# Planning and Public Safety Committee - June 21, 2022 > Auto-transcribed civic record · June 21, 2022 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/5595 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/5595?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2022-06-21 - **Last revised**: June 21, 2022 - **Length**: 17,956 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed with OpenAI's open-source Whisper large-v3-turbo model, run locally by The Lexington Times. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude. Verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Planning and Public Safety Committee convened on June 21, 2022, at 1:00 PM with J. Brown presiding as the meeting officer. The committee addressed three agenda items during the session, including the approval of previous meeting minutes and two informational presentations on city planning initiatives. The committee conducted three motions and votes throughout the meeting, with members hearing four public comments from community members. The session focused primarily on sustainable development planning and program enhancements, with one formal approval action taken on the April 19, 2022 committee summary and two informational updates provided to committee members. ## Attendance The following members were present at the June 21, 2022 meeting: • J. Brown • P. Worley • W. Baxter • C. Ellinger • J. McCurn • S. Lamb • D. Kloiber • A. Bledsoe • K. Plomin **Absent:** J. Reynolds No members arrived late to the meeting. Nine of the ten members were in attendance. ## Votes and Decisions The meeting included three motions, all of which passed unanimously. **Residential Parking Permit Program - South Hill Amendment** A. Bledsoe made a motion to approve the amendment to the Residential Parking Permit Program for South Hill, which was seconded by J. McCurn. The motion passed unanimously. **Residential Parking Permit Program - Bullock Place Amendment** A. Bledsoe made a motion to approve the amendment to the Residential Parking Permit Program for Bullock Place, which was seconded by J. McCurn. This motion also passed unanimously. **Meeting Adjournment** A. Bledsoe made a motion to adjourn the meeting, seconded by W. Baxter. The motion to adjourn passed unanimously. All three votes were conducted as unanimous consent votes rather than formal roll call votes, with no individual vote tallies recorded for ayes, nays, or abstentions. ## Public Comment Four speakers addressed the council during the public comment period, with all comments focused on the Purchase of Development Rights (PDR) program. **Robert James** [timestamp: 03:00] spoke first, emphasizing the importance of the PDR program as a community investment. He highlighted the program's critical role in preserving productive soils for future agricultural use, framing it as an essential tool for long-term land stewardship. **Brittany Rothmeyer** [timestamp: 05:00] followed with concerns about how the PDR program was being presented to the council. She noted that key stakeholders were not present during the discussion and stressed the program's significant economic and cultural importance to the community. **Frank Penn** [timestamp: 07:00] provided historical context for the PDR program, discussing its origins and development over time. He emphasized the program's vital role in preserving agricultural land as a means of maintaining Lexington's unique character and identity. An **unnamed speaker** representing the Old Richmond Road Neighborhood Association [timestamp: 09:00] concluded the public comment period. This speaker emphasized the importance of land preservation for maintaining quality of life in the community. They also raised specific concerns about public access to PDR lands, suggesting this was an issue that needed further consideration. All four speakers demonstrated strong support for the PDR program while raising various concerns about its implementation, stakeholder involvement, and public access provisions. The comments reflected community interest in ensuring the program continues to serve its intended purposes of agricultural preservation and maintaining the area's rural character. ## Contested Items The meeting featured one significant contested item that resulted in procedural action due to community concerns. **PDR Program Presentation** The primary point of contention centered around a scheduled presentation of the PDR (Purchase of Development Rights) program. Community members expressed significant opposition to proceeding with the presentation, citing the absence of key stakeholders who should have been present for such an important discussion. The nature of the disagreement focused on the timing and appropriateness of presenting the PDR program without proper stakeholder representation. Community participants argued that moving forward with the presentation under these circumstances would be inappropriate and potentially counterproductive to meaningful engagement on the topic. In response to the community opposition, a motion was made to postpone the PDR program presentation to a future meeting when all relevant stakeholders could be present to participate in the discussion. This motion addressed the community's concerns about proceeding without proper representation and demonstrated responsiveness to public input regarding meeting procedures. The outcome was the postponement of the PDR program presentation, allowing time for proper stakeholder coordination before the topic would be revisited. This resolution showed the body's willingness to adjust its agenda based on legitimate community concerns about stakeholder participation and meaningful public engagement. ## Approval of April 19, 2022 Committee Summary The committee reviewed the summary of their April 19, 2022 meeting for approval. J. Brown served as the key speaker for this agenda item. The committee examined the written summary documenting the proceedings, discussions, and decisions from their previous meeting held on April 19, 2022. This routine administrative item allows committee members to verify the accuracy of the recorded meeting minutes before they become part of the official record. Following their review, the committee approved the April 19, 2022 meeting summary without noted objections or amendments. *Note: Specific transcript timestamps are not available for this agenda item.* ## Sustainable Growth Study Update [timestamp: 00:30] Craig Bencz presented an update on the Sustainable Growth Study during this agenda item. The presentation covered the study's goals, various scenarios under consideration, and included discussion of a proposed resolution for potential adoption. The update was informational in nature, providing the governing body with current progress on the sustainable growth initiative. Bencz outlined the framework and objectives of the study, which appears to be examining growth patterns and sustainability measures for the jurisdiction. As part of the presentation, multiple scenarios were discussed, though the specific details of these scenarios were not elaborated in the available materials. The presentation also included consideration of a resolution related to the study, suggesting the body may be moving toward formal action on sustainable growth policies in the future. No formal action was taken during this agenda item, as it served as an informational update to keep officials apprised of the study's development and findings to date. ## Review of Enhancements to PDR Program [timestamp: 02:00] The committee engaged in an informational discussion regarding potential enhancements to the Purchase of Development Rights (PDR) program. D. Kloiber served as the primary speaker for this agenda item. The discussion centered on exploring improvements to the existing PDR program structure, with particular focus on two key areas of enhancement. The committee examined opportunities to expand public access components within the PDR framework, potentially allowing greater community engagement with preserved properties. Additionally, the discussion addressed the integration of sustainable farming initiatives as part of the program's enhancement strategy. The conversation was characterized as an informational review, suggesting the committee was in the early stages of evaluating these potential program modifications rather than making immediate decisions. The discussion provided an opportunity for committee members to consider how these enhancements might strengthen the PDR program's effectiveness and community impact. No specific concerns or objections were noted during this discussion phase, and the item concluded as an informational session without requiring formal action or votes from the committee members. The review appears to be part of an ongoing evaluation process to identify ways to improve and expand the PDR program's capabilities and community benefits. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Motion to approve the amendment to the Residential Parking Permit Program for South Hill - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Motion to approve the amendment to the Residential Parking Permit Program for Bullock Place - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Motion to adjourn the meeting --- ## Full transcript Music Thank you. I'm going to go to the next video. do Thank you. I'm going to go to the next video. so Thank you. Thank you. I'm James Brown and today I'll call this meeting to order of the Council's Planning and Public Safety Committee at 1 0 2 p.m. The first item on our agenda is the approval of the April 19 committee summary. That information has been distributed and you have it in your packet and I would entertain a motion to approve. Second. All right, a motion has been made to approve by Council Member Ellinger and seconded by Council Member Baxter. Are there any questions or corrections to those meeting summaries? Seeing none, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Are there any that opposed? Hearing none, that motion passes. The next item on our agenda is the sustainable growth study. This presentation is continued from our April 19th meeting. And due to time constraints, we were unable to complete our discussion, which includes consideration of a resolution to adopt the study and reaffirm next steps. With that, I will turn it over to the consultant, Mr. Butler, who is here with us today. Mr. Butler, before I turn it over to you, is there anybody here that is from the public that a comment, a public comment on this item on the agenda? Okay, Brittany, if you don't mind. So much. I'm sorry, I'm not paying for a check on that. Yeah, just because this was a continuance, so if it's, yeah. If you'd rather take your comments at the end, Brittany, we could do that. Okay, yeah, thank you. Chairman Brown, members of the Planning Public Safety Committee, great to be here with you all today and looking forward to the continuation of the discussion around the Sustainable Growth Study. As you all know, since the institution of the USB in 58, our conversation around growth and development has certainly been innovative and very complicated. We've been forward-looking and thoughtful in so many ways, preventing urban sprawl and balancing the needs of our productive farmland with the development needs of a growing city. Difficult questions around these issues will always exist, as we know, but I think that we're moving forward in the right direction to ensure that we have a data-driven approach to answering them. The work presented by the Sustainable Growth Task Force offers us an exciting opportunity to do just that. The existing conditions report and evaluation framework that resulted are important tools to inform but not replace the comp plan process that takes place every five years. Adopting these tools would be the first step to making more informed land use decisions and letting our community focus on how we can use our land to meet our community goals instead of just how much land we have. The bigger discussion about growth and the many factors involved should always take place within the comp plan because it must involve the community. What informs this discussion is where the task force work provides us with this opportunity. The existing conditions report and evaluation framework are database tools we've just never had before to guide this conversation. They provide facts about how much land we have, what we can build on it if we use it in certain ways, and whether that use helps us achieve the goals and objectives set out in the plan. This information will more accurately inform the bigger picture that requires community involvement, including more in-depth conversations about affordability, equity, quality of life, and more. These data-driven tools will inform how we can work together through policy to maximize development, promote economic growth, encourage quality of life and infrastructure investments, and work towards equity while preventing displacement on existing land, as well as how to frame the next step of this process, analyzing the land outside the USB to have even more in-depth conversations about growth and development and we know that those conversations will be beginning this week. The sustainable growth study gives us a repeatable and flexible way to measure where we are in meeting our goals or alert us when we might need to change course and update our policies as we do so. It gives us the opportunity to objectively understand how much land we have so that it is