We're still turning roads Higher and higher and higher to climb In those Hollywood nights In those Hollywood years She was looking so right In her diamonds and frill All those big city nights In those high rolling hills Above all the life She had all of her skills Oh Yeah He'd headed west Cause he felt that a change was doing good. See some old friends, good for the soul. She had been born with a face that would let her get away. He saw that face and he lost all control. He had lost all control Night after night Day after day It went on and on Then came that morning He woke up alone He spent all night staring down at the lights of L.A. Wondering if he could ever go home There was Hollywood night In those Hollywood hills It was looking so right It was giving chill In those big city nights In those iron hills Above all the lights With a passionate kill In those Hollywood nights In those Hollywood hills She was looking so right In her diamonds and fill Of those bricks and lies In those iron hills Above all the lights She had all of her skin Above all the lights Above all the lights Above all the lights Above all the lights Above all the lights Above all the lights Above all the lights Hollywood Night Lost and all alone I always thought that I could make it on my own Since you left I hardly make it through the day My tears get in the way And I need you back to stay I wander through the night Search the world to find the words to make it right All I want is just the way it used to be If you're here close to me, I've got to make a difference. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon everyone. My name is Jenny Norma and I'm here with the Senior Center in Lexington. We are going to do a little flow yoga this morning so you're going to need your mat. me. ¶¶ . ¶¶ ¶¶ ¶¶ ¶¶ guitar solo Good afternoon, everybody. Good afternoon. We're going to call this meeting to order. I'd like to call this meeting to order. Can people hear me? Can I get a little more volume on my mic? Can you hear me now? Can you still not hear me? Yes, no, can anybody hear me? Yes? Okay, sorry for the glitch and welcome. This is a special committee of the whole meeting for presentation of the report of the Goal 4 Workgroup. And before we do anything else, I want to express my appreciation to all of the people who served on the Goal 4 Workgroup. That information's in the back of the packet and to all of the staff who worked so hard on preparing this report. I know people have had some chance to look at it and what we are going to do this afternoon or this evening, I guess, is do a full run through of the presentation without taking questions at that point. After that, we'll take public comment and if you have not signed up but wish to speak, this should be a couple sign up sheets at the back of the chamber. And following that, following public comment, we will open the floor for questions and further conversation amongst council members. So I want to first welcome Jennifer Sutton and Eve Miller, who have been key staffers, and they will do the presentation. So kick it off, thank you. Hi everyone, as Vice Mayor Kaye. Hi everyone. Can you, got it? Okay. My name is Jennifer Sutton, I'm Council Research Analyst. And I'm Eve Miller, the legislative aide for the 12th District Council Office. And we're going to chat with you all tonight about the Goal 4 work group and share a little bit about the report out with you. So on today's agenda we'll be discussing the purpose and membership makeup of the Goal 4 work group, the report's primary recommendation, the development process of the preservation map and the map itself, the process recommended by the work group to consider adding land to the urban services area, and then lastly, the approval process and the path moving forward for the report. So first, we would like to share with everyone who served on the work group. Vice Mayor Kay and Council Member James Brown were the co-chairs for the group, and Council member Bledsoe and council member Plowman also served on the work group. The committee, the additional committee members were selected based on various experience and perspectives on this particular issue and they included Stephen Howard, Bessie Jackson, Nick Nicholson, Rusty Underwood, Bill Witt, Judy Wirth, and Anthony Wright. We had quite a few staff members who helped us make this possible. Several from the Division of Planning, and that includes Director Duncan, Chris Woodall, and Chris Taylor, and several people from GIS who helped make our maps possible, and that is Chris George and Dustin Baker. So there is only one primary recommendation from the workgroup's report, which can be found on page 12. The objective of the work group was to fulfill the request of goal 4 in the 2018 comprehensive plan. That goal asked to complete two tasks. The first being to establish a process for future potential development, and then the second to identify lands for long-term preservation. The goal 4 report alongside the sustainable growth task force work completes this ask. As such, the workgroup's primary recommendation is to replace Theme E Goals 3 and 4 in the 2018 Comprehensive Plan with a new Goal 3 that reads, Protect Lexington's invaluable rural resources and inform long-range planning for infrastructure, community facilities, and economic