from a redevelopment corridor objective. The council also approved the creation of a new process for determining long-term land use decisions involving the Urban Service Boundary. However, the council denied a measure to maintain current boundaries of the Urban Service Area and Rural Activity Centers. ## Attendance **Present:** Kay, Stinnett, Moloney, J. Brown, Smith, Lamb, Farmer, Evans, Scutchfield, F. Brown, Mossotti, Bledsoe, Henson, and Plomin. **Absent:** Gibbs **Late arrivals:** None ## Votes and Decisions The council took five votes on various amendments and approvals during this meeting. **Approve language to encourage developers of government-funded or subsidized projects to employ residents in the vicinity** [timestamp: 0:27:01] Motion by Council Member Brown, seconded by Council Member Brown. Outcome: Passed by voice vote. **Approve revised language for Theme D, Goal 2, Objective C: collaborate with service providers about how their community facilities should enhance existing neighborhoods** [timestamp: 0:29:00] Outcome: Passed by voice vote. **Amend Theme E, Goal 1, Objective C by replacing 'intense' with 'increased density' in 'emphasize increased density and redevelopment of underutilized corridors'** [timestamp: 0:36:06] Motion by Council Member Stinnett, seconded by Council Member Henson. Outcome: Failed by electronic vote, 6 ayes to 7 nays. Voting in favor: Kay, Stinnett, Moloney, J. Brown, Smith, Lamb Voting against: Farmer, Evans, Scutchfield, F. Brown, Mossotti, Bledsoe, Henson **Amend Theme E, Goal 1, Objective C by deleting the word 'intense' from 'emphasize intense redevelopment of underutilized corridors'** [timestamp: 0:50:51] Motion by Council Member Brown, seconded by Council Member Henson. Outcome: Passed by electronic vote, 13 ayes to 0 nays. Voting in favor: Kay, Stinnett, Moloney, J. Brown, Smith, Lamb, Farmer, Evans, Scutchfield, F. Brown, Mossotti, Bledsoe, Henson **Amend Theme E, Goal 3 by deleting the goal that maintains current boundaries of the Urban Service Area and Rural Activity Centers** [timestamp: 0:52:00] Motion by Council Member Brown. Outcome: Failed by voice vote. ## Public Comment Council members raised several concerns regarding budget constraints, job creation, and expansion planning during the meeting. Council Member Evans [1:04:29] called for more detailed studies on the financial and infrastructure impacts of expansion, emphasizing that the city must understand the true cost before making decisions given current budget constraints. Council Member Maloney [1:08:16] expressed concern that the city is facing a severe budget crisis and emphasized that job creation is critical to avoid layoffs, stating that the current timeline for expansion and planning is too slow to address immediate financial needs. Council Member Lamb [1:22:37] highlighted financial uncertainty due to a pending state pension bill and stressed that the city must focus on job creation to generate revenue. Lamb noted that expanding the urban service boundary would increase service costs without guaranteed revenue. Council Member Massadi [1:41:03] highlighted disparities between the north and south ends of Lexington and stressed the need for equitable development and investment in underutilized areas to ensure all residents benefit. Council Member Bledsoe [1:43:20] raised concern that increased density and growth place pressure on schools and neighborhoods, noting that parents are already considering private schools due to overcrowding, and emphasized the need for balanced growth. Council Member Plowman [1:35:36] noted that 51% of the workforce comes from outside Fayette County and emphasized that the city benefits from payroll taxes without bearing infrastructure costs, questioning the need to expand when existing land could be better utilized. Council Member Gibbs [1:38:24] argued against expansion, stating that dense, walkable communities attract entrepreneurs and that expansion would increase carbon footprint and strain public transit, while also endangering agricultural jobs. Council Member James Brown [1:56:26] stressed the importance of regional planning and noted that a large portion of the workforce lives outside the county, making public transit investment essential and underscoring the need for coordinated regional development. ## Contested Items The October 24, 2017 meeting included three significant areas of disagreement among council members. **Expansion of Urban Service Area** Council members were divided on a proposal regarding the city's urban service area boundaries. The debate centered on whether the current boundaries should be maintained or expanded. Supporters of expansion argued that growth was necessary for job creation and housing development. Opponents raised concerns about the risks of increased infrastructure costs and environmental impact. The split vote reflected fundamental disagreement about balancing economic development with fiscal and environmental considerations. **Use of 'Intense' in Redevelopment Language** A heated discussion arose over the inclusion of the word "intense" in redevelopment-related language. Council members strongly disagreed about whether this term was too prescriptive and potentially exclusionary in its application. The debate was extended, with multiple amendments proposed before the word was ultimately removed from the final language. This disagreement highlighted concerns about how specific terminology in planning documents could affect implementation and fairness. **Job Creation vs. Planning Timelines** Several council members expressed frustration about the pace of the planning process relative to economic needs. They argued that the multi-year planning timeline was too slow given the city's budget crisis and the need for immediate job creation. These members contended that the current schedule did not adequately respond to pressing economic realities facing the community. This disagreement reflected tension between the desire for thorough planning processes and the urgency of addressing the city's financial challenges through economic development. ## Add new objective: Encourage developers of government-funded or subsidized projects to employ residents in the vicinity [timestamp: 07:03] The council discussed adding a new objective to encourage developers of government-funded or subsidized projects to employ residents in the vicinity. Council Members Brown, Maloney, and Evans, along with Director Duncan, participated in the debate. The motion to add this objective passed without dissent. During discussion, council members raised concerns about the practical implementation of the proposal, specifically regarding enforcement and tracking mechanisms. Despite these concerns, there was consensus among council members that the objective should be adopted as an aspirational goal that could guide future policy decisions. The council approved the addition of this objective to Theme C, Goal 1, Objective E, recognizing its value as a policy direction even as questions remained about how it would be monitored and enforced in practice. ## Revise language to collaborate with service providers about enhancing existing neighborhoods [timestamp: 0:27:38] The committee reviewed revised language for Theme D, Goal 2, Objective C, which focuses on collaboration with service providers to ensure community facilities enhance existing neighborhoods. **Key Participants** The discussion involved Council Member Brown, Council Member Henson, and Director Duncan. **Outcome** The committee approved the revised language without opposition. ## Amend 'emphasize intense redevelopment of underutilized corridors' to remove 'intense' [timestamp: 31:01] The council discussed a motion to delete the word "intense" from Theme E, Goal 1, Objective C, which addresses the redevelopment of underutilized corridors. **Key Speakers and Debate** Council Members Brown, Lamb, Stinnett, and Bledsoe participated in the discussion, along with Director Duncan. The debate centered on whether the term "intense" was too prescriptive for the objective. **Concerns Raised** During the discussion, a proposed amendment was introduced to replace "intense" with "increased density." However, this alternative language faced opposition, with council members expressing concerns that the term "increased density" was still too strong and similarly prescriptive. **Outcome** The motion to remove the word "intense" from the objective was approved. The proposed amendment to replace it with "increased density" failed. ## Maintain current boundaries of Urban Service Area and Rural Activity Centers [timestamp: 00:51:30] Council members discussed Theme E, Goal 3, which addresses maintaining current boundaries of the Urban Service Area and Rural Activity Centers. The discussion centered on the permanence and feasibility of the existing boundary framework. **Key Debate Points** Council Member Brown, Council Member Stinnett, Council Member Maloney, Council Member Lamb, Council Member Gibbs, and Council Member Plowman participated in the discussion. A motion was made to delete the goal entirely, but the motion failed due to lack of a second, indicating insufficient support for removing the objective. **Concerns Raised** Several concerns emerged during the debate: - **Financial feasibility**: Council members questioned whether maintaining fixed boundaries was financially sustainable - **Infrastructure costs**: The expense of supporting infrastructure within defined service areas was raised as a concern - **Flexibility for job creation**: Council members expressed concern that rigid boundaries might limit opportunities for job creation and economic development **Outcome** The motion to delete the goal was denied. The current boundaries of the Urban Service Area and Rural Activity Centers were maintained as a planning objective, despite the concerns raised about its long-term feasibility and potential constraints on economic development. ## Create a new process for determining long-term land use decisions involving Urban Service Boundary [timestamp: 0:52:03] The committee discussed a proposed goal to establish a new process for evaluating future expansion of the Urban Service Area. Director Duncan presented the framework for this initiative, which would guide long-term land use decisions involving the Urban Service Boundary. **Process Overview** Staff explained that the proposed process would require 18–24 months to complete. The timeline would encompass stakeholder input, data analysis, and the establishment of triggers for potential expansion of the Urban Service Area. **Key Participants** The discussion involved Director Duncan, Council Member Stinnett, Council Member Farmer, and Council Member Plowman. **Outcome** The committee approved the goal to create a new process for determining long-term land use decisions involving the Urban Service Boundary. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed: Approve language to encourage developers of government-funded or subsidized projects to employ residents in the vicinity - **Motion** — passed: Approve revised language for Theme D, Goal 2, Objective C: collaborate with service providers about how their community facilities should enhance existing neighborhoods - **Motion** — passed (13-0): Amend Theme E, Goal 1, Objective C by deleting the word 'intense' from 'emphasize intense redevelopment of underutilized corridors' - **Motion** — failed (6-7): Amend Theme E, Goal 1, Objective C by replacing 'intense' with 'increased density' in 'emphasize increased density and redevelopment of underutilized corridors' - **Motion** — failed: Amend Theme E, Goal 3 by deleting the goal that maintains current boundaries of the Urban Service Area and Rural Activity Centers --- ## Full transcript Music Thank you. ORCHESTRA PLAYS Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Good morning, everybody. Welcome. Special ad hoc committee meeting for the 2018 Goals and Objectives, October 24th. I think we're ready to proceed. We have a quorum. the only item on the agenda is continued review and discussion and unless there's objection I would suggest we look at the memo that we got from Mr. Woodall that has language for the two proposed changes in the sections we've already discussed and then we'll proceed to the last section. So under theme C, goal 1, objective E, approach language for the new objective says encourage developers of government-funded or subsidized projects to employ residents in the vicinity. Is someone prepared to make a motion to approve that language? I have a motion on the language for Theme Seagull on Objective E. Is there a second? Second. Motion and a second. Any discussion on the motion? Okay, we had asked staff to come back with language on two proposed changes that we discussed. And we all received an email from Chris Woodall. And the first is theme C, goal one, objective E. And the language proposed is encourage developers of government funded or subsidized projects to employ residents in the vicinity. And there's a motion and a second, that's the motion on the floor. Council member. Is this in place of? This is a whole new objective. I'm sorry that E is marked out, never mind. Anybody else wish to speak to the motion? Councilmember Brown. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I would just ask that Chris could come forward and just maybe explain and refresh some of the council members the reason that we asked for that additional language to it. Well, Councilmember Brown, we had talked about employing residents of the, well, infill and redevelopment projects, so when they occur, trying to encourage the developers to employ residents of the nearby vicinity to allow for employment opportunities that are close to where people live and accessible to folks. And that's where the genesis of this language comes in. And so talking about government funded or subsidized projects would be an easy way to identify which specific projects would, you know, we would want to encourage the developers specifically to engage in that type of employment opportunity. Thank you, thank you, Chris. And I'll add to that, you know, Part of, I've had a meeting with constituents and they've expressed the opportunity to be a part of the revitalization of their community and have an opportunity to have employment opportunities for people that live in the communities that are benefiting from this reinvestment. So I'll support this language and see it as a way that we can identify and maximize the opportunities when government funds are being used to help the redevelopment and providing opportunities for the people in those communities. Thank you, Chris. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you. See no one else signed up to speak to the motion. Council Member Maloney. how do you trace this how do you keep records of this that they are going out in the neighborhood and talking to people and trying to do that how would how do you is that going to come back to you guys for instance if there's a zone if something comes up that we're going to build this business here and they don't go out and talk to anybody in neighborhood is that a big so that will be against your recommendation that we will not allow this don't change to happen councilmember Maloney that tracking this is certainly would be a challenge but it's the kind of thing that the issue that we would raise at the zone change process or the development plan process or if they were seeking certainly some sort of subsidy through TIF or some other project like that this kind of issue could be raised at that time and saying as a way of saying that the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan would like for you to look at opportunities to employ people who live in this area if we want to take this further then of course the comprehensive plan is not law it's it's policy it's recommendation if we want to take this further then we put it into ordinance either the code of ordinances or elsewhere that it would be a requirement of these types of projects my question is to councilmember Brown and I thought I'm forced it just throw something out there and you don't have no language or that they don't have to do it we encourage you to do it is that what you want that it seems like to me that I would assume that you would want some kind of trail or something that says that we've gone through these neighborhoods we told them these positions are going to be open and we would like someone to come or are you all I just seemed to me I I don't think it's a lot of work to do but who trade who keep records that that's being done assume when they come back to you all the developers or whoever it is they sitting down saying we this is the notice you know how you do zone change notice you stand out 400 feet and all that are you gonna have required if they have a notice sent out to these neighborhoods they don't have I understand that they don't have to pop the job but this sounds like to me did you all want them to do this and that's something we've never done before which I'm in favor of I think it's a great thing but I think like to me I want to see more teeth to it then then just to say well we would like you do it if you can but to me I think you should do it it doesn't mean it can't come up and that's right councilman Maloney in order for this to have teeth and it would need to be turned into an ordinance or part of the law that there is a requirement and the comprehensive plan is an excellent basis for future decisions made to amend the code of ordinances the zoning ordinance or other sources that would have more teeth in fact it really is the basis for those kinds of decisions so say stating it here first then gives the council uh more authority in the future to an act of specific law if you want to have this track but certainly otherwise until that there is a specific law uh the planning staff the planning commission can can raise these issues during the development review process as a way of encouraging participation okay and let me ask you this question here not I'm not trying but let's just say in an area in the 11th or the first or second district we have a chance to bring in some land to develop a job in those will be close to these neighborhoods but the problem is is they're gonna require only engineers for this job. And I mean, but what I'm trying to do is they're gonna need maintenance, they're gonna need people to maintain the buildings and all that, I just wanna be sure that we don't isolate, just because they're hiring a bunch of engineers, it's gonna knock out a bunch of people. but there are going to be other jobs here. And I just want to be sure that that message is being out there, that there are jobs and that the neighborhood can live where they work or something. It just seems like when I see these jobs, they're saying they're going to be $80,000 jobs and they've got to have a background in engineering, which is great. I have no problem with that. But they're also going to need somebody, the maintenance, a plumber, an HVAC, or somebody in that area. So I'm hoping that you all understand why we need not only looking at the job, but also what other jobs in there We believe it would be targeted towards the workforce of that neighborhood and whatever skills those had We would like to see those at whatever level brought into the project. Okay. Thank you Thank you councilmember Fred Brown Thank You vice mayor along that same line I'm fine, Director. The language there, was this presented by Council Member Brown, this particular one, or is this coming out of Planning Department? This language here, this item here. Council Member Brown, the idea for this was brought to us by Council Member James Brown. Okay. And he asked us if we would work on this. I know we talked about what you were putting in there, but I didn't remember that language being specific. Is that planning's language? Yes, sir. That's all their language. That's what they brought back. Okay, now let me ask you there, what's subsidized? Subsidized projects. What is a subsidized project? Can you give me an example? Well, we have, for instance, our infrastructure program. If we were to employ that in a neighborhood, either for affordable housing or infrastructure, that would be a subsidy for that developer. And so that would be a project that would have a subsidy in it, and we would encourage the developer to reach out to the neighborhood to hire local people to help work on that project. And the vicinity you're talking about, is that an area that you can define? Council Member Brown, if we have done, for instance, a small area plan for that area, then that would certainly be a vicinity boundary. But this doesn't say that. No, but there could be other boundaries, too. So those are the discretion of the planning division? Well, we would look and see what's the relationship between where the construction project is taking place and the neighborhoods around it. And the other question is, you know, I don't know that legally you can infringe on a contractor if that person is not, if that contractor is not in that neighborhood and this developer wants to let out some bids to see what he can get contracted, where does this leave all the other contractors in Fayette County where they really can't even get involved? you know, there's something there that like we're being inclusive there. And I just think there's some problems with it, with the language. Council Member Brown, again, to remind us of what the goals and objectives are. They're not specific laws and rules. They're aspirational statements. So what we're saying here is that when a neighborhood, an area, part of a small area plan or some other defined area is being redeveloped or even a project is in there, we want to encourage the people who are going in from the outside to do this, to reach out to the people who are around there and see if there are some skills that they can bring to the project as well to help boost the rest of the neighborhood. This, again, this would have to be turned into a law if we said we wanted specific targets met. do that in other ways with minority and women-owned businesses. But this is more of an aspirational statement, reminding developers to look around you when you go into this neighborhood. There may be some assets and talent there that you can mine to help with this project and improve the neighborhood at the same time. Well, I guess that's a pretty good explanation, but that doesn't satisfy my question there because I think goals and objectives are more important than maybe you're presenting here. Oh, they're extremely important, but it's the laws that get made as a result of the goals and objectives. Exactly, but goals and objectives are still going to be looked at by the developers and the lawyers, and they're going to look at those things and say, you know, is this what you mean or is this what we're going to do? And then the Planning Commission gets involved in that and trying to interpret it. So I just have a little bit of a problem with some of that language. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Hanson. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I want to just weigh in that I think the wording says encourage. Is that correct? And I guess I would have a problem if it was a requirement because I think we would be putting ourselves in a box and maybe so Jim I guess you know I would just be concerned if you care to comment that if the word encouragement wasn't there and it was a requirement then we would be putting some limitations on what businesses would develop in a certain area and and councilmember Henson if you'll if you look at the totality of the goals and objectives, we try very hard to not make those kind of definitive statements. And that's why, again, encourage and facilitate and those kinds of words are used in the goals and objectives in order to broaden the scope and then allow us to respond to specific situations when they arise. So this is not requiring that, but it is just causing us all to think and perhaps look around us when we're going into these areas and look for ways to improve the neighborhood by including the neighborhood in the development. Thank you, sir. And I certainly agree with that, that any opportunity we have to bring up a neighborhood that we should. But also, you know, any type of ordinance or something like that requiring it, I just don't think I can support something like that. But I do like the language as long, you know, it's an encouragement. I like the idea of living where you work, things like that. So thank you. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you. Council Member Evans. Thank you, Vice Mayor. That's okay. I guess... Well, first, this is new language that we didn't even talk about, so I'm not quite sure how this even came out because it is a completely new one. And I'm not sure that we aren't trying to do this in other ways, and I don't know why it necessarily needs to be in the plans and goals and objectives for this. So I don't know. I feel like this was just kind of a – I'm not sure there was a need for it at this point because, I mean, we're trying to do that with what we've got. or is there another way to do it that we're already trying to go for? So I just need some explanation about why it just kind of came up, and we didn't discuss it at all at the last meeting. And how, like Mr. Duncan said, aren't we trying to do this in other ways already, and how does this make it any better aside from having it in this plan where, and quite frankly I think this language is much more specific than a lot of the language that we've gotten which you know I again I have issue with the way this is worded anyway as a whole so I I'm a little confused about how this came out came up out of a conversation that we didn't even have and how why why this is not how it can't be done some other way because I think we've spent a lot of time on this is new language when we've got a much bigger issue to to talk about I mean it's it sounds good it's not and I guess again all of this sounds good just in general with the way it's worded but I don't know why this is necessary when it's a completely new objective that again we didn't even discuss I don't who wants to answer that i was going to say at the last meeting um i'd made comments that i've had several conversations about um opportunities for especially in areas that had small area plans for the the community or the neighbors to be involved with the redevelopment that was taking place so at that time we had asked the planning staff to work on wording that could help support that in the form of maybe a new objective and ask them to bring it back to today's meeting so that's that's the origins of of that involvement i i remember using the word involvement i took that as meaning the development of the community i this to me is something very different to saying hiring people that are that are there again i don't think it's necessarily a bad idea but again i don't think that's i don't think that was the nature of the conversation we were having at least that's not what i took away from the conversation when we were talking about development and and what was going on in the neighborhood i i didn't think we had talked about employment yeah and i just missed it but i i just didn't think that was the direction we were going in that conversation yeah i think in in in the context we were talking about involvement it was as far as job opportunities, employment opportunities, and the investment that is being made in those communities, a lot of people wanted to be a part of that. And if they can be a part of that as far as having job opportunity and employment opportunities, we were just going to encourage, you know, the entities that come into those communities to make those opportunities available. And I think this language would help support it when it came as far as a proposal or variance or that sort of thing. They could look at the comp plan and say that we're working to encourage that. So it would just add strength and validity to those applications. The second part of the question, is there not a way to do that currently? I guess I don't know why we need to put that in here. What do you see that's missing besides just putting it in there just because? What can we or what are we or what addition do you think needs to be happening now that isn't already? I think this wording is the first step. I think it gets us to the point where we can start to address it in the elements and the implementation of the comp plan. So I think this general broad statement is a way that we can start to work towards making this happen. Thank you. I see no one else signed up to speak. The language is encourage developers of government-funded or subsidized projects to employ residents in the vicinity. All those in favor of the motion, please say aye. Aye. All opposed? That motion carries. Thank you. The next item that was on that same email, theme D, as in dog, goal two, objective C, and this is the new proposed language. collaborate with service providers about how their community facilities should enhance existing neighborhoods. Again, there was a fairly extensive conversation at the last meeting. We asked staff to come back with some specific language to consider. This is what they have proposed. I'll open the floor for comments, questions. At first, I need, is there a motion to, I have a motion, is there a second? Motion and a second to approve the language as proposed by staff. Discussion on the motion? Seeing none, all in favor please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? No. Need an electronic voting screen if people would log in with their votes. I think we have still two people. That vote reflects passage of the motion. Thank you. That would bring us now to theme E, maintaining a balance. Councilmember Evans. I have a question because with the proposed language, did we add all of the language from the last meeting into what we got into our most recent form because the cultural diversity language has not been added. So I just wanted to clarify, because that was part of the reason I was concerned about this new language that we got and then what we'd actually made motions on and passed wasn't in there. It is not. I actually talked with Director Duncan about getting everything compiled into one final change document after the meeting today so that all the changes are in one. We've just been working through the themes as we go. Okay. Aye. Thank you. On theme E, again, maintaining a balance between planning for urban uses and safeguarding rural land. Discussion, suggestions for change? Council members, please log in. Council member Fred Brown. I'll start it off. I don't know if anybody will finish up or not. Theme E on Go 1C is, and here it says, emphasize intense redevelopment of underutilized corridors. That's one of the objectives. I guess I need a little explanation there because intense is not one of those, that looks like a requirement and not a suggestion. Emphasize is okay. And then the underutilized corridors that you're talking about shouldn't we be identifying those? This is Council Member Brown. The corridors, if you recall, there was a map in the packet that sort of outlined the major corridors that we had discussed. As part of the implementation, as part of the elements part of this plan, we hope to further identify and prioritize some corridors that we would like to look into further as far as under utilization we had at some points talked about a floor area ratio or a ratio of improvements on the lot versus the size of the lot itself so but I think what we're what we're hoping to do is is look at these corridors individually through some corridor studies that would follow as implementation of the 2018 plan so would identify the corridors and the recommendations for each corridor would be specific to the types of corridors that we're looking at so nicholasville road then would be obviously very different than some of the other corridors as well winchester and and so on so it would be specific to to the corridor that taking the intents out of there would that change the dynamics of it well what What we found is that our commercial properties on our corridors are no more intensely developed than our commercial property elsewhere in Lexington. So we're hoping to emphasize those more highly visible corridors, be able to put some more residential opportunities incorporated into that so we can sort of emphasize our mass transit options as well. Okay, I've got some other questions there, but I have a problem with that intents. I'll make a motion, then everybody. It'll just fall on their own. I'll make a motion that intents be taken out of that particular wording on C, theme E. Second. I have a motion and a second. Is there a discussion on the motion? Council Member Lamb. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I guess my question would be would it be better instead of just removing it completely would it be better and I don't have an option right now off the top of my head but could we put something in there that would be a more acceptable term instead of intense council member Brown would you accept something? Well, if you're asking me, I think it's if you just say emphasize redevelopment of underutilized corridors, you're making a statement that's accurate and why try to get another adjective or another word in there when you don't really need it. Just intense is a pretty powerful word. It's intense, isn't it? We just needed some, you know, to lighten up the world this morning. so alright well I would you know if I can put something in my brain right now to come up with a better word I would I think I would prefer to if we could think of something to lessen the word that instead of removing it but we'll go from there thanks thank you Council Member Stendard if you would take the chair and I'd like to be recognized Vice Mayor Kay. Thank you, sir. I think I understand the intent here and frankly the word intense also troubled me. So I would like to make a motion to amend the motion on the floor to replace instead of deleting intense replace it with increased density in. So it would read emphasize increased density and redevelopment of underutilized corridors. And I think what that makes plain is not we're not just interested in redeveloping the corridors, but we feel they have not been developed with as much density as they could or should contain given rapid transit and other kinds of considerations. So that's why I would put that increased density in there and take intensity out so I make that so move we have a motion and a second on the floor discussion on the motion all right seeing none on the motion all in favor say aye I think any opposed I'm sorry were you trying to log in I mean you can't I think that's my blessed I wanted to speak to the motion you gotta raise your hand alligator arm okay council Bledsoe I share both concerns I think the word intense makes me nervous but I think increased density makes the same people that make intense nervous make them to the nurse about that too so in that sense I too don't have a better word for it I think the intent that we want is to focus on our corridors period which I think this kind of does just by saying emphasize redevelopment of underutilized corridors increased density makes me just nervous as intense to be honest while i share the intent if you will anyone else raise your hand took one once anyone else all right we'll vote once again all in favor say well we'll vote electronically um please vote council members all right that does not pass vice mayor do you have anything further All right, back to you. Thank you. We're back to the original motion, which is to delete the word intense. Any further discussion? I'm sorry, the screen. If you've logged in, I can't see it at the moment. Council Member Farmer. I think it was myself and Council Member Henson, maybe. Or Evans, pardon me. So I just want to ask staff again to take one more swing at intents or the thought process to bring intents to this sentence. Councilmember Farmer, the intent of this is, as Chris Woodall said, we've done an initial evaluation of our corridors, particularly the major ones, Nickelsville Road, North New Circle Road, et cetera, and found that we believe they are underutilized and underdeveloped for purposes of increasing transportation alternatives, particularly mass transit, as as well as providing more housing options, particularly higher density multifamily type housing. Likewise, and it's not just the housing, we also would like to see these corridors used in a way that's more suitable to the direction Lexington is moving, to given our size now, the thresholds we've crossed in population, our limitations in our ability to expand our arterial road system. So for instance, as an example, a single story building surrounded by parking and a drive-through is a very low intense use along a six lane corridor. We would like to see more buildings with height, parking alternatives, certainly use alternatives such as residential and perhaps even employment alternatives such as offices and other things beyond just the retail that are sometimes along our corridors. So in our mind, and working with the Planning Commission, the word intense encompassed changing the way we're looking at how we develop our corridors from one-story parking lot type developments to multi-story mixed land use type developments. And we felt that intense encapsulated all of that sentiment. Excellent. Thank you. My question now, if the word intense weren't in there, would you work any less harder? No, sir. Thank you very much. Thank you. Council Member Evans. Well, I didn't even have a problem with the word intense. It was more emphasize and how do you emphasize it? Again, it goes back to the how does this happen or how is it implemented? they I did have a question when we in item B goal 1 item B we had talked about requirements and my council members seem to be concerned about the word required but no one's asked about this one where how do you require intense sustainable development of all types what what does that look like from the planning staffs I don't know where you are. Theme E, goal 1, I am B, encouraged was struck through and it was changed to require. Am I looking at the right one? I'm sorry, council member Evans, are you speaking to the motion on the floor? Oh, we're still on the motion, sorry. I'm getting ahead of myself. Let's just vote on that one. Intense doesn't bother. Thank you. Councilmember Plowman, are you speaking to the motion? Are we still on the word intense? Yes. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I agree that intense can be somewhat subjective. I guess in my mind, I was thinking we've talked about infill and redevelopment forever. The word accelerate comes in my mind. just because we need to move on. We need to get it going. So that would be my word. So moved. Are you making a motion to amend, or you're just making a suggestion? I just put the word accelerated out there. Okay. I guess I don't need to move that. Thank you. Council Member Scotchfield. I guess I'm taking a look at this, and intense is, as we said, intense. Director, I have a question. We currently have on one of our main corridors a large piece of property that is vacant. So let me ask you what the Planning Commission would want to do with Shriners. Because that is prime for infill and redevelopment. And so intense, explain to me what intense would be for that piece of property. Because it's on a corridor, it has transportation. I'd like to know what you all would plan with that, or an idea. Oh, Councilmember Scotchfield, why would you ask me that? At the risk of equivocating Councilmember Scotchfield, that is a unique situation. Well, but it is. It's surrounded by residential. which just beyond that, the residential drops off on Richmond Road. The same on Nicholasville Road beyond Southland Drive. And the reuse of that property, which we believe it should be reused, we want to see it reused. At first, perhaps an adaptive reuse of the existing facility, which is not that old. It could be repurposed for another use. But ultimately, if a developer bought that, they could seek his own change and try to do something different there. And what we would want to do is work within the context of the surrounding uses there and not introduce something that would destabilize the neighborhoods around there. I guess this is my problem. Intense, there are apartment buildings by there, so that would be high rise. Let's go up, put in apartment buildings. That would be intense. Single family homes, it's got lots of acreage, so let's go ahead and put in. What are you encouraging? Nine parcels per acre. It seems like there's a different standard that is placed inside New Circle than outside New Circle. And I think that's my problem with Intense. But what this is really leading to are these corridor studies that we want to do. And the studies will be much like small area plans. And they would guide us in the redevelopment of those. and they could make different recommendations on different portions of corridors, depending on how the corridor has been developed. For instance, inside New Circle Road, Richmond Road is smaller than it is outside New Circle Road. So there are different development opportunities outside the circle as the lanes increase and the access is managed better. So we would look at these corridor studies that we're proposing to help guide us on how to redevelop these corridors at different phases where they are in the community. Thank you. Councilmember Maloney. I too have a problem with the word intent. Looking at the map here, I appreciate you all giving me this map, all I see is green in certain areas where you all say that net vacant property, which the only area that I see that you all would fit intent on it be out on Nicklesfield Road which we don't need anymore we got we don't have traffic problems out on Nicklesfield Road but you look at that that green space there if what I'm seeing is where you all would want to put high time I mean high apartments and all that out in that area that's what you kind of use as examples and intent or do you all look what would you do with that piece of property I mean you just gave it the scenario on that property what would you do on Nicholasville Road out there yeah I don't see very much green on this map but that's the only green I see that really concerns me in it but councilmember Maloney that the two parcels on Nicholasville Road south of man of war have already been proposed under a small area plan for mixed-use development so we know what kind of development we want to see in there that's been adopted by the Planning Commission and it's the same small area plan that led to the summit so we would expect to see more mixed-use residential and commercial and some office in those two parcels once they are ready to develop so going back to my biggest concern and what councilmember Amanda flester brought up when we first started this is affordable housing where you got a lot of people that are that are wanting move out of their houses because they can no longer maintain the big yards and all that but the problem is it's not feasible for them and then when i hear the word intent high rises those are more expensive to make than a house because you got to put elevators in there you got to put it up to ada standards you got to do all those things those prices go up big time and And I just don't see where are you going to put these high rises. I mean, I'm looking at the green. That's what I'm looking at, green. The map is great, but the only place I see that would happen, for example, and I don't mean that, it's seeing the lots on Vassales Road where they've got deep lots and houses, and the Council Member Henson and I have just been told that they're going to put four houses or six houses in certain places in her district where they're taking single residential and putting in nine holes and whatever it is i just see you have to go in start taking houses down single residential houses down just to intent what you want to do with housing i just i'm against the word intent i just don't i agree with everybody my colleagues on here but i just can't see where you're going to put these things the high rises well councilmember maloney we believe the high rises ought to be downtown we're not recommending that high rises of 30 stories or more be along our corridors that that would not be appropriate so you don't want to put high rises out on the cords like for sales road or harrisburg road or any of those places you just mostly want to stick in this circle downtown is what I understand that what I'm here councilman Maloney high-rise development is is appropriate for downtown the zoning is in place for it the infrastructure is in place and that's where high-rise development ought to be as we go along the corridors we want to see the land used better and and more purposefully but the buildings don't have to be that tall three and four-story buildings may be sufficient so what is considered downtown inside New Circle Road or just or you're talking about what downtown well for building purposes the for high-rise purposes downtown would be the location of the B2 zones so that's a very that's a very concentrated area in the downtown area but certainly some people in the community consider inside New Circle Road as downtown but we believe as you radiate as you move away from downtown the buildings don't stay as tall as they are in the downtown area okay I can't support intent I just think there's a lot of unanswered questions here so I will not support I may not support the motion motion to take that word out thank you the motion on the floor is to delete the word intense seeing no further discussion all those in favor please vote electronically. Need about three more votes. Still missing, I think that someone not voted. Someone not voted. Thank you. That vote reflects passage of the motion. Further discussion on- I think I've still got a couple of minutes. When you make a motion, then your time stop. Yeah. I didn't realize you had other issues. Go right ahead. I've got a lot of issues. But let me go quickly to, you might as well give me five more minutes, but anyway. Go to goal three, and it says maintain the current boundaries of the urban service area and rural activity centers and create no new rural activity centers. To me, this goal, and it's a carryover from previous, I guess, the last maybe three comp plans, but that, when you say maintain, I think this is actually a requirement that we're putting in this goals and objectives. And, Director, you had talked about most of our language is support, maximize, establish, develop, that type of thing. This one, this goal here leaves no room for future development. And I think that's a, that goal is a negative statement. And then I think it's a contradiction to go for where we talk about a new process for determining long-term land use decisions involving the urban services boundary and rural activity centers. This is through the creation of a new process. How can you create a new process when one of your goals is that you maintain the existing boundary? councilmember brown goal three is this it is that that and and when you asked the question earlier that this was one of the ones that was in my mind where we are specific about what we do and do not do but goal three is the one that specifies that at this time the community will not be expanding the urban service boundary in order to accommodate its growth it will continue to do so within the existing urban service boundary. So that's what goal three is saying. But as a, as sort of the counterpoint to that, we've introduced goal four, which then calls for the creation of a process that would allow us to evaluate the need to expand the urban service boundary outside of the comprehensive planning process so that... Well, I had, and I'm sorry to interrupt you, but I must on this because you're talking about creation of a new process and then you're also talking about a study so you want to go forward so but you've already boxed yourself in or there's goals and objectives have already boxed us in to say we're going to maintain the current boundaries until we come back up with a comp plan in five years am i missing something here on that verbiage Well, Council Member Brown, the maintain, if we didn't do anything else over the next five years, then this language would stand and the Urban Service Foundry would not be expanded or would not be easily expanded because of this recommendation. If we did not have goal four in here, just as in past plans, there would be nothing keeping the community from amending the comprehensive plan in between plans to address a community need for expansion. So while the Goal 3 recommends that we keep the urban service boundary as it is, statute provides for a process for amending the comprehensive plan. Now that would be very challenging, I believe, in this community because so much effort has gone into taking us to the recommendation for goal number three, that then to come back without a really strong reason why we would want to expand the urban service boundary would be a big hurdle. It would not be one that would be easily overcome. And quite frankly, the five years rolls around very quickly. It doesn't take any time before we're working on this again. But what we're trying to do is separate that. And that's what goal four does for us. allows us then at the next