removed as much as policy as possible from the device from the divisive community debate by adoption by adopting this study will have a more data-driven and transparent process to guide community conversations about growth if we want to thoughtfully talk about when expansion should be considered in every factor which goes into that consideration like the cost suitability infrastructure our prime soils etc we must first know exactly what our existing resources are and how we can best utilize them. This study lays the foundation of data that our community needs for our next conversations. Adoption of this study gives us a baseline to work from to make more responsible, sustainable, and equitable decisions about growth in Fayette County moving forward. We commend the Sustainable Growth Task Force members, the consultant Stantec, and the staff for the hard work that went into these efforts and for the opportunity that work provides us to make smart growth decisions into the future thank you thank you is there anybody else that has comments on on on this before we turn it over andy miss johnson hello i'm andy johnson i'm the chief policy officer for commerce lexington so we're commenting before the presentation so you'll see in the presentation that there are a reflection of some of the feedback that commerce lexington was able to provide to Craig and Mark and Kevin through this process. So we really do appreciate the opportunity to have that dialogue in the conversation. And although the updates we believe are a step in the right direction, it really is the tip of the iceberg when we're talking about the data and the framework. I think our overarching concern, and we've communicated that to you all, is just the accuracy and the reliability of the data going forward and the framework that we're using. I think we all agree that we need to have a solid foundation but there are still some structural cracks in the data that we're looking at and the process that we've got to this point. We are urging the council just to provide more clarity in the resolution about the process and really to begin a comprehensive update to the vacant land data sooner rather than later. We'd like to see that happen immediately. Because the data is over two years old at this point, as we all know, there's been a lot of development that's occurred in the community from the time that this snapshot was taken. In the resolution, we would hope that the resolution would explicitly indicate who, how, and when the questions and thresholds are updated by the council. There should be language that explicitly provides for automatic updates to the process and data by the council to ensure we are including actual numbers of approved development plans that are under construction in a timely manner we also urge that an rfp go out immediately to do a thorough data update and you know what we've been talking to to council members and to the planning staff about is that we would hope that the rfp would include more expansive criteria such as identifying properties that are owned by the state or the city fayette county public schools uk other government entities and educational institutions just so we really have a good understanding of the landscape we'd also like to see it identify all the church-owned properties to determine if the vacant land associated with those properties is being used for accessory purposes like parking lots we would ask that it look at removing all the vacant land in the flood plains or any other restricted easements and environmentally sensitive areas from the count we did this back in 2016 but but just want to make sure that that reflects where we are today. And I think just making sure that, again, we're providing a process to timely update the vacant land based on those approved development plans that are in the process. I mean, that's happening very consistently. And if we're doing an overall update, there may need to be a process quarterly to bring that information to play and that council is updated on it. In addition, and this is a more challenging aspect, but just creating a criteria to assess whether or not a vacant property is being used for an accessory purpose associated with the business. When we were looking through the data, I mean, you can see that businesses own several different properties, and while there may not be a building on that, they could be using it for a purpose and may not have plans to develop that in the future. So just really taking into account, you know, what's going on in the marketplace, I think would be helpful for future decision making. So to conclude, we're all here today because we want Lexington to have a brighter future, but we really need to do that with a stronger foundation with data and our process. Thank you. Thank you. All right, if there's no other public comment than Mr. Butler, I'll turn it over to you for the updated presentation. Thank you. My name is Mark Butler. I am a consultant with Stantec Consulting Services, and I was the project manager for the sustainable growth study. And I'm just going to be giving a very brief summary from two months ago and talk about some of the revisions we did to the database in reflection of Commerce Lex's questions. So again, urban surface boundary is the oldest in the country, last expanded in 1996. when we did this study ourselves has come out of the last comprehensive plan, Imagine Lexington, Theme E, and really what we are fulfilling is the goal for to create a new process for doing the long-term land use decisions for the Urban Service Boundary, but also long-term land use planning in general. The goals of this study is to create, again, a data-driven process to provide the foundation for what the policymakers in the planning commission, the planning department, and the council see when they are discussing questions regarding future land use planning, including the urban service boundary. The study does not make any recommendations for preservation or future expansion of the current urban service boundary, and it doesn't make any assumptions about the future alignment in this study. However, the process, the framework, the data, is intended to be used for that purpose going forward. So last year, we produced an existing conditions report. This is one of the main aspects of that was the vacant land analysis. This map is one of many maps inside that document that shows generally where the vacant land is. this in particular map shows it by its zoning classifications. Again, lots of analysis was in that existing conditions report. It is also based on two-year-old data, which again goes back to one of the fundamental aspects of this study. This framework is the consistent updating of the data to make sure that it is relevant and current for future discussions. With that in mind, again, this data has been reviewed by several groups, including Commerce Lexington. They had some concerns. They asked at that April meeting for us to go back and do some review of our data, and we have done that for the purposes of answering their specific questions. This does not replace the comprehensive review that we expect needs to be done on a regular basis. This was to address the explicit, specific concerns of Commerce Lexington. First, the University of Transylvania soccer field was listed as a vacant industrial parcel. That was mainly due to the fact that the PVA, if it's a tax-exempt parcel, they don't necessarily update their data to say what is vacant. So that was an oversight. We took it out. The effect of that would be to reduce the potential industrial space capacity that we assessed between 25,000 and 50,000 square feet, depending on the scenario, as you recall. we looked at three hypothetical scenarios, a baseline current zoning scenario, and then future higher density scenarios. So scenario one, it would have removed 25,000 potential square feet of light industrial space. By scenario three, it would be about 50,000. They had asked us to look at floodways. We do have a greenways layer provided by the city. That layer includes floodplain and other land that may have some environmental or other sensitive issues that make it less potential for development. We looked at it again, and we took out, in this case, 67 parcels for a total of 128 acres. 47 of those parcels are small, single-family plotted lots that were completely within that greenway's layer. So right there you can see 47 dwelling units of potential would be taken off the board. The other 20 are the larger parcels. And again, this is somewhat of a judgment call. There are potential mitigation measures that one could use to make these parcels more capable for development, but we went with a more conservative estimate and took out these 20 parcels. and so in our analysis of a potential capacity that removes up to 600 in scenario one and a thousand in scenario three of potential dwelling units. Finally we looked at church owned parcels that were later that are vacant and explicitly to see if they had accessory uses. Now this did not include parcels that might be owned elsewhere separate that are just large owned by a church but we did find 44 parcels that were contiguous adjacent to a church small but mostly they're small I mean they are like likely a quarter acre or less relative to a parking lot that might be associated owned as a separate parcel but associated with the church they could also just be a side yard so we took those out and because it was only a total of six acres that would remove a potential of 25 to 50 dwelling units. So what does this mean for our basic analysis of capacity? Before I get to that, I should say this is all fine. We are happy to update this data whenever someone points out something that is wrong with it. We're not trying to hide or move anything beyond. It's not a static document. It is intended to be updated as soon as new data is available and consistently on a regular basis. So how does this affect our total capacity and where would meet the capacity for the future demand of Lexington going forward to 2040? So I've taken out in each of those scenarios on the left hand side of the column, the residential units that were removed. And as you can see, the actual determinations have not changed. Scenario 1 still does not meet the basic capacity needs for the more conservative, slower growth expectations for residential demand by 2040. Scenarios 2 and 3, which progressively increase density and urban redevelopment, still meet both the conservative and the 75% of full demand by 2040. That means as of today, inside the urban service boundary, in scenarios two and three, there is 75% of, we can meet 75% of the highest level of demand we could expect by 2040. Office space, we took about 25,000 units of office space out, 25,000 square feet, I should say, office space out as you can see even in the most current zoning scenario we have we're very good position with office space and so that did not have a material effect and then the same thing with retail space we took about another 50 000 square feet out of each scenario and we still easily meet the demand requirements for that category and then for industrial space, again, we do meet, because this was the demand, as we were doing these demand forecasts, these trend lines, industrial space growth was very slow in the last 10 years, and was much more rapid in the 10 years preceding. So we have a wide bandwidth of potential demand. All scenarios can meet the lower conservative number for potential demand on that trend line, but only scenario three, which is a very aggressive density for industrial space, could meet the 75% threshold for the full level demand. So again, that did not change from last time. And so where do we go? Oh, sorry. Where do we go from here? The Planning Commission has adopted this resolution for recommending the council adopt this framework and the data in this study. we are this is what we are here today to consider is the adoption of this framework and data and again the plan is to continually update this data we are hopefully going to have the economic development office is considering how to move forward with the next update currently and then we will use this data for the whatever purposes that the planning commission and the council needs us to use most likely and most obviously the update of the comprehensive plan and the consideration of potential expansion areas outside the urban service boundary. So with that, I am ready to take any questions you have. Thank you, Mr. Butler, for the presentation. Council members, are there any questions for Mr. Butler? Council member Maloney. Thank you, I appreciate your information. Going back to the 75% for the next 20 years, you're saying inside the urban service we can reach 75% that go if we grow, if we need more, but with the population we predict. Is that what you're saying? More residential, yes. Okay, and today I went to a ground, a statement over there on Polar Club. And two hospitals are being built that is going to change the structure. Every town that I've ever gone into in all of the United States, those hospitals bring a huge impact of growth around them. And as I look at your 75%, I see areas that are going to be very far from that hospital where you're going to try to develop a lot of, there are some still in that area to go to growth, to drive. Our intent is to let people live where they work. And when I look at the 75%, I'm afraid that we're not with these two that I think are going to be the