development through the adoption of the new process contained in the report of the Goal 4 workgroup. We do want to note that there are six other sub-recommendations on pages 12 and 13 of the report, but this is the primary recommendation that we are presenting to you all today. So the intent of the primary recommendation is to incorporate language and details of the report in the goal statement. And this helps to state several components, including the identification of land to be preserved and or suitable for development. It separates the timeline of the consideration of the inclusion of additional land in the urban service area from the schedule of the five-year comprehensive plan updates. And this allows the question to receive its own attention and research. and if land is to be added to the urban service area, it shortens the zone change process and assures that that land is developed within a reasonable time frame as compared to the 1996 process. So the recommendation does not expand the urban service area. Rather, the report sets up a new process that is an incremental strategy for including land in the urban service area if and when needs are identified. The process in the report does the following. It identifies land outside the urban service area for potential development without negative impacts on the rural area. It helps to ensure that we're meeting ongoing growth projections for our city, and it establishes a mechanism to meet those identified needs. Much of the conversation in the work group was developing the preservation map, which we will see on the next slide. They considered a variety of criteria when designating particular areas that are potentially developable. A lot of the following criteria was considered. Various conservation areas, which includes the Purchase of Development Rights Program and publicly owned land. Various cultural icons that exist within Fayette County. Various environmental factors. different road classifications, sewerable areas, the sewer quality, surrounding county zoning, so on the border of the county, what the opposite side in the different county, what that zoning looks like, confirmed or projected transportation projects in Fayette County, and water lines. The preservation map, again, which we'll see here in a second, identifies all the land outside of the urban service area that are potentially developable. You'll see them labeled as A through F with special conditions for C. So as mentioned before, this map shows the preserved areas and areas that are potentially developable, which are designated in gray and termed outside the preserved area. I want to bring special notice to that C area at the northern part of the map. And that is available only for future development proposals that support the agricultural economy through agricultural technology and agriculturally supportive development. Proposals in this area may be evaluated independent of the process that the work group has outlined in their report. The reasoning behind making a separate designation for this area included the quality of soils and the existing agricultural uses in this area. There's an additional recommendation in the report that asks the Planning Commission to further define what kind of uses are allowable in this kind of area. So as we have mentioned, the work group in the report has recommended a process to begin consideration of land to be included within the urban service area. The first step is to support the divisional planning to oversee the review and annual updates to the data included in the sustainable development task force work, which has been approved by both the planning commission and the council. Then every five years in between updates to the comprehensive plan, if it is the desire of the mayor and the council, They can establish an urban service area evaluation task force to evaluate the need for expansion, and if so, what acreage should be included and the needs that need to be met. The task force will then forward its recommendation to the Planning Commission, and then the Planning Commission will forward its recommendation to the council for a final decision. And we should note here that this process is going to be set up in alignment with the comprehensive plan. So the next review would be in year 2026. If land is needed, if that has been determined by council in the previous step, the following steps would be implemented. Firstly, the Planning Commission would craft a set of criteria for proposals based on the needs identified. Then they would solicit proposals that would address those needs, which would also be from those developable areas that are included in the map that you all have seen. The proposals would then undergo an evaluation process with a proposal review committee. This proposal review committee would be appointed by the vice mayor and would include LFUCG staff from planning, water quality, engineering, and facilities. It would also include outside development professionals. The proposals would include already a zone map amendment, and that would be required for their proposed development plans. The developer will also be expected to sign an agreement which would state that if they do not meet certain milestones and a defined time frame, their property could be removed from the urban service area. The