comprehensive plan to have a completely separate process to evaluate the need to expand the urban service boundary that would be taken out of the comprehensive plan and put much more in objective data that could be reviewed by all and understood by all and so that's why we believe that that those do not contradict each other goal 3 tells us what we need to do for the for the moment and goal 4 gives us guidance on what to do when it does time to expand the urban service boundary. My time is about up. I'll make a motion. I make a motion that goal 3 be deleted from this goals and objectives. I have a motion. Is there a second? That motion fails for lack of a second. Councilmember Stennett. Thank You Vice Mayor. Mr. Duncan, a couple questions. When you say process, we're adding another layer of what developers and other folks have to go through and then yet in other parts of our plan we're saying let's make it easier to develop and go through talk about the process what do you envision this process to be is it something that's going to take a year to go through and then it has to go to the Planning Commission so you're now 18 months out before you can turn one piece of dirt so tell me about the process and the time you envision that process taking because i think that's that's an important piece to all of this council member senate you're right we believe this may be the linchpin of the goals and objectives because it's a completely new idea a completely new way of addressing expansion and and we also believe that this process will take some time this is something that the community will want to be involved in and will want to have a role in we may need we may we will certainly seek professional guidance in helping us to assemble this to the extent that we can fund that, otherwise we'll do it ourselves. But this would be something where we would identify a number of different measures, including the rural land that we feel like, we being the community, that we feel like needs to be protected for a long time, 50 years and beyond, working our way sort of from the outside of the county in. At the same time, we would also look then at land adjacent to the existing urban service boundary that might not fit into that long-term rural preservation goal, and land that could be suitable for development, for economic development, for housing, for community facilities, whatever the community needs. And then we would identify that land, and part of that identification would include our ability to extend urban services, such as roads and sanitary sewers, working with schools to see would we need to put additional facilities in these areas connecting this area to the existing urban area so all of that will be part of the evaluation all this this process and we would get that in place identify land in whatever amount in whatever location for future growth and then it would it would be identified then the then the really the third leg of this stool then is to determine how is it that we trigger that land how do we how do we determined that it's time to bring that land into the urban area. And looking at the vacant land that we have now, the underutilized corridors, what sort of metrics can we assemble for those, what sort of goals can we come up with for those properties to achieve, that once those were met, then we start bringing in additional land in order to keep a continuous flow of land that's available for development. So, yes, Councilmember Senate, this will probably take two I would say two years before we know where this is and it may be closer to the end of this comprehensive plan before we actually have everything in place and are ready to then expand the urban service boundary at that time you're talking about the next comprehensive plan so my question was though after we get the process in place how long so if we wait five more years then the process is in place how long would it be after that before you can actually turn dirt somewhere and be ready to do additional expansion and if I may councilmember Senate that is part of what we want to see determined through the study and through the process what sort of triggers need to be met and what sort of thresholds should be accomplished before we bring that land in it could very well be that for instance if we identify a specific type of need economic development or high-density housing that those thresholds can no longer be met in the urban service area and we're ready to bring those in. Something else, we can say we still have opportunities here. The developers, the community has not activated the existing land we have in such a way that we can justify leaping over that and getting this other land. So a lot will depend on the need of the community at the time and the success that we have with developing and redeveloping our existing properties. Well, given our track record of infield, I'm not sure we've had a lot of great success. 20 years ago, we brought in 5,600 acres. we have roughly half of that still available. And the reason it all comes down to money. The developer's not wanting to do it, they're waiting on the money, and so I don't know what's gonna compel them the next five years to wanna do that or not. Maybe they will, maybe none of us know. And I don't think anyone wants to go out in our rural land and take away from our signature, which we all should be trying to protect. I think we have a PDR program that protects that. I'm not sure we need a new process to go out there and identify. I think the PDR program's working just fine, protect our boundary. And then furthermore, to study something, I think it's really a slap in your department's face to say we have to go out and get someone else or study again. I think every one of your planners know exactly where we can expand. I think you know, because you've been around a long time. You have to know. We all know up here where it should be. We've talked about one area for 10 years. So to say we have to study something again is just not true, because we all know where the infrastructure is, We know where the land is, and we know where we can afford to expand without encroaching on our rural landscape. And last point, we don't have one ounce of land in this plan under goal three or anywhere for economic development that's controlled by the city and Commerce Lexington. That's not being addressed. The economic development and jobs are not being addressed with this, period. And it needs to be. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you. Council Member Plowman. Thank you, Vice Mayor. In my mind, maintain says for the time being. I don't think this proposed plan is against growth. It's just saying at this time in this process in 4B is more of a long term vision. I think we can travel knowing that we're looking at longer process that will look at the land. And I just think it's a very healthy thing. One of the other things we have, we've got a professional planning staff that has spent Over a year studying this, we have a planning commission that also agreed that we need to take a look at infill and redevelopment, and for the time being. Also in the preamble, we say that at any time that we could take a look at a recommendation to amend the goals and objectives in the interim. So I think we're kind of covered by that. So, thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you. Council Member Bledsoe. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I wanted to go back to Council Member Senate's timeline a little bit because I just want to make sure we clarify the timeline for each particular thing. Wait five years for the next comp plan, take two years to implement the process for goal four, then take a year or so for someone to actually put forth an idea or a trigger into that plan into that new process is that right so it would be year eight from now before that would actually see something turn dirt council member blesso that is not correct uh the this process and study would begin upon adoption of the 2018 comprehensive plan so once the goals and objectives are adopted and the planning commission finishes out the plan next year we would set about immediately to address goal number four so that before the five years before the 2023 comprehensive plan this process would have been studied gone through and would be fully in place and ready then to separate the issue of expanding the urban service boundary from the 2023 and future comprehensive plans so this is something that would be it would it may take us 18 months to two years to do but it would be in place before the next comprehensive plan and that's separate from the study of where to potentially expand well the study leads to the process then the study leads so the study would lead to the new process the study would tell us where the lands are what the infrastructure options are what sort of triggers would need to be met internally in order to activate that land okay and those would all then inform the both of those things combined you think would take two years and would start in january they would be well after the after the comprehensive plan is adopted which would be probably about this time next year okay but but yes it would be it would be studied and in place before the next comprehensive the 2023 plan okay because i feel like i've heard 10 different versions of that timeline from different people so i appreciate you laying that out i want to go back to goal one and talk about words like maximize development and pursue strategies to activate large underdeveloped land holdings. I'm curious, what kind of strategies do you plan on or envision using? Legislation, incentives, financial incentives, what are your thoughts on how you're going to implement pursuing strategies to activate large underdeveloped lands? We would certainly like to use as many carrots as possible on this. And one of the things that we're already doing, we've already started this, and you will be seeing this over the next year and beyond, is an, if I may, intense review of the zoning ordinance to determine where are the boundaries, what are the obstacles to achieving some of these development goals that we're trying to meet. And we'll be bringing those to you in succession through the Planning Commission and to you for review. So we want to break down the regulatory barriers to development. And we're told that there are some, from land use, from dimension, all of those things. We want to address those. Just last week, the Board of Adjustment came to you and talked about some things that we streamlined on that process. So that's what we're looking to do. Now, we want to ensure the community knows that that is a full and open process. Neighborhoods will be notified about that, a public hearing with the Planning Commission. So all of that will be out in the open, if you don't mind me just adding that. But that's one of the first things, and we're starting that now. We're not waiting for the adoption of the plan. We're looking to break down those regulatory barriers. We also want to have more conversations with our developers and be frank with them and talk about what the goals are, ask them to look harder at the comprehensive plan than perhaps some of them have in the past. And certainly where there's options to use incentives such as financial incentives, we would be very much in favor of that. We've got the infrastructure fund that would help with affordable housing and infrastructure for job development, so we would see that as something that would be important to this as well. Okay, I think what makes me sometimes nervous and other people nervous is when people talk about those vacant lands as if they're public lands. As if they're lands the community somehow owns and people forget that those are private people with private investments and it's kind of their land. And so I want to make sure we are using carrots and not sticks to say we want to force you through regulation, through other options to negatively encourage development on someone's property when at the end of the day it's their property not ours. And I just want to make sure that's very clear because I feel like I'm out of time, but that's a difference that I feel like is often talked about by people in the community who don't recognize that it's not our land. And Vice Mayor, if I may add to that, elsewhere in the plan or the goals and objectives, we talk about neighborhood enhancement. And, you know, these goals are hand in glove with each other. They don't work in isolation. So maximization and enhancement are two sides of the same coin. Thank you. Councilmember Maloney. Thank you. I want to follow up on what Councilmember Stenner and Councilmember Blasto said. The time on this is really crucial right now, and it goes back to what I keep bringing back up is the budget. And Councilmember Lamb knows how bad it's going to be because she's on that commission that deals with the pension. and we need jobs. That's the only thing that's going to help. It may not solve the problem, but it will stop the bleeding. And if I look at this map and see what jobs can be created, it turned into the problem that I keep bringing up. One area that I don't know how Overbrook Farm got into this, And I understand why the Neighborhood Association for Old Richmond Road had an issue, a very serious issue. You look at that map and you see what developed. The last thing you want to do is go that way into town. You want to take the traffic out this way where you don't have to hit no traffic. And that's why I brought it up two weeks ago or whatever. If we could trade, and interstate is where we need to be. and the economy is good across America right now, and I don't think we're taking advantage of it. And we've got people out here that have to turn people away. And they're our main tool right there sitting there that can help us solve our budget crisis. And I look at this, I don't see anything, and I look at the blue lines here, which is urban county government property. Let me get something clear for you. First of all, we can't develop Masterson Station Park because we don't own it. That's the federal government. They list that. Second, Lakeside. We have an agreement with the water company, but if we ever decide to condemn the water company, Lakeside goes back to the water company. So you need to take these kind of pictures out that quit adding these numbers in here, and that's the problem I have. Overbrook doesn't want to be developed. if it would he would already i don't know but i still think it's a mess if they do develop it but it goes back to planning and you all need to know your budget and i'm sorry to say that but it's going to come down the numbers and if we don't fix this problem and we have to wait seven years five years two years to allow a job to come in which by then they've already gone someplace else because we need some property that they can take a job now because the budget I'm telling you and if I'm wrong Councilmember Lamb you tell me because I know the numbers I've seen and you're there with that numbers that you've been there to speak on it but it's gonna be a burden on us and I have laid people off before and it's not fun but that's the other option that we have and I'm not going to sit here and say if we have an opportunity to bring jobs here and save people's jobs, save Lusrington we need to go that route and I don't see anywhere on this map we can help create jobs and this is the opportunity that this council needs to do we can't sit here for five years, seven years to create jobs, by then they're gone the economy is good right now and we need to get on that train or if we don't get on that train we're going to be sitting here next year or two years from now laying people off all because we did not see the train coming on board so I'm I don't mean to jump on you guys but you need to know how bad this budget is and I've been preaching it and I will continue to preach it but this is an opportunity we have to have take advantage of and if we don't do that we're in trouble guys and that's I just have a problem I don't see job being created thank you thank you councilmember Evans thank you vice mayor I think I have a simple question mr. Duncan or maybe help me clarify what's going on because um the 97 comprehensive plan the the original decision did were there goals and objectives for that prior to the actual plan like the big notebook that I'd asked for that had specific areas I'm trying to figure out how because I think maybe we're clearly we're doing it differently but