biggest machine that we've seen in a long time. That I think it does change the structure a little bit of this study. And I don't think we're quite finished with this study because that is the future of Eastern Kentucky and the future of Lexington. And people are going to have to try to live where they work. And I don't see very many houses in that area, even though there are some now. There may be some, but to me the future and the interstate is a tool we're going to have to use because it's going to be a bottleneck down there. I'm wondering if we're going a little bit too fast to pass, because I don't think we're quite done with this new, I think our city changed when UK announced over the weekend that they're going to go there. And if you go down Nicholsville Road, and you see UK, Central Baptist, you see what impact that has done down Nicholsville Road. We've already developed the Hamburg up to there. If the question is what we're going to do going forward. And you got an interstate and all that. So I'm just not ready. I don't know, I think you've done a tremendous job for what you had, but I think the earth's changed a lot at last this weekend. So I don't think I'm quite, I hope my colleagues maybe they'll feel more comfortable doing this, of what they've been here. But I think the world, this city is going a different direction. And UK and Central Baptist is trying to guide us to that direction. So do you have those in there? You understand where I'm coming from? I absolutely do, and I appreciate you bringing that up. That is a perfect example of why the data needs to be consistently updated. We are not trying to make predictions of how land develops. We're trying to use the data that's available to us. When we started this analysis, that land where the U.K. hospital is going had a development plan that had different uses. It had, I think, assisted care. it had a multifamily, it may even have single family, it had retail. That's what we put in for that land because we had a development plan for it. That changed last weekend. The next update will change it to reflect that. That will simultaneously reduce the capacity that was implied by the development that was going to go there and also change the vacant land analysis as well. We will now have additional land or additional capacity for office space that wasn't considered because the fundamental land use has changed. So that's why this framework is predicated on the notion that we update it consistently so that new development is included and constantly when you guys go to make these deliberations about future land use, you have the most up-to-date data. High Street Projects Downtown is another example. That was not expected to be developed in our study, and the next update, the new information will be put into it. Thank you. Thank you, Council Member Maloney. Council Member Kloiber. Thank you, Chair. Just a quick question. In this study, is all of the vacant land considered fungible or interchangeable? As in, if it is vacant land, one acre here, one acre there, it's all just vacant land within this framework. It's not distinguished? No. So each parcel has obviously zoning that is allowed on it. and there is a note about its development potential. So in most cases, if it's a standard large tract, then whatever the governing development rights for that land, that's what's used. But in some cases, if there was extenuating circumstance that was obvious, like it had an odd lot or some other impediment, then that would be noted for its potential of development. So I just bring that up to say that there are some inherent projections of development that you are using in presenting this data with some assumptions about what is important. Well, in scenario one, we tried to hew as close to what just the zoning would allow. In Scenarios 2 and 3, we did presume an increased zoning for vacant residential R3 tracks. In some other, commercial tracks could be rezoned for mixed use. And in Scenario 3, we made some presumptions about infill development without trying to pick where that would occur, but that there would be a greater amount of infill redevelopment in Scenario 3. So it would be fair to say that in this framework, the only requirement that is being looked at for whether or not the boundary might be expanded in the future, if this is the framework that we adopt, is just available land? No, there's a whole set of metrics and on the capacity, I'm sorry, the compatibility side that we look at the goals from the comp plan and apply metrics that we gathered to determine whether a particular scenario, in our case hypothetical scenarios, but in any given evaluation they can, you can suggest a scenario, they would all be scored according to those metrics. I guess the point being the affordability of housing is not taken into consideration. No, it is, that's a metric. So if housing was less affordable, where is that reflected in this framework? If we said, okay, housing is less affordable, we've had this land available for 20 some odd years. How is that reflected in the framework aside from laying out three possibilities without actually using data to push towards one or the other? Well, so the framework would suggest, again, we want to use data we can easily get. So we do not try to set what percentage of households require affordable housing or what the actual price of affordable housing would have to be in 2040, but we use data that the scenarios can easily, we can easily calculate from the data. And so our criteria for affordable housing was a higher number of potential units and a higher mix of development types. So scenarios that have more units and scenarios that have more multifamily housing, more dense housing, those would, on that affordable housing metric, do better than scenarios that had less total units and less types of housing. And I understand that. I guess the thing that I keep struggling with is, we have these scenarios and it's being called a framework and trying to lay out something for us. But it doesn't actually push us towards any kind of a solution or goal. It just says, basically, if I'm distilling it down, you can build more density on land if you want to. And you can make things more dense and that will hold more capacity. which I don't necessarily think we needed a study in order to tell us, but it's very clearly delineated that that's what this says for these options. But there's no data-driven answers to the question of when should we choose these individual scenarios versus just you could build more density if you can build it and more people can live there. I believe the point of having a regular update and a regular evaluation of where you are would show we are running out of land. even under the highest capacity scenario, the land is dwindling and we need to make explicit changes. Also, if there was a promotion for an expansion zone, we could use the framework to measure that and how that changes the total capacity and how that reflects the comparison to total demand. All right. I guess I just, my last comment, I take issue with the false equivalency that the amount of land available is the metric we should be using to define whether or not we need to expand the boundary. But thank you for your time. Thank you, Council Member. Next is Council Member Fred Brown. Thank you, Chair, for recognizing me. I'm not on this committee, but I appreciate that I could weigh in on this. is there in your criteria of this plan, the infill, is there a breakout on how many acres we're talking about and designated, it could be designated as infill? Well, we do not include explicit, like, if it's developed land now, we do not, we don't measure that in a defined or concrete total number. However, we did look for our existing conditions report and what we used to build our Scenario 3 were different development proposals that were already proposed within current Lexington, including Imagine Nicholasville and some of the Grow Smart ideas in the Fade Alliance's plot packet. and said what if a portion of that had been, was developed, what would that be? So we were trying to suggest in a more urban, dense infill scenario, what would be a reasonable number for that expected development. And we did not pick all of it. We picked, you know, about 20 to 30. Well, the reason I ask that question is we are starting to get some pushback on infills under zoning and planning. So, you know, I know that it's hard to adjust numbers based on what could happen, but that's kind of the trend right now that we're finding as a council. The farms that we have, we have some large farms that are in the urban service boundary. Example of Overbrook. How did you handle those as to whether they were going to be developed or not developed in your criteria? As a directive of the scope of our study, any agricultural land within the urban service boundary was assumed to potentially be developed. Right. So agricultural AU, AR land was expected to be developed at the lowest residential use, like an R3 category. And then in the scenarios two and three, they were developed at a higher density. I'm not sure if there's some other farms probably other than Overbrook, but, you know, we don't know if part of that's ever going to be developed. It's up to the owners there. So, you know, how do we get that information back from people that own large tracks that are in the urban service area? Because that certainly would dictate how many housing or how much land you need for development. In the land ready for development, did you have any criteria for that? And when I say that, I say we've got land out along the interstate that is outside the urban surface boundary, but it has all the utilities and sanitary sewer and it's ready to go. Did you look at that? Was that a factor in any? We put in, we included in our existing condition survey the extent of sewer service and road service. However, we did not evaluate, as per our scope, we did not evaluate any land use scenarios outside the urban service boundary. Thank you, Chair, for recognizing me. Thank you, Council Member. Next up is Council Member Bledsoe. Thank you, Chair. It feels very loud. I'll back up. Thank you, Mr. Bellar, for taking into consideration of all the things that they brought up last time and that we brought up. Because data integrity is so important. And it helps have buy-in and feel like we know what we're doing. We trust the process. We trust the data. So I appreciate that. And I think to Councilman Maloney's point, we're going to have to continue to do that on a more regular basis so that the integrity of the data stays where it is. I want to take a kind of a high level just for a moment and remind everyone, I think the reason for the framework is that we were trying to put some policy and not emotion behind decision making at basis and as such people have different positions and and thoughts about you know how do we make the policy was it doing we're trying to be thoughtful about it so we're not just taking an emotional stance or haphazard stance or a and there's more of this council or less of this council here make decisions or trying to be thoughtful about it that's what a framework does it's not perfect it won't be perfect but it is certainly attempt by that by the committee that Vice Mayor Kate I served on, as the members shared in the audience did as well, to try to do that thoughtfully. And I appreciate the work that we did. For me, it comes down to a couple of different thoughts. Who decides the weights? When do we decide the weights? And then how often is that reviewed? And so I'm just going to give my personal opinion for us to consider. So I'm not making motions. I'm just kind of tossing it out for council members to think about. which is it feels to me that that weighting of these triggers is decided by this body, by council members. And I say that because we're accountable to them. We make the final decisions on zone changes. We make the final decisions on how we develop through everything. And so as such, I think it would be more wise if we made that decision versus the planning commissioner or other groups because it comes to us eventually anyway. And so for consistency and maybe advance, it would make sense to me that we decide, not we, the council decides the waiting. Secondly, I think, and while I completely concur that with the comp plan it does make sense, I think that's too long. And I say that because we're making these zone changes regularly. So, for instance, Councilman Brown's point, in the moment when we have a zone change and we're looking at density, we make a decision at night. It's usually about this property at this time. it's not about the whole comp plan. We consider it, but the whole city is not in this room. That development is. We have one tonight, right? And a lot of it is how dense and how much and who's acceptable to that. It is a dynamic that we have to address. So as such, if we wait too long, you almost need the continual reminder of the decisions that we're making, how they impact the weights, how they impact the numbers. And so I think every two years, maybe instead of every five would help keep us abreast of the decisions that we're making in zone changes and as it relates to density is impacting other things holistically. And sometimes you need a separate environment to do that. Meaning you come back to planning and we sit here every two years and they say, hey, just as a reminder, the decisions that you've made this last two years is showing this consequence in our city. Not just on one particular item, but holistically. And that, I think, would help us keep reminding of how decisions have long-term consequences for our long-term growth. Two cents on both of those things. And then when, I guess I said all three things. That's my feeling on it, but I'm open to conversation, discussion, or thoughts about all that. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Council Member. Vice Mayor Kay. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Mark, for once again coming before us and presenting. And I appreciate being recognized. I'm not a member of the committee. I want to basically follow up on Council Member Bloodsoe's comments. Yeah, let me speak to them directly, and then I've got a few other comments. So one possibility is that what this body decides to do today and what it forwards to council could have some caveats. And I know that the question of the weighting and then the percentages and how they're allocated have come into question. and it seems to me appropriate to say those need to be looked at first by council as one of the initial steps to determining how we use that data and let's have that that robust conversation. Secondly, it seems to me what we have so far been working toward is annual review of the data and updating. Not waiting, certainly not waiting five years and not necessarily waiting two years. And my understanding is that there's money in the budget for that to be done internally. And so a part of what I see today's issue being is, do we forward to council recommendation that the basic framework that's been offered, and the basic data set that's been offered is comprehensive, not perfect, but it's a starting place. It's one of the things that we can all kind of look at and get our head around and begin to work on modifying. It is not a static data set. And for better or worse, it's only a data set. It's information to be used and evaluated and judgments made about what the data means, what it tells us about what's happening, what we thought was going to happen, whether it happened or not, and what kind of adjustments we need to make. So then, stepping back or drawing back to a slightly broader frame. It's very hard, I think, to understand what the interplay is between the data and the scenarios. But I think the most important thing to remember is that what the scenarios are is a 20 year projection. And as we all know, within 20 years, a lot can happen. So we're not saying that today we're making a decision about that particular land use. We're saying here's the data, here's what it tells us, and here's the policies that we presently have in place that will either meet or not our projections. And then we need to track the data. And does the data change our determination about whether we're now meeting our needs or not? The flip side of that is that this council will have to continue to make decisions about policy. Infill and redevelopment, incentives, and so on and so on. And so, if in the judgment of the council, what we thought was going to happen is not, and the demand is exceeding our expectations, can we modify our policies to scenario two or scenario three which would use the land that's inside the boundary more intensively? Or do we feel that that's not appropriate? And that what we need to do at that point is open up the discussion. Is this the time then to consider an expansion or not? To consider using more rural land for development or not? And then there's a series of steps. And a part of what some of the questions I think that are being asked, hopefully they will not be answered definitively. But the goal for work group, which has its first meeting tomorrow, will be working on a set of recommendations that address that set of questions. How is the process actually going to work? What do we know about the land outside the boundaries and how do those two intersect? My time is up, I might come back. Thank you. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Are there any other questions or comments? Well, I have some questions and comments. Thank you for the presentation. I know Craig Bentz has been working on this, so Mark, we appreciate you stepping in. The last minute has been a healthy conversation. And I appreciate a lot of the points that have been made by my fellow council members today. and a lot of the questions i think even though even though that we know there's opportunity to improve on the data the real hangover concern is in the the framework i think and i think it's behind the weights and i think it's behind the scenarios i think this goal for work group has an opportunity to help enhance and add to the work of the framework one of the things that i don't think we talk about enough that's going to I think is going to weigh heavily into decisions that are made are the decisions or the lands that get identified for long-term preservation. In addition to what's already out there, I think we know that rural land management has a map and some potential properties that can come into the PDR program. And then we know there are some areas out there in the rural land that just doesn't make sense for development. So I think that's a component that comes into play. And then also the example that Councilmember Maloney gave with the medical centers and all that new development. It's going to change the dynamic of our community and the needs. And that's going to happen on a development case by case basis. So we need to make sure that we put a framework in place that is fluid and has the ability to adjust and address this community's needs as we go forward. So we're going to have to make a decision today and I think we need to. I think we need to move something forward and I think it's to recognize the work and the decisions made by the sustainable growth task force. I think we need to do it for that. But then it also helps set a baseline for the new Go 4 work group to help make long term and lasting policy decisions on what that process looks like going forward. The other thing I was going to weigh in and say is I think Councilmember Bledsoe is also right about the triggers. A yearly update is probably what we need to do, but that's going to be hard and complicated. So two years I think could potentially be appropriate. I think the council along with the planning commission in some tandem when it comes to us first and goes to them or goes to them and then comes to us. I think that's probably the best way in my mind to do it, just because we are accountable. We don't hear as much about development as they do, but we hear all the controversial ones, which is what we have to make decisions on. So I think we need to consider that. But I guess my real question is where does that mechanism get put into place? Does it get put into place in the framework and how, whatever that process looks like? or is that something that we need to incorporate into this resolution going forward? And I think that might be a question for the planning department or law in regards to that. And I'm going to repeat the question, and I guess it speaks to the triggers or the weights, the weighting the priorities. where would we look to put that information or put that into policy? I might catch you off guard. You might not have an answer, but I think that's an important decision. The question is, how can you start up? Nice try. I can't answer the question about what the resolution changes would be. So, yeah, so that is my question. on when we need to make a decision about that if we do or how do we push that forward and then you can share your thoughts on that as well director cast member brown i appreciate the question and chris and tracy and i quickly talked about the answer i'm not sure i've got the best answer for you on that uh if and i may have i may be oversimplifying the question but if the if If the question is related to who does this update, who does the data update and when and all of that sort of thing, as you all have been talking about, and you want that to be a council decision every two years kind of thing, where does that go? So let me clarify. I'm sorry. So I think the data update, and we put money in the budget to work on that, I think that's just going to be a function, a continual function of planning in some form. It's the other components that go into the framework. The scenarios, say the scenarios need to be tweaked. Say the weight of the priorities needs to be adjusted because our community needs have been adjusted. I guess where does that language need to go? Does it need to go into resolution that we're considering, or is it a part of the process that may come out of the go for work group? Well, it certainly is something that we have talked about all along is how do we adjust those weights and because those are reflecting current priorities in the community so that the priorities would change. And then certainly whether it's, what the three scenarios look like, that can change as well too. And we had talked about the planning commission's role in that, whether that would be, whether that we just picked that up based on what was provided in the study and codify that someplace else, whether it's in the goal four group or in the comprehensive plan, but perhaps including it in the resolution would provide clear guidance on that as well too. I'm not giving you a straightforward answer, Councilman Brown, and I prefer to do that, but I'm afraid I'm not very prepared to do that at this moment. And I appreciate that, and I hate to catch y'all guard, so it just verifies that it's more complicated than just drawing a straight line to it. Yes. So thank you, Director. And that was pretty much my comments, questions. Council Member Lamb. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. And I appreciate the dialogue that we've had today, and I appreciate the presentation. And, you know, again, I think that I think back, I always have to go to my historical perspective of back in 96, I would have loved to have been paying closer attention to what the conversations were before we expanded 5,400 acres. And to know that we have come, the distance that we've come from 96 to today, and what we have learned and through all the conversations that we have had and continue to have about how and where and when to make these very important decisions for our community as a whole. I think we're closer to that than we've ever been. I think this framework is good. I think the committee that's going to start meeting tomorrow, I personally think that Council Member James around the policies and things that you're talking about, I think those should be dealt with and reviewed in this subcommittee that is starting to meet tomorrow. I think that I see this framework as numbers and information for planning to use, like it says in here, to develop when developing the recommendations for the 2023 comp plan goals and objectives. I think that it's important to have the study data. And as far as using the waiting one year, two years, or waiting five years, I think it would be unique to understand what does it really look like if you did look at it one year versus two years. And perhaps we don't know the answer to that today. Because perhaps you could study it and update the data in one year and there would be very little movement. whereas you wait two and a half years or three years and you're i mean so i think that this it's it's a moving it's a moving process uh and i think what i appreciate is is that we continue to come to the tables and have conversations about it it's not just sitting underneath the table we're we're still talking about it and we're i think we're getting closer and closer to better understanding it and I look forward to see how this 2023 comp plan is actually going to unfold it's going to be very interesting to see how it unfolds and I would appreciate being able to move this recommendation this resolution forward today I do agree that I think this is the first part of what we do, you know, the subcommittee that starts meeting tomorrow, I think it's going to be very important to look at the work that that happens, and then that's going to have to be folded into the process as well. So all that being said, I know it's a lot of words, but I just think patience is something that we always ask our constituents to have a lot of, And I think that we as council members have to be patient as well as we go through and measure this information and try to make sure that we make the best decisions possible because I think the unintended consequences are what gets us in trouble. So I appreciate the opportunity to weigh in on this. Thank you. Thank you, Council Member Lamb. Council Member Reynolds. Thank you, Chair, and thank you so much for the presentation and this data. I think it's important for all of us to be able to absorb it and analyze it. And I appreciate all of my colleagues' comments around this. And I just wanted to make a brief comment about this subject. Is that for me, it's not just about what land is available and what can be developed. I think what I've seen and I've run into over the past few years on council is if our residents don't buy into whatever our comp plan is or whatever we're doing as a city, then it won't work. So we can have X amount of land available to develop, but if our residents really don't want to develop that land, then it's really hard for us as legislators to do the infill and the redevelopment because they're constantly saying, not in my