review committee would then make its technical recommendations to the planning commission and for each individual proposals on whether they meet those technical needs. And then the planning commission would then follow the normal zone change process for each proposal. And then the council would also conduct their zone map amendment hearings and make the final decision for each proposal. so moving forward as you all know the goal 4 work group has forward its report to council for information and there is a resolution that would be in support of the recommendation for a new goal 3 that would be included in the 2023 comprehensive plan update the goal 4 work group has also forward its report to the planning commission and it can either adopt or modify the report as they see fit or adopt its own recommendation. After that, they would then send that recommendation back to council where council would do the same, either adopt the recommendation, amend the recommendation or adopt its own goal. And with that, we are happy to answer questions and I believe discussion for the next component of the meeting. Thank you all. Thank you very much. First, I believe there are some people signed up to speak and I'll get that list. And I think most people are familiar with our process, but each person who has signed up, I'll call your name. You'll have three minutes and we ask that you identify yourself by name and by council district. The first person on the list is Dick Chore, welcome. and there is a possibility that my timing is off what else is new my name is dick shore i live at 205 catalpa road which is in the fifth district catalpa road is one block long it's lined with ginkgo trees we are just at the end of the yearly yellow time trees lawn air all turned yellow. People come with cameras and kids and dogs, fancy dresses, even graduation gowns, all to walk down Catalpa Road and have their picture taken in the yellow. Our house was built in 1926. That's the year they planted the first of the ginkgo trees. or so I was told that this was one of the first suburbs to Lexington. It lies about a mile out right next to the Ashland Henry Clay Estate. I rise today to speak for growth and thriving. The need for us to have and use criteria for thriving as guidelines, as guardrails for such growth that we will do. If we do find criteria for thriving and flourishing, whether we grow or not, then when we finally realize that growth is neither desirable nor possible, we will still be able to think about thriving. One example of a city that launched a major effort for long-term thriving, the Totnes, England. There was a handbook on city planning published in 2010, which describes the work there at Totnes. And that in turn was built on the permaculture work of Rob Hopkins. The work we did last spring was on the table could serve as a step towards such thriving criteria. the ideas that surface there are actually available in an online searchable database. And some of those are mentioned in the draft of the long-range plan that I saw, which is different from the document you're considering tonight. But they're not mentioned as guidelines for growth. When I asked the planning staff and council members last June, if LFUCG was looking at any guidelines for or constraints on our growth, I was told there were none and no one was working on that. So we have these lovely ideas that have bubbled up. Ideas like quality affordable housing, which includes ways to maintain the existing housing so that after 100 years or so, people might want to... Okay, Mr. Schor. Yes. i'm sorry to interrupt but your three minutes has expired three minutes are up just wrap up if we find criteria that we could use maybe when we discover we cannot aim and grow any longer we can still thrive thank you thank you next is faith shore My name is Faith Shore. I live at 205 Catalpa Road, District 5, 40502. I had seen a different plan that I thought you were going to discuss tonight. So my comments are about that different plan. I said we need to invest in what we have to make it a better place to live before we expand. We need to invest in our children's play area at the Arboretum by making it open to all children without a fee. We need buses to operate on routes that go around the city, not just to the bus center downtown, and out the spokes of the city, people who need to cut across the city by bus, such as a parent trying to attend a school where his or her children have been bused, cannot get to that school in under two hours going one way. We need green spaces in the city to open up more paths for folks to walk. We need to invest way more in making our city more bike-friendly. It is still dangerous to bike on our streets. We need to invest in our communities to have supervised activities at school playgrounds and gymnasiums after the school day is done. So I think we need to invest in what we have to make it better before we expand. Thank you. Thank you. Next on the list is Dottie Bean. Okay, thank you. Next then would be Brittany Rothmeier. Thank you, Vice Mayor. That was a scribble on the sheet, so I'm glad you could read my writing. I want to say a big thank you to you, Vice Mayor, to Council Member Brown for leading this effort, Councilmember Bledsoe and Plowman, and for all the community volunteers, frankly, that