I'm trying to figure out when someone looks at the comprehensive plan from 97 it's very specific but were there goals and objectives prior to that that were kind of similar to this that were you just goals and objectives and then you got to the comfort you or whomever got to the comprehensive plan with the the more specific areas or do you know the answer to that council member Evans the first of all the goals and objectives by planning canon and by state statute come first and so they are they're developed before the plan is and And in Lexington, over the past 20 to 30 years, the contents of those have evolved. They have been more general. They got very specific in the 90s and through the early part of the 2000s, and then they've become more generalized again. But in every case, the goals and objectives were created first, and then any sort of specific decisions about expansion or anything else followed that. So that came out of the recommendation of the goals and objectives, and they are not as specific now as they were 20, 25 years ago. Okay, so getting to the timeline and what we would get, even if we said yes, expand it, or no, expand it, we could still do what goal four is requesting. I mean, we could still do those studies, right? Well, we believe, Council Member Evans, because of the intensity of this issue on really both sides, whether to expand or whether to not expand, that we need guidance on how to do that. And that's where we believe that goal number four provides that to us, that it provides a way for everyone who has to represent the strong opinions about the urban service boundary and the need for growth or the need for preservation to be part of the communication of that and help craft that process so then that once we put that in place this is something that will be more widely accepted and easier to implement outside of the comprehensive planning process. And so with that, because I didn't read the entire 97 plan, but thank you for providing it to me. Does it talk about the cost of bringing in new land, how much the infrastructure would cost, like what the budgetary impact? And I think maybe that's what Council Member Blum may have been getting to. I'm not sure. But what the financial impact would be to expanding anyway, because he is right, and Council Member Blum will talk about that. we're going to have some real budget issues that I don't think anyone on either side will appreciate, or perhaps appreciates right now. So can that, would that be included in this study? Yes, Councilmember Evans, just as it was in 1996 with the expansion area, and it was determined how the community or the developers would pay for the public infrastructure to extend those areas through the exaction program, that would be part of the discussion of this process for any new land. Do we adopt a similar exaction-type program where the rest of the community doesn't bear the cost of that new service? So that would very much be part of the discussion, as well as just identifying where, from an engineering standpoint, those services can be easily provided or cost-effectively provided so that would be part of what we'd be looking at as well okay well I think maybe that's more perhaps what our focus should be is how much it's going to cost for for any of this because as councilmember Maloney did discuss and councilmember Lamb has been pulling her hair out we are going to be in a true budget crunch so I think it would behoove us to know what we're looking at money-wise and what we would have to ask developers to do because it might not be something they're willing to do. I think that that perhaps needs to be our focus and we need to look beyond just the land itself because I think council members are correct that we have an idea of what what land is out there but we don't have a cost and we don't know what we're gonna have to pitch in and what will be able to pitch in. I think that's even the bigger thing. We don't know what we're going to be able to, what carrots we're going to have for anybody. So I think we really need to focus on that perhaps even more than whether or not to expand it because if we don't have any money we don't have any money. Thank you. Council Member James Brown. Thank you Vice Mayor. I think what we're talking about are two things that we know that we're going to run out of. We're going to run out of time, and we're eventually going to run out of land. So I think we're relying on planning staff and on the planning commission to help show us the way as far as expanding those opportunities for the best use of that land. But I have concerns as well as other council members about the time frame. I think the study and the plan to follow is an excellent idea as far as approaching this concern going forward. I just don't know if with the current pressures that exist that we can afford to wait that long. I think the impact of property values rising, home ownership opportunities, the opportunity to downsize is going to become so great and so expensive for people to do. It's going to create a negative or continue to create a negative impact on the people that are looking to change their housing situation. And I agree with council members as far as maximizing the opportunities for jobs as well. I think we have to increase our revenue base based off of jobs money and employment and payroll taxes. But I think it's counterproductive to say that we're going to look for places to provide jobs, but then we don't look for places to give opportunities for people to be in Lexington. I think, you know, saying that we want you to work here, but we're not going to create a space for you to live here is not the message that we want to send. So I think we have to, and I think they're parallel. I think these are two things that we have to look for at the same time. We have to look for opportunities to create jobs, but then we have to also look for opportunities to create home ownership. So, and I know there's a, I know not everybody wants to own a home, and I think that's fine. But I think when we look at the benefits of home ownership and how they benefit the community and the positivity that comes out of that, I think that's how we balance the communities where it doesn't exist and where we can help lift each other up as we move forward. So I do have concerns about maintaining the current boundary as it exists. I think we have to look for opportunities to expand and where it makes sense. You know, I'm a supporter of the PDR program. I see the benefits and understand that. I appreciate the view shed that our community has and the impact that the horse farms and the agricultural farms have on our community. And I don't think that anybody's talking about infringing on them or limiting those opportunities or taking those farms and those activity centers off the market or out of play. but I think there are opportunities to increase workforce ED opportunities and housing opportunities. So I would ask the planning staff to, you know, I know you guys have taken a position. I know that you want to maintain the current boundary, do the study, and do the plan. but I think y'all can help us as a council identify the places that potential expansion makes sense I think you know there's there's some areas where infrastructure is already there or right on the cusp of being extended and if y'all can help us identify those areas I think that would kind of keep us from doing it ourselves because I think we are empowered and we'll if it comes to that but I think you guys can work with us as a partner to maximize those opportunities so I guess I just look forward to the rest of the discussion on it but but I do have concerns thank you thank you Councilmember Lamb thank you vice mayor I guess you know I'm gonna reiterate and and add to what my colleagues have said, this pension issue is huge. We don't know what we're talking about yet. There's not a special session that's been called. There's a 500-page bill out there that we don't know what it says. You know, there's two options right now. One option is where this city might have to end up coming up with 18 million-plus next year in July, And then the other option is we don't have to come up with anything next year, but the next three years we're going to have to pull some money out of our pocket, but we don't know what those figures are. So, you know, that's some serious, serious issues ahead of us financially. Now, in order to be able to come up with any money, obviously we all know we have to create jobs. I personally think that first and foremost is we have to figure out in Lexington where we're going to create jobs. Yes, I know we want people to be able to live in our city and work in our city, but as of right now, I had a conference call yesterday again, and we are talking about this every single day about this pension issue. Right now, we've got to come up with revenue sources. And if we go and add, this is just, I mean, this to me is a no-brainer. If we go and add expansion right now and we add more residential, there are services that we are going to have to provide. We have to provide public safety. We have to provide garbage and refuse. We have to provide street lighting. We have to provide street paving. We have to provide snow plowing. those services are going to cost more money than what we already currently have in our budget. So it is hard for me to sit here today and have this conversation and sit by idly and think that we can just expand not knowing what our future revenue and expense is going to be. I'm hoping Thursday at our workshop that we're going to have some answers, but I don't know if we will or not. But that's a lot of unknowns right now, and so I think that what we need to do in Lexington is we need to be identifying where we can create jobs. That needs to be at the top of the most important thing that we do right now. and if expanding the boundary does not do that if it only creates residential then we need to wait until we find out the financial picture that that we in Lexington Fayette County are going to be dealing with before we go down this road yeah you know I mean councilmember Maloney you're right I mean you know I don't know where we're gonna pull 18 million from if we have to do this next year you know this this is these are some serious unknowns right now so I want I want us to be able to go through and study and and I think through the time of a two-year time we will have more of an idea what we're talking about but right now today it worries me to think about expanding and to be able to provide the services for the expansion area over the next four or five years when we create residential so I say that and look forward to more conversation but I think right now this government and this county's focus needs to be on job creation and And I mean, that's what we have to focus on. So, thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Stenner, if you would. I will, yes sir. Vice Mayor Kay. Thank you. Just a couple of things. First, we don't know what the budget situation is going to be. We just don't know. We can speculate, we can do whatever we want, but until we get action at the at the state level on that particular issue and on other issues, we simply won't know. So I guess I would just, I just want to be clear about that, that we're not right now facing a crisis. We might be next week, but right now we don't know, and I think we need to be clear about that. Secondly, on jobs, I disagree with at least one of the statements that's been made. If you look at theme C, goal three, it says, identify, provide, and sustain readily available, publicly controlled economic development land to meet Fayette County's needs for jobs, amending the comprehensive plan as necessary to ensure it remains an up-to-date and workable framework for economic development. I believe it is incorrect to say that there's nothing in the plan that addresses the issue of jobs. That particular goal also provides a fair amount of flexibility. It says we need to look at it, and if we determine that we need a particular kind of development in a particular kind of place that's not consistent with the comprehensive plan that we passed, that we can amend it. So that's a very strong statement, and I believe that it covers at least one aspect of the kind of job development we need to do. But I would add to that. There are many jobs that can be created without new land. I would point just for the most obvious example to the UK hospital. How many jobs have been created in the last 10 years in the UK hospital complex? I don't know what the number is. A lot. And they're good jobs. And there are many other ways that we develop jobs that don't require new land or that require some kind of redevelopment. The same thing is true of housing. We have traditionally thought of housing as, especially homeownership, single family home and a nice lot. People's notions about what they want and what they need are changing. People sometimes react to other market forces. I believe that the combination, number one, of holding the line on expansion and number two having a really detailed plan research and plan for how we look at the whole county comprehensively the kind of jobs that we are now attracting what we need to do to keep attracting them which i think has a lot to do with quality of life and other kinds of issues finally uh... at least again i respectfully disagree with at least one comment that we know where we should expand the last time we had a conversation about where we should expand everybody and his brother knew exactly but they didn't seem to agree this is not a simple issue this is not something that everybody knows i don't think anybody knows and that's why we need to have the time to do a real plan and to come back before planning commission in this body and make some recommendations for the long-term preservation of the rural land and for the long-term economic development of the community i think that's and i i i'm going to yield and then i will come back later thank you thank you thank you councilmember farmer i really want to talk about this but i mean I mean, to kind of some of your points, Vice Mayor, I mean, for an uninformed follower, let's say, of some of this, the addition of goal four is kind of, to me, like somebody didn't do their homework for the last five years, or ever how long since the last time we really had a plan that changed things. And this rolls in to give some sort of an outlet And I guess, Director, what I would like to ask you is, when the Planning Commission debated Goal 4 under the theme, I love the themes, Theme E, did the Planning Commission add or subtract any verbiage from what is in Goal 4 here now? Or what kind of conversation went on when you had this discussion there? Councilmember Farmer, this is an idea that we presented to the Planning Commission, and then we brought them specific language based on our own research about how other communities have done this and an understanding of what Lexington's unique situations are. So we drafted this language for the Planning Commission, and then they had it before them to consider. Did they change any words you proposed here? Was there any amendments or any changes to this verbiage once you had made a presentation to the Planning Commission? Council Member Farmer, while they're checking, I will respond that I do not believe there were any changes or any substantive changes to the language. I'm good with that. We don't need to get picky about it. I'm just interested in the discussion that went on or didn't go on because I think when you drill all the way down on it in goal four, what you're asking for is a whole lot of trust from a whole lot of people that has to be validated fairly quickly. And I'm not saying there's an untrustworthy individual involved in any of this, but this has the elements of let's add another process, let's add another study, and then we'll think about it again then. And I'm not sure that's the action plan. and certainly right now there is no conversation about striking this or changing it. I think there's, to me, still a lot of information to be gathered about how, I guess I'm gonna go back. I think part of what you said, Vice Mayor, about everybody knew, everybody had their own answer. I think there's a lot to that, but I think, too, there's not that many places is when you look around the map, even that map right there in its age and beautiful condition who couldn't say, maybe here, maybe here, maybe here. And I'm not trying to have that kind of discussion, but I think that I wish staff had and not say that they need another study and another process now. I think that should have been an ongoing thing since the last one. I guess we didn't prioritize that. The last one was really kind of a everybody, old hands and we're at the bottom of the session, sing kumbaya, we're good. And I'm not sure I want to jump into this just yet, but I see that it's here, and I'm not sure how to deal with it. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Smith. Thank you, Vice Mayor. What I believe in is all the pieces of the puzzle work together. I believe that creation of jobs are important. I believe that the growth is also important. I think we need to take a look at all that. I believe that on the growth of land, any plan that you develop, whether it's personal or business, has to have flexibility. I know it's reviewed every five years. I would go another step further. I would say in two or three years, just take a look. and see where we're at do we need to make any adjustments i'm not saying necessarily do anything but it it takes constant review because this is important the job creation economic development it's all important to this town and city at this point you can tell by the heavy discussion and the turnout that it's important and that being said i know that's not popular when you You want to take another look at something when you have it set every five years, but I think it's something to consider. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Plowman. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Just a couple of things that observations is we have a low employment right now, 4.1% lowest in Kentucky. We know from our housing study that 51% of our workforce is from outside Fayette County. Of that number, 37% of that is beyond the contiguous counties. Any urban center, it's going to be more expensive to live in. And we have 120 counties. It takes us, most of us, five or ten minutes to get to another county. I guess my bottom line on that, if 51% of our workforce comes from outside the county, they leave and go back to their county. We are getting the tax revenue, the payroll tax, and then we are not paying for their infrastructure. I know I was looking at Madison County's Comper Plan, and that is very serious for them because they're not getting that payroll tax, and they're having to pay for the infrastructure on folks that they're not getting the money from. So I think those are really important observations to think about. And the other thing I was going to mention, and I think Vice Mayor Kay talked about that, is the type of jobs. We have, I believe, 47% of our population, our residents, have bachelor degrees. Recently I went to a ribbon cutting of a company that is now relocated in Hearst Office Building right downtown. Fuji, I believe. I'm not going to get into what they make because I'm not very tech. However, they have 65 new employees. And after the ribbon cutting, I walked around and I talked to as many as I could. They didn't live in Lexington. They came in from outside. And these tech jobs were paying very good salaries. They were younger. And I talked to them on why they moved. Well, number one, they wanted to follow this company. But number two, they loved Lexington. They loved the downtown, but they also loved the rural. So that's what we really need to be aggressive about in those types of jobs because it boils down to that. Just a few thoughts after thinking about this. We need to have a perception of the bigger picture. the payroll tax that we're getting, the infrastructure that we're saving. Why would we want to add more infrastructure and expansion area that's going to cost us more money when we have things like the pension that are going to be a challenge? So, those are my thoughts. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you. Councilmember Gibbs. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I just have a couple comments about goal three. I'm firmly against expansion. Is this working? Is that on? Yeah. Okay. okay there it is I firmly support me maintaining the urban service boundary where it currently exists a couple of those across my mind in jobs but if we want to attract entrepreneurs from out of town and especially to keep our young entrepreneurs or come out of our out of our places of higher education here what we need is a city that's attractive to that sort of folks and the study show they're not attracted to urban suburban sprawl they're attracted to relatively dense communities where they can walk where they can bike and where they can take public transportation we need to do more on public transportation by the way expansion does endanger some types of jobs the agricultural jobs we think we've had plenty of information on the importance of agricultural jobs something is very important to me most of you guys know I'm a pretty firm environmentalist and expansion of the urban service boundary would be a very negative thing for the for the county there'll be more impervious service the facts are out there very clearly that the more density you have the lower carbon footprint you have and I think that's something we really need to be thinking seriously about in this community something also that people generally don't think about too much is our transit system is decent and we're working on it but we need to have a much better transit system in order to do that we need to have density and if we do expand what happens is a lot of relatively poor people end up expanding and if the bus system only runs like you know once an hour or something it's not very attractive for those folks a lot of people get end up buying cars who wouldn't need cars otherwise in cars I love my car but a car is a burden on people many people the last I saw it cost the average America about six thousand dollars a year to me to maintain a car if you're making like twenty five thousand dollars a year and six thousand dollars for your car I think we're in a sense condemning people to owning cars some people to owning cars. I think we really need to have density develop our transit system, and I think that's the sort of thing that will attract jobs to this community, and I think it's the thing that's best for us environmentally. And those are my comments. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you. Councilmember Massadi. Thank you, Vice Mayor, and I apologize for coming in late, so I hope I'm not duplicating anything that anyone else has said, but a A couple of facts that I recall, I remember when Dr. Michael Karp came here, there were about 5,000 jobs at UK Medical Center. Now there's about 20,000. So we are on a good path. This is a regional health center. We rely a lot on service industry jobs, and I think we've got the potential to retain more jobs and grow more jobs here. There's no question in my mind of that because of what we have here in Lexington. We have something that is so unique. anybody that comes from outside of Lexington. And I know in my profession as a realtor, and probably Joe and James here will say they deal with the same thing too. They say this is so unique. What you have here is like no other city. But I also would tell you another observation that I've had as a realtor in a long career, that there is a disparity on our north end and our south end. There has been for years. When people come from out of town, the first thing they'll say is find me a house on the south end of town. The schools are better. The facilities are better. Shopping is better. And that's something we really need to look at because it seems to me that we've got a lot of underutilized land in the north end that could be better utilized. So I worry about leaving that segment out. If we do expand or determine we need to expand in a certain area, what are we going to do about that area of town that's already got that kind of stigma to it because they feel like they don't have the same advantages as we do, as many people do on the south end. So, again, that's a big concern of mine, but I think everyone up here feels basically the same. We've got a wonderful city. We've got something that is so unique to any other city in the United States. We are the horse capital of the world. I certainly don't want to endanger that, but I want to make sure that every service is provided equally to every citizen here, and I think we need to be very careful about that. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you. Council Member Bledsoe. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I wasn't signing up for a long diatribe about how I feel about expanding or not expanding, but I did want to comment on one thing that we haven't talked about that I did think impacts some of this, and it was this weekend. I'm the only person up here that has elementary-aged children, the only one. now maybe you are having conversations at the school park or the parks with your kids but the one thing I hear about is where my kid goes to school and the overcrowding of those schools and what they do is let's put more pods in let's put more pods in that will make it all work and this weekend the conversation at the park went something like this we're looking at land in Jesmond County really why are you going to do that we love our school we love this but honestly it's cheaper there we'll send our kids to private school great that I'm thinking that's wonderful, you all leave, we have a house flip, there's no opportunity. The problem is they're still driving in the same neighborhoods, the schools they wanna go to are still on the 10th or the 9th. And I say all that to say that we can talk about expansion or non-expansion, but density, infill, pressure impacts all of those things. And one of the places that they put pressure on is our school system. And people are very sensitive to that. They're very sensitive to it. And I think sometimes we leave out that element in these conversations because it's very real. And it doesn't impact where they live, where they work, and where they choose to spend money. And I just wanted to say that. I'm all for our rural land. I'm all for our horses. I'm all for thoroughbreds. I'm all for our beef. I love beef. I love food. I want to have green space where we farm and do all those wonderful things. And I think we can. I mean, I traveled all over the country, all over the world doing consulting. Love flying into Lexington. No question. Hands down. I just think we have to be mindful of what increased growth and density does to little things like parks and schools and restaurants and infill. It is intense, and not everybody wants it. And I just feel like someone should say that, that they want green space, they don't want infill, and they don't want more traffic. I don't know how we do all those three things. I don't know how we, as a council, try to maintain growing jobs, growing revenue, and protecting all those things. I think it can be done. I think we all want to do those things, but we can't just do it single-mindedly. There have to be conversation about all those things together. Thank you. Council Member Maloney. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I do want to say one, to clear it about the budget. Let's say we don't have to pay the pension. We don't have to pay any of that. Everything's fixed. but my colleague up here who's the head of the budget and bill o'meara gets up there and tells me that we got to hire 30 officers next year we're going to hire 24 firemen and we'll build a new fire station they have some concerns because we don't have enough money to pay for that so let's just forget about pension we right now don't have enough money to pay for what we want to do next year and and it goes back to what i'm i have not asked where to span and all that i'm just saying job job job and i've been preaching it and along with councilman stent and other my colleagues it is important to know that our budget is not that good period let's forget about the pension it's not good period bill o'meara will tell you we have to hire this he's having a hard time finding the money to pay for these guys next year. So it goes back to what I said. The only thing we can do is try to create jobs. Or we go back to the one thing that I hate, and that's laying people off. And I don't want that to happen. But if we need to get on the bandwagon and find jobs, we need to be enlisting and it is attractive. One thing that's unique that I did not know and I learned about it. Everybody brags about downtown, wanting to work downtown. But if you go out to Beaumont and you put Beaumont and corporate drive, there are more people working out there than they're working downtown Luxington. So that, to me, tells me that Luxington wants to kind of live out, it's a suburb. I'm sorry to say it, guys. Some people don't want to hear this, but IBM built this city. And I knew all can disagree, but we were 25,000 people, and when IBM came in here, we went up to 150. And those hospitals were built because of IBM, because everybody was having heart attacks, because I know. But I just want everybody to realize jobs built this city. IBM built this city. We got to be creative and built. I know University of Kentucky is doing what it's doing, but the U.K. is the central for eastern Kentucky, and a lot of people come from Eastern Kentucky to the University of Kentucky. And I'm tickled to death that we are the heart and soul for a lot of things in Eastern Kentucky. But I just want everybody to be clear on something. The pension is a big worry, but we also have a big worry with our budget now. And if we don't create jobs, we've got 30 police officers coming this year, 24 firemen. I don't know how we're going to pay for it. So that's one reason why I voted against the budget this year, because we're not planning. So I just want everybody to be clear on that. Thank you. Council Member Henson. Thank you, Vice Mayor. There's been a lot of great comments today. I have not, as far as the expansion, I have not decided. whether that is a good thing or a bad thing. But what I do know is that I think our city needs to be diverse. It needs to be diverse in growth, housing, jobs. You know, we talk about we want high-paying jobs. That puts more tax dollars in our budget, but there are a lot of people that live in our community that probably would like median salary. But I wanted Director Duncan, I'm not used to calling you that, Jim, but when you and your staff, you came up with the idea of studying a process, and I know that you're a new director and that perhaps you had different ideas of how we could go about our growth I know I feel like we've done a good job preserving rural land with the PDR but then I also feel like with infill and redevelopment we could benefit from a greater plan or better ideas such as a small area plan and and you know I'm always looking at South Broadway and for sales Road those two corridors so I guess do you think that we could do things a lot differently than the way we've done in the past councilmember Henson I believe that the way we continue to grow and develop is just part of the iterative process of improving in Lexington and I think the way we did things years ago was probably right for the moment we did them at that time and now we're at a different time and we need to do things in a different We've got we've got different priorities. We've got different economies and and we we need to do those differently and and so we feel like that by offering to do all we can Inside the urban service boundary with the review of the corridors with the changes to the zoning ordinance and the other regulations that are perhaps impeding development putting in protections for neighborhoods to ensure that they are able to to accommodate growth without destabilizing them. These are all important things to us that we feel that we are at that moment now and we need to take a next big step on these ideas. And so that's what's being proposed throughout these goals and objectives. And we're also even, and you all discussed this last week, on the implementation, we are proposing that we establish a continually updated series of metrics to review our accomplishments of the plan. And this is something that would be available for others to see as well. So we believe that the plan is a living document that doesn't just wait for the next five years, that it will be reviewed and reported upon in the in between times. So what we're offering, the planning commission, the staff is offering at this point to the community is a way just to take us to the next step of what we need to do in order to accommodate growth, to be a city of over 300,000 where we are now, and to still be the city that we want to be as well. Thank you. And also, there's one thing I want to mention. I just think as a country, we're seeing changes with technology. So it could be that in the future, not within the next five years, possibly, but within the next five years after that, that perhaps our retail will diminish. And so I was just going to ask if you might be looking at things like that. I think we do need to be visionaries of what our future will bring. Well, Council Member Henson, there's a direct response to the retail issue, and that is one of the things we're looking at right now, as we talked about earlier in the updates to the zoning ordinance, are the parking requirements. And retail will be changing, and parking will be a different issue for them. Our driving will be a different issue, and not far in the future, in the immediate future. So, yes, we are. We're looking at those things, particularly in the regulations, and how can we change those, and then in place of, say, parking, offer opportunities for residential development or other types of development. Thank you. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member James Brown. Thank you, Vice Mayor. In regards to the comp plan, I think we've made some changes. I think the draft that we have has been real thought out, and some of the changes in proposals are going to help us move forward better as a community. And I think we've made some changes in order to address some issues as we look at our community as a whole. and I appreciate Councilmember Massadi's talking about the north side of Lexington and some of the challenges. I think if we just, but I think in order to be more effective in moving forward to address some of the challenges with the north side of town, I think we just have to look at our city as a whole and maximize all the opportunities for jobs and housing. But I think if we don't do that and we just focus on infill and redevelopment, I think that could possibly have a negative effect on the north end of town. As far as how neighborhoods are changing and how the potential for property values to escalate and cause displacement is real. I know a lot of council members don't support the thought of thinking about expansion for housing. But, you know, there's a void in the real estate market. There's not a lot of opportunity for people to step up. You know, I think we talk about some of the land and opportunity, and the point that's being made is that's going to be higher-priced housing. Yeah, but what that does is that creates opportunity for movement in the market, which can create opportunities for those trying to step up and better their situation and in turn can possibly better their community. And I agree with Council Member Bledsoe. Her point about density and infield, those are two different things, and that's not always wanted or welcomed by a community. So if we maximize those opportunities for housing across the board, I think that will help that situation. Another point that was made was talking about the workforce that lives outside of Fayette County and how the focus on jobs is good and the direction that we need to go. But, you know, one of the burdens or one of the adverse reactions of having a large percentage of your workforce living outside of the county is the traffic. The traffic, not only, you know, we're concerned about the burden of infrastructure costs and ongoing costs with police and fire when we're talking about creating additional housing. You know, there's additional costs with having that traffic come through communities and the hazard that it creates and the impact that it has on quality of life. So, you know, we're talking about improving our public transportation system. That's hard to do if a large percentage of our workforce lives outside of the county and not in the county. We do need those residents or those numbers to make sense to invest the money into improving public transportation. So I have concerns about that. And I think that also reinforces a comment that I said last week about regional planning. the opportunities that exist in our and our outlining counties in our continuous counties it's not always a negative that they account it doesn't get it you know sometimes it's a positive that they get it if we can come together and plan on how that development and how that growth takes place as a region then i think it's going to be beneficial to everybody in the bluegrass region of central kentucky so uh... i don't think i can infinite if the emphasize the regional planning in partnership enough going forward. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you. Council Member Stinnett, once more if you would. Vice Mayor Kay. Thank you. Director, if you would, I'm going to take it from the, we've been talking about all of these issues at a very high level and I think it's been a good conversation. I have actually two very tiny specific questions that may, and I may make motions to amend. In goal 4B, it says blah, blah, blah, thresholds and timing for the addition of the identified urban land into the urban service boundary. That's at least ambiguous. Is that sentence, it seems to me it should read adding rural land into the urban service boundary. Is that, or am I reading it wrong? Well, Vice Mayor, I'm sure that a professional writer may tell us otherwise, but we open the sentence with, we're reviewing the rural land, and then by the time we get to this point in the statement, we're saying that this needs to be urban land. So it's the same land that is being brought inside the urban service boundary, but we first talk of it in rural land terms, and now we're talking about it in urban land terms. Okay, so you believe that the language now is clear enough? What we believe is important to state in that is that, again, not to put too much emphasis on this line as far as understanding the difference between rural and urban land is, but by the time we have designated this rural land for urban development, let's make it clear that it is no longer intended to be kept as rural land, which is some of the problem that we have with some of our urban land that is continuing to be used as rural land. Okay, that's fine. Thank you. And then in A, same goal, objective A, this goal for objective A, establish the process via a study involving diverse stakeholders and constituents that meets the projected needs of the agricultural and development communities, and then it goes on. What struck me is that that seemed not completely inclusive enough, the phrase agricultural and development community. Was there some conversation about that? And whether that, I guess my thought would be it might be amended to say the needs of the community. So it's not just agricultural development, it's residential, it's commercial, it's whatever. Was there some thought given to that? Yes, Vice Mayor, I believe, again, that those two interests perhaps represent the bookends of the expansion question. And so you've got the agricultural strong preservation interest and you've got the development interest. And so both ends are there, and then there would certainly be, we would advise there would be plenty of room in the middle for other agencies that aren't necessarily aligned, such as the neighborhood council, such as experts on economic policy and that sort of thing. So a variety of different disciplines and representations should be included in this. I guess then my follow-up question would be, do you think it would weaken it to take out the phrase agricultural and development and just make it the needs of the community? Vice Mayor, I believe that both of those bookends would prefer to see their names represented in this statement. Now, if that means that we need to add a third one that is more inclusive to that, but I believe it would be important to both of them to have their names represented. Okay, that's fine. I would leave it as is, given your comments, and people will know that there is a broader objective. Thank you. Thank you. Back to you, Vice Mayor. Thank you. Council Member Scotchfield. Thank you, Vice Mayor. You know, listen to the discussion. Everybody, I mean, some truths that I definitely see. We love our horse farms. We love our agriculture. But some of the other things that I see is we like our green space. And that green space doesn't always mean the horse farms and agriculture. It sometimes means that empty lot, that empty field. Some of the fears that I have about expansion and non-expansion. We talk about jobs. Jobs are also having land available for an industry to come in. Jobs are also our realtors. It's also our developers. It's our electricians. It's our HVAC. It's our bankers that do mortgages. There's a lot more than just that industrial center that creates jobs. We do have a large workforce that comes from out of county. That workforce can move to their own county. I fear that if we don't create jobs, what we're going to see is better shopping centers going in in Scott County. And therefore, people stop coming here to go to a restaurant to go shopping. They go to Madison County. They go to London. This is a big discussion that I thought we'd have more teeth to when it came down to what's on the paper. And that concerns me. Thank you. Thank you. I see no one else signed up to speak, I believe. Councilmember Evans. To continue off of Councilmember Sketchfield's comment, Mr. Duncan, when would we have those conversations? I mean, how would you foresee if we kept it with no expansion? Because just based on this conversation alone, I think we are in desperate need of studies about these areas because council member bludsoe mentioned you know schools but you know we've got a whole new school system that's being created that that issue might be alleviated you know i don't know there's going to be more school choice so i'm not so sure how much that would play in anymore which i mean i understand that the issue but we don't we don't know how that'll factor in into our neighborhoods and and what that overcrowding would look like if it would alleviate it um you're talking about the north end you know i've been told we need more housing to um to attract the kind of shopping or businesses that that are in beaumont or that are in hamburg but what does that number look like how many more houses would we or homes residents people um would we need and then we're developing in that area. And then when we're talking about regionalism, I think that goes into we do have to give. And what would we be giving up as a city to have that balance? Because people are going to move. I mean, and they have moved to other counties, but we do still want them to come and shop and we do want them to come work here so maybe our what we would get from that would be you know we create some kind of commuting system but I mean if we're talking about regionalism I think that's a much broader picture I don't think we can be perhaps as selfish as we've been able to be in years before because it's already happening it's going to continue to happen but I think those are the discussions and numbers that we really need at this point because there's still so many questions out there and it sounds like everyone wants a plan you know I keep hearing we need a plan and be thoughtful so I think goal four in its intent to be more strategic is is well noted and I think we probably all do want that to some extent and this is probably the first time we've been thinking about it like that you know it's been presented so I am just kind of curious about I forgot what my first question was but you know what that would look like and how how soon I know we talked about kind of a deadline but um planning in general like and in these studies how would that how would that look and how how would you map that out i mean just with everything that's that's come through because i do think we need these studies all these questions just brings that to the surface. Council Member Evans, of course our first responsibility once you all finish with the goals and objectives is to return these to the Planning Commission and then guide them through the completion of the comprehensive plan. There's all the elements and the implementation, which are the specific projects that would be identified. And we believe that will take us probably until about this time next year to do so. So we've got another year beyond this to finish the comprehensive plan and we'll be on track with that. Immediately following that then, we set about through the implementation and we've laid out two major projects, one of them the corridor studies that we want to do, the other this identifying the study and the process that would identify how we expand in the future. So those, we would like to get all of those started as soon after the comprehensive plan is adopted a year from now as we can. And certainly in calendar year 19, we will have those studies underway. So with that, because when we're talking about time and talking about how things were worded with that goal 3, everybody's going to read into this, and I don't want to, but it's just kind of a thought of can we put a more specific time frame in the goals and objectives to have a set review time. I know it's in here somewhere about they are reviewable, but what about just softening that language in the sense of making it a more definite that we are going to come back and review it with at least some hard numbers? Well, again, Council Member Evans, we're also proposing to put in place a process that anyone can see what sort of progress we're making on the comprehensive plan and how we're doing with our development. We talked about the Building Eye program last week as a tool to help us keep a better track on particularly housing development, but all development. And so we want to get those measures in place as well so there will be continuous review and reporting on the updates to the comprehensive plan. And again, expanding the urban service boundary would be something that would be accomplished after we have finished this study and put the process in place, which would be 2019 to 2020 to do the study and the process, so sometime after that. At that point, if the process tells us that the urban service area needs to be expanded at this moment for this purpose, then one or two things may be happening. We may already be in the goals and objectives phase of the next plan by then anyway, and we would then update those goals and objectives accordingly to reflect the new process. But secondly, if something comes up before we're there and before we've had a chance to update and we need to take action, then we come back and revisit the goals and objectives through a similar public process and determine do we need to change that so that we can now trigger this new process. Thank you. Council Member Massardi. Mr. Duncan, I think you just made an excellent point. There is flexibility in all of this you're telling me. So, is that correct? Yes, Council Member Massadi. The community, through the Planning Commission and the Council, can update the comprehensive plan at any time. And just as a reminder, every time we complete a small area plan, the Planning Commission adopts those as elements of the comprehensive plan. So the comprehensive plan does get updated throughout its process. We rarely revisit the goals and objectives, but that option is available to us as well. So let me give you an example. example a is we attract a an employer here that requires you know 50 to 250 acres or something like that then we need to house them for that and I know housing is going to be you know one goes in hand with the other so we say at this well when we make the decision either to expand or not to expand or we decide at that time that we need to provide housing where it's not going to be a hard fast rule that gosh you know what you guys said no expansion the division of planning said no expansion we can't relook at this technically Councilor Massadi that is all true but if we're saying that we need 200 acres for housing and we still have 5600 acres of land inside the urban service area that has not been developed that's going to be a very difficult sell to say that we need this 200 acres here for housing but we've got thousands of acres already receiving urban services that could be developed as housing even though the property owner may not be interested so at