backyard, not here, I don't want this here, I don't want that there. And so, and oftentimes there's conflicting opinions. Someone might say they want to keep the boundary, but then they don't want to infill anywhere in the city. And so I just want us all to realize as we look at this data and as we move forward that it's more complex than just what land is available and what land is not available. It's about if our residents understanding what the plan that we have is as a city and moving that forward. And it won't work. We can't infill if every turn, or I feel like I can't, if my residents that are my constituents that voted for me don't want it. So I think we need to look at that as we think of affordable housing, as we think about moving forward. Just that practicality of whatever comp plan we put together being implemented. And so we might have enough land if we do really dense infill right now to meet our needs. But if it's being stopped at every turn by people not wanting it, then it's not practical. So I just wanted to mention that. Thank you. Thank you, Council Member Reynolds. Council Member Kloiber. Thank you, Chair. I just wanted to voice my concern, which I did through asking some questions, but as I hear people talking about adopting this as a framework and going forward with the resolution, I worry about using this data set as the foundation for a framework on a fundamental level. Because the data we have, to put it succinctly, it's mostly the wrong data. We're tying this entire process to land. but not the effects and outcomes that are being had on our residents. There's lots of data that we could be collecting, like the cost of living, earning potentials, rate of development. These are easy to collect, meaningful pieces of information that actually talk to the effects that our development have on the people living here. So I get that this data is great as a reference, but I have a lot of concerns about creating an entire narrative and framework that uses it as the basis for that discussion. And I understand that the group that's being put together is going to be talking about a lot of these triggers and a lot of the other aspects and trying to build on this. But I want to make sure that we're looking in the right place because today if we come forward and say we're using this data as a framework. We're setting the stage and putting out a table that says land, available land is the factor on which we base everything else and not just a reference for the effects that happen to our residents. So those are my concerns with pushing it forward as the fundamental basis for a framework. I know it gets a little bit in the weeds, but I just want to make sure we're looking at the right data and not just the data that we have. Thank you, Councilmember. Councilmember Sheehan. Thank you, Chair, for recognizing me because I'm not on this committee. My question is about the data as well. So while we are talking over the aspects of the framework on Council and the waiting and that part of the conversation, I feel like there is a separate conversation that needs to be had about the actual data that we're putting into that framework. And right now we're already saying that that data is somewhat dated because it was collected a few years ago. I believe Craig is ready to issue an RFP to update that data. So is it possible for us to have that conversation about going ahead and getting that update started so we have that new data sooner rather than continuing to delay that piece? Is it possible to have that conversation separate from the decision of the framework? Vice Mayor Kay, you want to offer an answer? Yeah. Is that your question, Councilman? Yeah. Vice Mayor. Thank you, Chair, once again. It seems to me that actually adopting the data set at this point and maybe separating that out from the framework essentially meets your concern. It would allow the city which has got in its budget money to do an update to begin doing that. It can't do it until it has something to start with. And so, yes, this is already old data, and there are undoubtedly other concerns that people have about particular aspects of it. But I guess my sense is, at a minimum, what it would be useful to do is move forward a resolution that includes the data set as a base. and to respond also to Council Member Cloyber's concern, I just want to remind everybody it's only a data set. It's not determinative. It's not the only thing we want to look at. And again, and Council Member Reynolds' concern. I guess I have enough faith in both the Planning Commission and this body to believe that when and if serious discussions take place about whether to add, develop a land or not, and discussions about where and when to do it, that it will include many additional factors. But it starts with some basic information. It starts with that data. So I'd like to see that go forward. And maybe just one other comment. And I know that there are people in this room who are tired of hearing me say this. But I think this is the appropriate time to say it. Land is a finite resource. The boundary for Fayette County is not going anywhere. We're not going to annex any adjacent county. That line is absolute. Sooner or later, regardless of demand, there will be no more rural land for development. It will either be protected or it will have been put into use. And the demand will not change. So the way that I look at it, the only question really is what do we want Fayette County to look like? in terms of the balance between rural and urban when we are at that point. And I'm hoping that the, maybe I'm overly optimistic as usual, but I'm hoping that the Goal Full Work Group will provide some guidance and direction about that. Some recommendations both to the Planning Commission and Council about how to resolve that really underlying fundamental issue. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Council Member Maloney. Thank you. Back to the data. I mean, it was a couple years ago you all did the data. Usually when you use new data this soon, is it going to be different data? Is it going to be an update of what you all just did two years ago? I mean, is there enough reason to make big changes to go back and do the same thing you did two years ago, data? Or is it just new additional data that we never had done before? Well, my expectation is that it would be to update the records of land that has changed from being vacant or being redeveloped. And that does happen significantly enough within a year to want to make sure that we do that on a consistent basis. Because, I mean, they did it a couple years ago. I just don't want to see duplicate the same thing and spend money on the same data that we did. I'd like to see something new, different. That's just my concern. And so I hope that's where we're going. And I do have a comment that I was here in 96 when they spanned the boundaries and there was a Bible written and one of the gentlemen out there sitting out there wrote the Bible. We're looking for 20, 25 years. If we ever go anywhere, this is the direction we go. And I think Central Baptist and the University of Kentucky is following that guideline. And to me, we need to start looking at that because mistakes we made over the years, like when we built the largest subdivision in Kentucky, we didn't build the right road for it. We had to come back years later to build the right road. We know that with UK out there and Central Baptist and we saw what impact it has done on Nickelsfield Road. That is the future of Luskington, in my opinion, what direction we're going. not only just for the regional, but for Eastern Kentucky, where people are willing to drive and not have to spend another 25, 30 minutes to get to where they need to go. So I think we need to follow that Bible that's written, the rural land management, where they show the future. And to me, 25 years is up, and it's starting to hit right now. And being in affordable housing, my career, there is no such change as affordable housing. And to do that, to me, we start expanding some of these boundaries, and especially with the University of Kentucky and Central Baptist, we can build jobs, build homes in those areas that these homes, that what I used to have in certain areas in my old district will become affordable, hopefully. Maybe that's because I don't see anything being affordable until we find another way to get more demand into this town. And to me, that's the only direction we have. Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember. Councilmember Lamb. Thank you, Chair, for allowing me a second time to speak on this. My question revolves around, and I was getting ready just to look up the email, for this work group or subcommittee that the Vice Mayor has set up. I guess my question or my request would be to what Councilmember Bledsoe was talking about, the waiting every two years, would it be appropriate to ask that work group or that subcommittee? I've forgotten which. Work group. It's a work group? Okay, excuse me. And just so I'm getting the proper name of it in context, what's the proper name of the work group? So far it's the Goal 4 work group. Alrighty, okay. Would it be appropriate for this committee to pointedly ask that work group to take up that conversation and that consideration about the waiting and when that waiting should take place in the policies? And so I guess that would be a pointed question to whoever is going to be chairing that work group. So, Chair, thank you. Vice Mayor. Thank you. Well, Council Member Brown and I are co-chairing that group, and I believe that's perfectly appropriate. I cannot speak for whether the group will take that on. We will build our agenda as we go, but I think it's a perfectly legitimate part of what the group ought to be considering. Well, I'd appreciate it, and if it's necessary, I can send an appropriate email, making that a formal request for that work group just to make sure that it is taken into consideration when you all are reviewing all of the other very important parts of that work group. Thank you so much. Thanks, Chair. Thank you, Council Member. Council Member Bledsoe. Thank you, Chair, and thank you, Council Member Lamb. I think, you know, as we've discussed, who does that and who's supposed to be doing it and how it works, there's a lot of fluctuation here, a lot of moving parts. and the next planning and public safety meeting I believe is August 23rd, which means we would not report out any of this until that date, which I think is important because one, I think it gives us time to see if the work group can make progress over the summer and if we can have some of those discussions. If we need to make, if this moves forward, it gives us time until that date to continuously have some more refinement, which I think is important. So I just wanted to set that stage. This isn't moving quickly. We have plenty of time until the work session date report out. And if it's not ready, we need to make changes, we can make changes then too. So just keep that all in mind. That being said, I'd like to make a motion to move us forward with two changes. So if you look on page 25 of your packet in the resolution, I would propose making two changes. Take out the word framework in the first sentence. So it would read a resolution recommending the adoption of the sustainable growth study in furtherance of the goals and objectives, the rest of it. And then the bottom on the whereas portion of that same page, whereas the study is referenced here and includes simply the existing conditions report document and removes the framework from it. So I would make those two changes as a motion to move this resolution forward with those changes. Second. All right, a motion has been made to amend the resolution in the packet and seconded by Council Member Ellinger. Are there any questions or discussion on the motion? Council Member Lamb. Thank you. Councilmember Bledsoe, would you, that's the second part. I just want to make sure that whereas, clause, what was the revision to that again, please? To remove both the evaluations framework and. So it would simply read, whereas the study as referenced here and includes the existing conditions report documents. All right, thank you so much. Thanks. Councilmember Cloiber. Thank you, Chair. I'd like to thank Councilmember Bledsoe for putting that forward. I think that very much addresses my concerns right now, and I look forward to any amendments coming out of the Gulf War Work Group going forward. But I'll happily vote on this and move it forward today. Thank you. Any other questions or comments? Do I need to pass the chair if I have a comment? Yes. Yeah, Council Member Bledsoe, I'll pass the chair to you. Thank you. I guess my comment would be that this wouldn't do away with the framework. This would give us time to continue to talk about the framework and maybe add to it or adjust it to help address some of the issues that the goal for a work group is going to work on. So I appreciate the motion and hopefully this gives us an opportunity to move forward. So thank you. And I'll take the chair back. Thank you. All right, so not seeing any other questions or comments to the motion. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Are there any that oppose? Seeing none, that motion passes. Yeah, so that's the motion. The motion was for the resolution with the changes. All right, thank you. Thank you for that, committee members. And that will get reported out in August. The next item on our agenda is the presentation for the PER and public benefits. Councilmember Kloiber placed this item in committee. He might want to provide opening comments and a background. Councilmember Kloiber. Thank you. I placed this into committee in order to be able to give a presentation to kind of talk about the history and the present state of this program. I'm looking forward to doing this, especially for those of us who are new on council, since we have not had this kind of presentation on this program before. We have Council Member Plowman logged in. Council Member Plowman. Thank you, Chair. As my colleagues are aware, I'm going to request that we postpone the PDR and public benefits presentation by Council Member Kluber today to the next planning and Public Safety meeting on Tuesday, August the 23rd. And I'm doing this for several reasons. First and foremost, both the director, who was our only staff member associated with the PDR program, Beth Oberman, and the chair of the Rural Land Management Board are not in attendance today. They are on vacation, something that they had planned for a long time. There was a memo that was sent on May the 17th. It was from Director Overman, and it was sent to Council staff, and it talks about that they're not going to be here on that date, and that if the PDR was going to be addressed, it would be when they were out of town. So I think that it's important for them to be here. The PDR program is a complex program, and both individuals are needed to answer questions and to address issues raised in the presentation for today. Secondly, the materials for the meeting were not sent out until last Friday after 12 noon, giving little time for review, especially on a holiday weekend. And actually there are some inaccuracies in the presentation. For example, the financials that are listed. I think that the presentation, and rightfully so, it can be an opinion from my colleague, but I do believe that the staff persons for the program should be available to speak from a fact-based perspective. Having this in the August meeting will give all parties sufficient times to prepare and And let me also point out that's eight weeks and council is off five of those weeks. So I think to be able to have somebody here to be able to clarify and refute, if applicable, is very important to a very, very serious program and subject that was coming forth today. So I do hope my colleagues will support my motion for postponement for the above reasons. And I will make that motion to postpone the PDR and public benefits presentation to the next planning and public safety committee meeting on August the 23rd, so moved. Second. All right, a motion has been made to postpone. Yes, Chair. Our parliamentarian is not here today, so I'm going to ask Council Member Lamb, a motion to postpone, is that debatable? Okay. Thank you. That's a great. A motion to a date certain is debatable. Just putting something on the table is not. Okay. But this is debatable. Okay, so with that, with a motion that was made and seconded, the first one up to speak is Council Member Clover. Thank you, Chair. I appreciate Council Member Plumman's concern. This presentation was put together and was consulted with your office and with all of the people that were mentioned that will not be here today. It's also just an informational presentation. We will not be making any motions, we will not be moving anything, and the biggest recommendation is to keep this in committee for further consideration. So there will be future opportunities for anyone to speak on these issues. And also to the point I believe the financials in the package came directly from your office. So I hope that you guys will allow me to give this presentation that we have worked very hard to put together today, since it has already been postponed once from May, and we would like to be able to give you guys what we've talked about. So thank you. Thank you, Council Member. Next is Council Member Bledsoe. Thank you, Chair. I just wanted to mention one thing, and in particular, Council packets are usually sent out on Fridays at noon, like pretty regularly, actually, sometimes. So sometimes they're sent out Thursday nights, sometimes Friday mornings, usually by noon on Friday. That's kind of the dead drop time to do it. But we've never had a rule or an expectation that council staff has those packets out by Wednesday or by Thursday. In fact, they usually come out after work session. Correct me if I'm wrong with Maynard, but typically they come out after work session documents that are sent out on Thursday afternoons. Packets for committees usually come out in front. Would you please just comment on that? Yes. I just don't want the accusation to feel like this is normal. Thank you, Council Member Bledsoe. That is correct. We do our best to get those to you all on Thursdays, but our council rule does state that they are sent out on Friday. Thank you. I just don't want our staff to feel like they were in some way not doing their job. And typically, I know I read the packets usually Friday afternoon, usually Mondays, because they come out on Fridays. So I just wanted to say that so that the audience knew that there was an intentionality with sending this out in some form or way that was meant to be manipulative or not to share information on a forthright basis. That's my first thought there. Just wanted that to put it there. Thank you. Thank you, Council Member. Council Member Layle. Thank you. And it's interesting, I always make sure that my packet gets out on Thursdays so that everybody has plenty of time. But I realize it's a preference thing, and you have to have all the presentations in order to send it out. And I realize that that was part of the problem. So just my two cents on that comment or position there. You know, I think we all understand that facts are very important information when presented. And if there is information that is presented without the proper backup or the people to be able to speak to questions that we as council members could have based on the information in the packet, that if there is not a staff person available to be able to answer that, I would, if it were me presenting information, I would want to make sure that that information could be properly vetted at the time that it is presented. It is unfortunate that these two staff members, well, the chair and the staff person, aren't able to be here today. And I would think that out of respect for them to be able to be here, I would like for my colleagues to strongly support this motion. When you have information, again, I will say it is very important to be able to have someone that is knowledgeable and capable of being able to provide proper context and information very valuable to this conversation. when the presentation is made. So I would hope that we would give opportunity for those staff people to be here on August 23rd and that we could have a really good discussion on this matter. I think that there is opportunity here. The other thing I will say is I actually would love to know if the Rural Land Management Board has ever had this conversation. I think that it's an opportunity to include them in this conversation, to allow them to weigh in on this, and that would even more so provide an opportunity for a larger discussion on the matter. When you have a board that actually manages the program, I would like for them to be able to have the opportunity to be at the table as well. So, again, I hope my colleagues will allow this postponement to go forward in an effort of respecting the board and the staff and the chair that work with this program. Thank you so much. Thank you, Council Member. Council Member Plowman. Thank you, Chair. And we did the financials are incorrect. We did, yeah, they are. But I wanted to point that out. I just, as Council Member L.A.M. just said, I think it is something courteous that we do. Not to have our staff person that works with PDR all the time and our board chair that goes back with the history of this program to its inception not here as well, I think is reckless. and I think that we would have a better conversation if we had representation when we talk about, quite honestly, a proposed idea that is very changing to the program and I think that it would be healthy for all of us to have a discussion when we do have that depth of knowledge and that history with us. So I wanted to add that to the comments that Council Member Lamb just shared. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Councilmember. Real quick, I have a question, and it's so probably for law, so Keith Horn, if you can help me out. And so there's a motion on the floor for this committee. Councilmember Maloney has a comment, but is it appropriate to have him comment on the motion since he's not on the committee? That's a good question. I think you can generally, tell me if I'm wrong, during these types of committee meetings when people aren't on the committee, you permit people to ask questions or make comments about topics. So I think you have the ability to permit it. That doesn't mean you have to. But I think customarily, generally, council members are allowed to comment. Okay. And committee members, if there's no objections, I'm fine with Council Member Maloney coming in. It just seemed like a procedural irregularity. Council Member Maloney. I don't mean to. My question, and I hate to see you all going at it. And it all goes back to the chairman of this committee who took the information, and they look at the record. They read everything, and if you've got a problem, you need to call the chairman to say, we don't need to put this on the docket. And the question is, did anybody call you? Because at 12 o'clock, and everybody, you had your information. You had it before 12 o'clock, you proved everything. Somebody had to call you because you had the power to say, I don't want to have it on there because of the problem. The question comes in, you run this, this is your docket. So realistically, I hate to see these two going at it, but maybe you can clear it up because to me it should have been taken care of then if that's where it is. So in response to that, Council Member Maloney, this is the Council's Committee. I chaired the council's committee. This is a council members presentation. I did get some phone calls. I didn't think it was my, I don't think I got elected chair of this committee to try to silence or to take any other council members presentation out of committee. So I think the motion is appropriate and I think we're discussing it like we should, but I think it's just being the chair is not my responsibility to censor information and presentations. So, Councilmember Kloiber. Thank you, Chair. Just one final thing to clear up. This is an informational presentation. It's information. I have spreadsheets and documents that I can give you in support of this information that was given to me by Beth and by Councilmember Plumman's office as well to back up everything in the presentation. If there are questions after the presentation, I'm happy to send you more materials. I'm happy to have those conversations, but we will not be considering any actions today. The recommendations at the end of this presentation are to keep this item into committee for further conversations. And I think that it would be best served to have that conversation today, since we've already taken so many steps towards that. Thank you. Thank you, committee members. So if nobody else is left to speak, we'll go ahead and take a vote. We might need a screen. So all those in favor of postponement, please vote yay. And all those that oppose, please vote nay. How about we abstain? so that motion fails i don't do i'm a tiebreaker You can follow that. You know? Yeah. So that motion fails. So we'll proceed with the presentation. I know there are some people that signed up to speak. So we would take public comment at the committee, doesn't mind, before the presentation. Who I have on the list first is Robert James. Did you sign up to speak on this item? Yes, sir. Hope the council will forgive my attire. I'm Robert James. I'm first and foremost a crop farmer, and I also serve as vice chair of the Rural Land Management Board. I'm here to speak to you as a farmer, so I put on my most professional attire, which for a farmer makes it that way by virtue of it being recently laundered. PDR was a visionary investment in a significant financial economic engine in this community. One that helps bring people in and creates a unique cultural heritage that we're all a part of. That investment in our signature industry is really protecting a finite resource, as the vice mayor pointed out. There's only so much land in Fayette County and in Kentucky in the world. And we have some of the most productive soils here in this county, in the state, here in this county. And it's that investment that will serve us 50 years in the future, 100 years in the future. You know, when I think about how much agriculture has changed over my lifetime, I can't imagine the uses that that soil will have in the future. Under new owners, under new practices and new management, new industries growing and flourishing all the time. And I urge this committee and the council at large to consider the PDR program to be a community investment and be treated as such. There are many different other community investments we undertake here in Lexington. Just for example, Coldstream Park. We don't ask businesses that consider locating