dedicated so much time for their leadership in a really important effort to continue the work of the Mayor's Sustainable Growth Task Force in ensuring that we continue to have an objective and data-driven approach to future growth decisions. This work, I think, stands to be probably the most important process and decision-making that we've made since the Urban Services Boundary was implemented in 1958. And over the course of 12 meetings, the group accomplished a lot. It was complicated and nuanced, and I commend all the members for committing the time that it took to have these important discussions. It was clear that everyone in the room truly cares about Lexington and Fayette County. And that being said, the process is meant to inform growth decisions far into the future. Decisions were made over the course of those 12 meetings that can have decades of impact here in Lexington. It's so important that we do it right, that it's fully thought through and fleshed out, and the impacts of it far into our community's future as well. Fate Alliance, we believe that there's some parts of this report that should be further evaluated and discussed as this moves forward in the process with the Planning Commission and the Urban County Council. Since the last meeting of the work group on the 26th of October, 793 acres were added to the area that's potentially developable, without much conversation. We simply think that those areas should be reexamined to determine if they're appropriate to include, the history of them taken into consideration, and what's appropriate in those locations. Second, the Rural Land Management Board, whose role, of course, is to oversee the rural service area, which is the only area implicated in this report, also should have a role in the decision-making process at some point during the process. The rural service area already includes businesses and neighborhoods and more that aren't reflected on the map. and the rural land management plan is the most comprehensive document around the rural service area. We must understand what is already there in order to understand the future of that area and we certainly appreciate and understand that one of the recommendations in the report was to update that plan. One of the bigger concerns around the report is infrastructure investment, how that's planned for and executed. We should take this opportunity to shape efficient both physically and financially infrastructure investments and plan for them in a timely way. Planning up front for infrastructure for almost 28,000 acres of potentially developable area right now is problematic. Lastly, there's a concern that some elements of the process, specifically the RFP process, and the ability for developers to propose development anywhere in the expansion area, may encourage scattered site development in multiple directions. This could lead to those singular developments in scattered locations, but which might meet an identified need from the data dictating the path of infrastructure for our community. Overall, we look forward to continuing to be a part of the conversation as this moves forward. We're making important decisions for our future, and we truly appreciate all the work that you all have done in this effort. Thank you. Thank you. Next is Knox Van Noggle. Good evening, Vice Mayor, Council Members. It's nice to see you all. As you know, my name is Knox Vendogglefister, and I'm here on behalf of our family farm, Brookfield. Located at 2370 Cleveland Road in eastern Fayette County, our operation consists of 1,500 acres of prime bluegrass soils, which is the factory floor of our family agribusiness. Now in its eighth generation, we raise over 1,000 head of cattle annually, along with soybean, corn, and hemp. At one point, we were the largest cattle operation in the state of Kentucky, and today, thanks to careful stewardship and continued investment, we are nationally known as a leading breeder and producer of black-bodied cattle. Our land and the resources on it are truly unique. As much as it's our family home, just as importantly, it's a community asset to be shared with others and worthy of preservation for future generations. We take this responsibility seriously and have placed over 950 acres under conservation easement in Fayette County. On a weekly basis, we host everyone from international tourists and equine enthusiasts to FFA youth groups and business leaders, telling the story of the land and our collective connection to it. While Brookfield is special and is not the only treasurer in eastern Fayette County, We are but one piece in a very vibrant and storied rural menagerie in this part of the world. It's also home to famously successful horse farms and local food producers, the nation's largest national historic district, and even black bears. It embodies our revered bluegrass brand and yet now has 13,000 acres earmarked for future development. Lexington must grow, but it must be done in a balanced way that carefully elevates its cultural and economic touchstones. Imagine New York without Central Park, Charleston without the Battery, or Denver without the Rockies. Imagine Lexington without its rolling farms and vistas in any part of the county. Anywhere USA or the Bluegrass. Indeed, much is at stake. I have misgivings about some of the