that point we would need to you know this would be an effort to bring more interest to that property owner to get that land moving the better example would be we have an economic development opportunity that cannot be accommodated on land inside the urban service boundary and this is something that we need to take action on and that would that would be something then that we would go back and look at the goals objectives and say do we need to do anything here in order to accommodate this economic development opportunity? Because based on the housing study that we were at the housing demand study we're looking for the next generation of housing will be for for seniors it'll be for young adults plus we need a lot of affordable housing so those are concerns of mine that we make sure that we we focus on that because that's just the trend I mean a lot of this is market driven and you know right now we're at the top of the market in the real estate world anyways as far as appreciation with housing but we still have a group out there that we're not providing affordable housing for and others that maybe don't want the days of buying a house on an acre lot are gone number one it's not affordable for most people and and just there's just not enough land out there and i even when we had the expansion uh in 96 for with the 5400 acres land prices didn't fall. So I think the idea that if we build a lot more, prices are either going to maybe stay at the same or they're going to not increase as much, I think that's a fallacy. I think a lot of this is market-driven. So I just was concerned about if we had an opportunity to pose itself, but I see what you're saying. We have acreage inside the boundary that would be our first go-to and if we could not have utilized that in some way that there is some flexibility you're telling me there's the option yes councilman massadi yes because i think things are changing all the time as i said a lot of this is market driven and if we don't have some flexibility in there i think that's when we end up putting ourselves in the corner but i i do know that you know a lot of this again is um you know communities are changing the change the communities that are are being built are residential and retail components. I mean, it's a different lifestyle change. People like to live and shop and not have to drive all over to be able to get their whatever necessities they need. And you look at Kmart, it's dark. You look at these big commercial centers. I mean, Fayette Mall is not doing what it used to do. So there's going to be a lot of changes, and I think we have to be cognizant of that. So if we can incorporate all this as time goes on and have some flexibility, I think that's what needs to be done. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Plowman. Hold on, Vice Mayor, point of order. Are we going to suspend our rules and allow people to speak three times? I think our motion needs to be made if we're going to start that trend. The next two folks have spoken twice. I think at this point we can do it either way. My take on it has been we've not been discussing a specific amendment, but if people feel that that would be more appropriate, then we would have to have a motion to suspend the rules to allow someone to speak a third time. So moved. Any objection? Thank you. Councilmember Plowman. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I do want to point out with my fellow council members that we recently amended the ED and Coldstream, hundreds of acres. And we did this to encourage our land to develop, but we need to give that some time to work or to see what it does. And that just happened, as you know, within the last six months. And then I also had a question, Director Duncan, if you could. in your professional professional opinion do we need to expand in order to increase jobs councilmember plumban we have identified well he's been going through all the studies i just wanted to see what he we have 500 acres already designated for economic development purposes in the expansion area alone, two different tracks, two large tracks along the interstate that can accommodate almost any kind of economic development that we would want in this community. And then we also have what's several hundred acres available in Coldstream Park, all in the same area. Scattered throughout the north side of town, particularly northeast, we have, Northwest, I'm sorry, we have still some remaining I-1 industrial land and underutilized industrial land. So in our opinion, with over about 1,500 acres of industrial and office land, we believe that the land itself is available to accommodate the kinds of uses that we have been experiencing over the past 20 years in this community. Thank you. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you. Council Member Maloney. Thank you. I just have two questions. First of all, Director, I need to ask the comment you made to Council Member Mazzotti about if we have a housing market, which is at a standstill, we haven't been able to produce houses, and you're saying we have plenty of land here, but the problem is the land I'm looking at, they don't want to sell, period. They don't want to sell at all. They're happy with everything. And then you've got a piece of property out somewhere up out of the interstate or something. They've got people ready to go to build houses. And the market right now needs houses. It's from what Will Y'all's report told us. How are you going to sit there and tell the person who can do, say it's out of the urban service. I mean, and sit there and tell them, I'm sorry, we have 5,500 acres left where you can build houses or whatever. And they're sitting there saying, well, we want those people, but they don't want to sell, period, period. But we've got a market here where we're ready to bring people in and eat houses. How do you, in your two-year study, are you going to override that? what you just told me that's going to be hard for them to sit there, that that property may never be developed. Council Member Maloney, that is an issue that we have struggled with for many comprehensive plans, is that we have property owners who have land inside the urban service area where urban services can be provided efficiently, and yet they're not at the moment ready to develop. And that's troubling. You're absolutely right. But the answer is that that is our 50 plus year system that we have carefully carefully developed since the late 1950s in ensuring that growth occurs in an ordered fashion for economic purposes and for preservation purposes and that's within the urban service boundary and And we would certainly, we continue to try to find ways to make the land inside the urban area more attractive for the property owners to develop. There's breaking down barriers in the ordinance, other incentives. And we would certainly be open to more creative measures to make that land available. But the answer is we've got a long tradition of developing contiguous property and not leaping out in doing so. And that would be something that would change the direction of planning in Lexington. Now, the next question, which is most important to me, jobs. You said you've got 500 acres out there. The Chamber has been coming to us for a long time trying to find property. When they go to see these folks to buy this property, the prices are outrageous. It's impossible to get your money back to bring anybody in here because they're not going to pay that kind of money to bring their employees here to offset the cost. So how do you fix that problem? Well, Council Member Maloney, part of that is what we talked about also last week, and we believe that the public-private partnership or the public ownership of land will help to encourage development just as we had with the Bluegrass Business Park earlier. We believe that will be a major solution to the affordability issue, to the availability issue of our jobs land but this okay what i have a problem is and i understand we're all coming at the last hours the last minute to do this but this has been going on for a long time why haven't we been doing these kind of things that you're talking about in the last five years well we did councilmember maloney one of the one of the recommendations of the 2013 comprehensive plan was to look specifically at the ED land use and what are the barriers to zone to development why has that land at that time set for nearly 20 years and we did we put together a committee we made recommend that included the property owners and we changed the zoning ordinance to allow more permissions in those two zones as a way of enticing the developers then the property owners to bring in other developments and that just happened earlier this year so we're that along with the changes that we recommended for the P2 zone in Coldstream, we expect those to then start yielding fruit at some point in the very near future. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Stinnett. Thank you, Vice Mayor. And I want to expand on Council Member Maloney, some of his comments. But before I do, you know, at the end of the day, this all has to be about balance. and you know I think it's a shame we make our farm community come in here every five years or year after year trying to value their impact on our economy I think we all know that we need to start showing that because I do think they're our signature and I think they have a lot of value to even growing jobs and you know every employer that recruits where do they take them where do they take them they take them to Kingland they take them out on the horse farm tours that's our signature no doubt but also going back to Council Maloney's point back in IBM when they came here, not just IBM grew our economy, but the housing industry has really what grown our economy in Lexington. Bankers, insurance agents, HVAC workers, those are the people we're talking about that will be less income, which means less net profits to us. But that's what built our city over the last 30, 40 years. Going back to the point of shovel-ready, Mr. Duncan, what you described to Councilman Massadi is not shovel-ready. You know how long it takes the council to react to a business when they come here and say, we want the zoning, we want the land to be shovel-ready. How long do you envision that process taking if you go by what you gave the council member Mursati? So if we call you up and we're with a company like the Bread Company, that's exactly what they said to us. We want zoning and we want shovel-ready. How long do you envision that flexibility? As you said, it's a challenge to change a comp plan during that five-year period. You said that earlier today. So how do you how do you envision that happening in the time frame? You think they're going to wait six months for the council to go through our procedure and the planning commission? Well, council members sent it to just to the first part. We need zoning and shovel ready. We we did that about five four to five years ago with a company off citation. It came in right before Thanksgiving and just about as quickly as Every step would allow we got that property zoned and the and the business building in there Now that land was already in the urban service area. That's the key. So I'm talking about land outside the boundary. Amazon wants to come here tomorrow. How long do you envision that flexibility to take it to get through this council and the planning commission? Mr. Stendit, or Councilmember Stendit, I must tell you that the staff would stop what it's doing to take the steps necessary to make that happen. and the regulatory process has some fail-safes in it and some stop gaps as well. So there would still be a several-month process even if the land was not encumbered by the Urban Service Foundry. But as I said to the challenge, I believe it could take several months. I believe this is something that other sides who disagreed with this would bring very compelling arguments as to why this shouldn't be done. And they would perhaps be satisfied as long as we had the full conversation and put in all the safeguards, but that would take some time. So it could take several months. This would not be a quick turnaround if somebody came up today and said, we need 1,000 acres at this location. Are you willing to do it? Even if we said yes, I believe it would take some time to do so. And I appreciate that answer, and that's exactly right. We don't, you know, in the comp plan, I know the vice mayor tried to point this out, but I'll make sure we all understand what I said earlier. In this plan, we do not have any land identified that is controlled by the government in partnership with either Commerce Lexington or anyone else. Zero. We may have it as a goal, we'd like to do it, but we haven't identified anything. So as we stand today, we have zero economic development land that we control and that we can have shovel ready within a couple months. So we don't. And you can say we do, but we don't. and you can call commerce lexon up again and we can go through the whole conversation again so that really troubles me when you say flexibility companies aren't going to wait six months to a year to come here they're just not and I think that's a real important missing piece to this whole plan it's not whether we should expand to do residential tomorrow this is about economic development and I really think we're missing the boat by not including that Tracy, I see you back there I got a question for you from a legal standpoint. Councilman Brown asked a little bit about this earlier, but on goal three, if that were to be amended and we wanted to find land for Commerce Lexington and identified, how would that be done by this body during this process? And would it need to be a specific piece or would it need to be a general concept? You're asking if you adopt this as it is and then you find land. No, I'm asking if we amend goal three, how do you amend it? I want everyone to be clear how this process takes. if we want to expand and include economic development land control by the government how do we do that well we would have to go back and and come up with some language just like we did last week in terms of um changing this goal to say something different and then when and then you all will have to adopt it just like you adopt the other goals and objectives well again are you saying in the language it needs to be specific to a property or an area or i don't i don't think you can make it specific to a property or an area at this point because you don't have the research or the information to define exactly where that would be so you would probably make it more broad than maybe the discussion here has led you to today um but in a in order to be able to define a specific area we would have to be able to back that up with some factual information and some research or some things that have come through all of the things that have taken place prior to it coming to you all and i'm not sure how much or if we have that enough of that to do it that way so how did they do it in 1996 when they identified ea1 ea2 a3 those are specific properties and areas i'm not sure i'm the best person to answer that can you get the research that i get it to the here in 1996. I understand neither was I. Can you research it and get it to all the council members? Yeah, we can do that. Yeah, if you can do that, I think that's helpful for people to understand what the real process is and what our goal and objectives really mean today. And then once it goes to the Planning Commission that, you know, instead of identifying specific, you know, what's the more general theme? If you can help give us some guidance on that, that'd be great before our next meeting. Okay, I think because I think there is a difference between expanding the boundary, the urban service boundary as a whole and talking about defining specific areas where you want expansion to go. Okay. If you can let us know, that'd be helpful. Thank you. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you. At this point, I've seen nobody else signed up to speak. I believe what that means is that the changes that we have made so far will be reflected in a new draft that will be available before 5 o'clock this afternoon when we have the council reconvene in a special committee of the whole to have a public hearing to get input from the public. If there is no further business at this point, I'll entertain a motion to adjourn. I'll move. Second. Motion and a second. Without objection, we stand adjourned. Thank you.