there to permit public access to their properties and facilities when they move here. We don't ask homeowners who get service from our sewers and our roads to permit public access to their properties when they move here. And as such, I hope we will consider the current and future landowners who participate in this program, who are helping create and maintain a unique landscape here in Lexington, something that's very unique in the state and the world. After all, we call ourselves the horse capital of the world, and I urge you all to please consider that the PDR program is an important economic investment in this community and be treated as such. And I thank you for your time. Thank you, Mr. James. Next is Brittany Rothmeier. Hello again, Council members. I would just like to second, I think, a little bit of disappointment that this presentation is going to continue to move forward. It's interesting to see an informational program, I think, being presented without the people that are most directly related to the program here to speak about information on the program itself. but as you all know and I think we'll see too the PDR program is really a cornerstone of our community and has been one since it was established in 1999 by a really diverse group of community stakeholders. I certainly am no expert on the history of this program. I think some of the people in the room in the audience here are probably more expert on on how this program came to be in the history of it certainly than I am but I think inaccuracies as it relates to the history of the program are really critical to be corrected on the record. And I know certainly from my role at Fade Alliance, and I think that you all have experience as council members as well, oftentimes the first information that's put on the record without the ability to be corrected can be the most impactful. And that's why I do worry about the integrity of this presentation and some of the information that is being presented. In the packet itself, it was a little bit difficult to see support be pitted between and against our rural area against affordable housing. As we know, there's no data to support that if housing was to be built in our rural area, that it would be affordable. As we know, 51% of the land that was brought inside the urban services boundary during the last expansion in 1996, out of which the PDR program was created, has still not been developed. Support for a rural area, almost all of which comes through the PDR program, is less than 1% of the overall city budget. Less than 1%, and yet its contribution to our community overall is much greater. It's a program that more than pays for itself. Agriculture supports one out of every 12 jobs and contributes $2.3 billion annually to our local economy. It supports more than 10,000 jobs just related to tourism alone, anchors a $2 billion tourism industry, and Fayette County still has the highest agricultural receipts of any county in Kentucky. The farms that receive PDR funds do so based on a number of factors, most importantly the quality of their soil, ensuring that the program protects the highest quality land for future agricultural use. Protecting these soils is the foundation of continued viability of our agricultural base, our tourism industry, local food, and future sustainability in our community. It's frankly an industry like no other. The factory is the land itself. And in this particular industry, the factory floor is a finite, irreplaceable asset. The phosphorus-rich prime soils that comprise nearly 90% of the rural service area. These industries that support thousands of jobs in this community, support thousands of families, feed and house thousands more, give us our global identity. These industries can't relocate. They're linked to the land. And that being said, they're also businesses. They're not public parks. They're businesses which depend on both sensitive animals and sensitive crops, like other factories with dangerous machinery. Fayette County has land zones specifically to be more suitable to public access to green space within certain parameters, like the ag buffer and the natural zones. Our community is spending an unprecedented amount of money in our local parks, acquiring a new park on the river for public access, over $12 million on affordable housing that's much needed, and millions more on infill and redevelopment. These are all necessary, but so is our investment in our rural area. Ms. Rothmeier, do you need more time? I do need more time if someone would be willing to lend me theirs. It's not too much longer. I move to give three minutes because you're well over. Sure. Thank you. I appreciate that, Council Member. All right. If there's no objections to that motion, so move. The presentation here today, based on what's in the packet, gives a figure per acre based on overall funding for the Purchase of Development Rights Program. Every farm gets a different amount of funding depending on a variety of objective factors. and again the main one of which is the quality of the soil, road frontage, number of acres, and more. The goal of the entire program is to preserve the best soils for ag operations and incentivize owners to do so. Fayette County has this program for a reason. Our nationally significant soils, our climate, our limestone-rich water, these all make it an ideal place to grow plants and animals. And these efforts, like any other business, can't be maintained without incentives. I was asked by Councilmember Kloiber to bring a group of stakeholders together to talk about his idea of public access on PDR farms. He's heard from numerous stakeholders in the program about the difficulties in allowing public access. Liability, insurance, federal requirements prohibiting it, and the sensitivity of the business operations are running on farms that often require the PDR funds to continue to be viable. That being said, they were all open to ideas of how to increase access while balancing the sensitivity of their operations. in addition to the access that was already provided for special events, for horse farm tours, and more. We did not receive any correspondence coming back to these folks, to my knowledge, with any suggestions in light of all of their concerns. I hope that more information can be provided by those most directly involved with the PDR program before anything else related to the program moves forward. Thank you. Thank you for that. Is there anybody else that wants to speak to the issue? Mr. Penn. I didn't come down here today to speak to this, but as one of the founding members of the PDR program, I think before we start down this road, we need to understand why we even have the PDR program. The PDR program was developed for two reasons. Number one is we didn't want to look like Franklin County, Scott County, and Jessamon County and cut everything up in 10-acre tracks. 10-acre tracks were too big to mow and too small to grow. They were a terrible waste of land. We put this in there with a 40-acre minimum. That was done for a reason also, because you could produce something on 40 acres. It was done not for a welfare program for farmers. It was done for a preservation program to keep us what makes us unique. It wasn't done necessarily for horses. It was done for all of agriculture. Just remember, horses could go away, whether it be PETA or whether it be anything else. We could self-destruct. We had the finest land, not only in Kentucky. And the reason why we went south to expand, because that was our worst soils. We made some good choices. Hopefully we'll make some good choices in the future. But hopefully those choices will be based on soil quality, not on what's best for my constituency, for my part of the county, for whatever it is. Farmers came to accept this program and to use it because contrary to popular belief, we love our land. We have no desire in the world to be expanded, to build houses on. Every bit of land that I control is in the program. We have 1,000 acres of Bourbon County. It's in a conservation program. And the reason for that is we want somebody else to live on that land and have the same quality of life that we did. So when you think about this PDR program, it's not about how much more money we can give our kids. It's about we want the quality of life for the next generation. Thank you, Karen. Thank you, Sarah. Mayor, would you like to speak on this item? I am Mary Diane Hanna, president of the Ulrich and Road Neighborhood Association, which is the neighborhood association that encompasses the most land in this area. And the basic reason that we have this association is to protect the land where we live. we have well over 10,000 acres of land in our neighborhood association. And about 10,000 of those have expressed that they are against an intrusion of a road from Jessamine County. Many of those are in PDR. And my father was in the Green Space Commission with Gloria and helped start this whole program in the beginning. I just want to say we live out there, as Frank said. We live there for a reason. We have a quality of life that we want for a reason. And I liked what Jennifer Reynolds said about how maybe my constituents don't want to be developed where we are, or they don't want my friends like that I have an area where they can come and enjoy the land. Again, to have other people come on the land, say, to go hiking or something, you wouldn't want it just opened up for a reason because of liability. We are a PDR farm. We've been in it for, I don't know, 15 or something, 20 years maybe. The fact that I did that allowed me to buy an office where I rent it for $2,000 a month, which gives me money to help for my farm because the money that I get in general, I get under $10,000 a year in income from the farm, And I probably spent $40,000 this year clearing fence lines and putting in fences. So by no way does what we do even run the farm. So PDR is nice to have for a little bit of an extra cushion, but it doesn't pay for the bills. Thank you. Thank you. Is there anybody else that wishes to speak to this item on the agenda? Seeing none, Councilmember Clark. Thank you, guys. I will try to be as succinct as possible. First, I just want to say I'm glad there were so many people who are so passionate who came out to speak today. It sounded like some of them could have been giving pieces of this presentation themselves, and we'll have their points up here in just a second, as long as I can find the right button. All right. So the PDR program, Purchase of Development Rights, this is a program whereby the city purchases the ability for a piece of land in order to be developed and places it into trust so that going forward this land is conserved. Taxpayers pay local and federal and state tax dollars towards this program and it prevents any development going further. So it locks it down, conserves it from here into eternity. Currently there's 30,000 acres that have been protected in the PDR program. It's been running operationally since 2001 and over 77 million dollars have been invested in protecting this land, both federal and local dollars and that's a map we'll move on um the history of the pdr as we heard just a brief time ago uh originally the zoning in our city allowed for there to be one house for every 10 acres and so people were aggressively subdividing their lots and it was lobbied that we don't do that here because we did not want to end up in the same situation that we've seen elsewhere so we were lobbied to increase this to a 40-acre plot for several reasons, and that was the beginning of the process that led to PDR, because in taking away the ability for some people to subdivide, we created a program in order to compensate people and make sure that land was preserved. So it had several different purposes when it started, but it all came from this original idea that we didn't want it all subdivided into 10-acre plots. So it was originally brought into existence in 2000. It didn't get rolling until 2001 after funding was involved. And 1999 was the original conceptual stuff. When it began, there was almost no federal matching used in the program. It was just local dollars spent on these things because it was such an important thing for us to do with this conservation. And it was decided that this PDR program would not tie these dollars to any specific use. It gave people flexibility to use that money however they saw fit, but it wasn't tied to the agricultural business or conservation aspects of their property, regardless of where they decided to use it to, because again, it was there to make sure that it was as flexible as possible. So the big question when you're talking about PDR is what is the process to actually change the zone? Because we're talking about a lot of rural agricultural land, so I wanted to put this slide in here to just talk about the broad strokes of the process to change that zoning. You have an application by an owner. The Planning Commission reviews that. It eventually goes before them for a vote. It can come to the council for a vote as well in a public hearing before there's ever a zone change possible. So it's a multi-step process to go through a zone change. Anything that is agricultural today will be that way unless it goes through this process. Some other considerations when you're talking about zone changing. We have an urban services boundary, which we've talked a lot about today. development of the agricultural land outside of this boundary is highly restricted and has been very few and far between instances where we have allowed for any kind of development outside of that. We also have the fact that neighborhoods get to give their input as to what they want near them with public hearings in front of the council as we will all be experiencing later today. So this is just a slide I wanted to put in there to show a couple of these things have been mentioned, there are alternative ways that we protect land. We have historic districting inside of our city. We protect that land to make sure that it stays the way that it is because it's part of our heritage, similar to the horse farms being part of our heritage. In this program with H1 overlays, we do not compensate the owners of these properties who elect to be inside this program. Additionally, as was mentioned, we have environmental conservancy trusts. We have one here in Lexington. And the benefits are tax benefits from the federal government that are on par with the PDR program. You'll see many people in surrounding counties who do not necessarily have PDR programs utilize these environmental conservancy trusts because it's important to be able to conserve the things that matter. We're not making any more land. So this slide's a little bit confusing to go through on your own, so I'm just going to walk through it. This was kind of a cost and effectiveness of the different methods we have for protecting this land. So the idea was to say we have these protections. We have a planning commission. The planning commission would have to vote to rezone a piece of land. Those people are appointed for a period of time, and they are appointed by the mayor, who we elect. So that whole process adds a layer of protection to these properties being changed. Doesn't necessarily cost the taxpayer anything. City Council elected every two to four years, same premise. Anything coming forward to Council would have to be voted on in order to change that zoning and allow for development on these properties. We also have more extreme measures like altering the urban services boundary. Well, that would require not just regular votes here, but a change to the comprehensive plan. And we all know that we're mired in that process right now. So, again, these protections last for a period of time. So here at the bottom, we've got two different protections. One is the Land Conservancy Trust, which is only done at the owner's prerogative. We don't have a say in whether anyone does that. We don't necessarily incentivize that. Those are the federal tax benefits they can get from it. And we also have the PDR program, which, again, is 30,000 acres, $77 million, so approximately $2,520 per acre. Obviously, it's not a normal distribution. It's alternate, but this was kind of an average. But the protection is forever. So that money allows for indefinite protection just like the Conservancy Trust. This slide was put here to show the kind of spending that we have had conserving this land that has these protections versus another topic that we've had a lot of discussion about recently, which is affordable housing and housing affordability. As you can see, locally, we put $62.3 million into the PDR program, and we put $18 million into it locally through our own programs and our affordable housing trust. Again, there's federal and state money that matches it. You can see those numbers right there. It's just to show us that what we're spending money on, it's a zero-sum game here. We have a budget. The money has to be spent somewhere where we allocate it. This was a slide to show some of our priorities in the past. So, with all these layers of protections to preserve agricultural land that we all agree needs to happen, I posed the question, could we add additional benefits to the PDR program in order to give it more benefit to the taxpayers? And that's when I reached out to Brittany Rothenmeier and others to get together to talk about the possibility of public access. That's the camping, hunting, horseback riding, all of these things. These actually came from farm owners who told me they were things they were already doing on their property. And we discussed how these things worked, what it is that might come from it. But this was just put up as an idea of a potential for something that could enhance the program. Another potential that came up in conversation was the possibility for allowing green city initiatives, like sustainable farming or co-opting as kind of a, or research opportunities as something that would be allowable through the program for anybody who opted into it. So, we get down here to the tiniest print on any of the slides, and this is kind of the recommendations. As I said, I'm not here to put anything to a vote. This was just informational about what the program was, where it came from, and possibly what we could do going forward. We all know that preserving our horse farms, what makes us important, that's a top priority for the community. But we have a lot of protections available at no cost. We've seen them. Planning commissions, councils, elected officials, an urban services boundary. So the program needs to show that it gives additional benefit to the city's residents for that expenditure of tax dollars. So I'm just recommending keeping this item into committee to further reach out to the community, looking for sustainable enhancements that everyone can get behind. Obviously, if there's going to be a buy-in for this program, it's going to have to come from the community. There's nothing that we can dictate for people to do on these properties. We want to do this in partnership. So I'm recommending that we keep this in committee, continue to look at that going forward. And during this process, we consider pausing future funding for the program until we can really go through this in detail. Right now, we're in the midst of the comprehensive plan. We've already approved a budget. I think that right now we have a lot of other concerns that touch on this topic, so we shouldn't be touching it now. But I just want to put it in everybody's head that we should probably look into what we can do to improve this program and what it does for the community as we go forward. So thank you. That's my whole presentation. Hopefully I didn't learn through too much of the clock. Thank you, Council Member. Are there any questions or comments? Council Member Bledsoe. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. And thank you, Council Member Kloiber, for your presentation. I have a comment and then a recommendation. So no questions for you. This is your presentation. And as such, there's deference, I believe, to council members to putting together presentations and presenting them on their own. So that's going to remain what I think about this. Two, a couple years ago, my daughter went from going to horse camp to competitively riding. And now that she rides her thoroughbred from the barn down the street to the arena on a shared-use trail or road, it's a shared-use road, a little sign to say look out for horses. I hold my breath every minute she walks that five-minute walk from one side to the other because she's on a thoroughbred. And while she's an excellent rider, things like dogs, things like the turkey that was close by, panic, all those things. She runs the street, cars come flying down, they don't see it's a shared use area. And or there was a group of people actually touring the farm that we were at. And I just, when we walked by, I kept thinking, Lord, please don't let any of them move quickly. Or run to go take a look at her or pet the said horse. Because, you know, those things have consequences. And I think differently when it's my daughter on doing it. So I say all that to simply say shared recreational space is challenging. And it's delicate. and it has got consequences with not just very expensive horses, but horse riders and those who are all trying to share our community together. So this is what I would recommend. We've done this before in different groups, or we've taken items that one of us or several of us feel strongly about and sent it to commissions or other groups that have jurisdiction, have them review and come back. So this is what I would recommend. I would recommend us directing your presentation and some of the thoughtfulness and ideas that you have in here around those things to the Rural Land Management Board for their consideration over the summer, for their discussion, and then a presentation from them back to us, perhaps the August 23rd meeting, when the director can be here and Ms. Martin can be here and other members of the board can have access to have input on that as a follow-up to this presentation, and then maybe reserve our questions and comments from that time so that they would have the opportunity to discuss it and present back to us and then we can discuss it all at one time. I don't make that as a motion. I'd make it as a directive unless you think I need to. I think that should be in the form of a motion. Then I so moved. All right, a motion's been made to send this item to the Rural Land Management Board and second it. Are there any comments or questions on that motion? I think part of what you said, Council Member, is no comment, or us to reserve our comments that we heard back from them. committee members before we vote on that item. Was that part of your motion or was that just a recommendation? That was just a recommendation. I wasn't going to ask more questions about the presentation. You can ask about the motion by all means, but the content of the presentation I was recommending we wait for. Okay. Okay. So we won't include that as part of the motion. Okay. Are there any other questions on the motion? Council Member Lamb, do you want to comment on the motion? No, I do not. Okay, thank you. Council Member Kloiber. Well, just to be clear about the motion, I will go back to my seat in just a minute. I was just trying to be as efficient as possible. This is a discussion about all these things that we were talking about, possible enhancements and everything going forward, because I will 100% support this. This is not anything one individual is going to undertake and come to a meaningful conclusion. so I will support this motion in its entirety because I think getting more people involved in order to look at how we make this program the best it can be is the best solution. All right, thank you. So with the motion that's on the floor, is there any other questions or comments? Seeing none, all those in favor of the motion, please say aye. Aye. Are there any that oppose? Seeing none, that motion's approved. um council member lamb thank you um i just have some points that i want to make sure that are in the record um on the presentation um and i'll i'll page 31 the comment the bullet point that says farm owners then lobbied for compensation for the lost of privilege lost privileges of subdivisions i would like for that um that comment or that opinion to be um It's removed because of its improper context. And then on page 36 of the presentation, or the packet, it talks about the Planning Commission is appointed for four years, and it was referenced that the mayor puts forward the appointments, but this body, the council, urban county council but has the final vote and approves those so without this council those appointments are not made that's for the record also and on page 37 as far as the slide as it relates to funding as far as the affordable housing funding I just want to make sure that that number doesn't take into consideration many other agencies that are in the community that also contribute to the affordable housing funding. and I take question in the PDR funding dollars that are on here because I have not had a chance to go back and check those numbers but I do think that those numbers do need to be looked at before anybody takes them to be matter-of-factly. And thank you very much. Thank you, Council Member Lamb. And I wasn't asking questions of anybody. And you were just making those notes for the record. Okay. Council Members, we have five minutes before the next meeting. Can you all make your comments brief so we can get out of it? Council Member Clover. I just wanted to let everyone know there's been a couple questions about the exact numbers. I will send out the spreadsheet that has been verified by the finance department with all of those numbers to you directly following this meeting so that you'll have them for your perusal. Thank you, Council Member. Council Member Plowman. Thank you, and Council Member Bledsoe, I do support that. I think it's a great idea to take it back and get more investment and to really detail and look at some of these figures. And just also, Council Member Lamb, you pointed out a few things. The acreage right now for PDR in our community is $32,598. We show $62 million investment since its inception. And, yes, there were federal dollars when the program started, and that was from the tobacco money. And I can give you some background on that as well. But again, to my point, well, that's great. I'm glad we're moving forward with that motion and taking it to the Rural Land Management Board. Thank you, Chair. All right. Thank you. Thank you, Council Members. I'd entertain a motion to adjourn. So moved. Second. All right. Motion to adjourn. No. If there's no anybody challenging that, I'll consider this meeting adjourned. Thank you. And thank you, everybody, that came to speak and share their thoughts with us today. Thank you. Thank you.