recommendations contained in the goal for committee report. I very much appreciate your all's effort and time and deliberations in coming up with this report. And needless to say, I look forward to continued discussions and deliberations in the weeks ahead. Thank you very much. Thank you. Next is Beth Overman. Hello, I'm Beth Overman, the PDR director, and I'm here on behalf of our program and the Rural Land Management Board. And I do have a handout that I will send. While she's passing it out, I will just say that thank you all for the group's work. I see some of the members here tonight. It was everyone worked hard and the staff. And we have, and the PDR program now has nearly 300 farms conserved permanently and over 31,000 acres. We will be providing our report to you all in a few weeks and talk more about that. But because of that, we obviously have a very vested interest in this plan. We do have concerns because many areas that are considered developable in this plan are adjacent to PDR farms or encompassed PDR farms. So the handout I've given you is from Chapter 26 of the Code of Ordinances, and it is the Board Powers and Duties of the Rural Land Management Board. and if you'll look at number 10 on the first page, it says the Rural Land Management Board shall assist the government in the following areas. B, implementing the specifics of the Rural Service Area Land Management Plan adopted by the Planning Commission of the Urban County Government and C, implementing the specifics of any other plans adopted by the government or the Planning Commission related to the Rural Service Area, such as this plan. And then if you'll go next, the last chapter or the last section of Chapter 26 of the Code of Ordinances provides Planning Commission duties and says, During every five-year update of the comprehensive plan at any other time that the Planning Commission reviews the location of the urban and rural service area boundaries, the Planning Commission shall consider the following matters with regards to the inclusion within the urban service area boundary of any property for which a conservation easement or other interest in land designed to preserve and manage agricultural, rural, and natural lands has been purchased or donated. And so item A says whether the inclusion of the property in the urban service area is consistent with the goals of the Rural Land Management Plan. And C is whether inclusion of the property in the urban service area is likely to have an adverse impact upon properties from which a conservation easement has been purchased under the program or through surrounding farmland. And the key one that we want to ask, we want to point out to you all tonight and ask or we'll make a request to you all is, number two, in reviewing these issues, the Planning Commission shall consult with and receive recommendations from the Rural Land Management Board and other entities holding interest in land designed to preserve and manage agricultural, rural, and natural lands. So we therefore want to request tonight that if this Gulf War workgroup plan is forwarded to the Planning Commission for consideration that language be added, asking that the Rural Land Management Board specifically be consulted and be asked to give input. So that's all. Thank you. Thank you. Next, Andy Johnson. Good evening. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I'm Andy Johnson and I'm here on behalf of Commerce Lexington. You all should have received an email copy of our comments and a hard copy as well. So I'll just briefly summarize the high points for the record this evening. Like others here tonight, we first want to say on behalf of Commerce Lexington, we are very appreciative of the work that's been put into this by the Goal 4 Working Group. I know this was a difficult process. This is a really complex issue. We just want to express our appreciation to the group for what they have done at this point. Commerce Lexington does support this report as an important first step, and we believe it is critical for this process to be included in the comprehensive plan goals and objectives. Additionally, Commerce Lexington strongly encourages the council to continue to work on the growth management plan process to ensure that our community is accurately identifying the areas for growth and preservation and that we're also creating a process that is simple and efficient for expansion in the future when it is appropriate. We also want to make sure that this process does work efficiently to meet community needs for jobs and housing in the future. Our policies and processes for development on land brought into the urban service boundary as well as infill and redevelopment should be less bureaucratic, easy to follow and implement, and make the comprehensive plans, goals, and objectives more achievable rather than less. Additionally, the final thing I'll say is the report also included some additional recommendations for consideration. And so we're just urging the council to look at those and potentially consider those separate from this process. And those include just looking to ensure that city infrastructure related to the provision of urban services is placed in the most efficient and appropriate location, including within the preservation areas. Secondly, just considering allowing parcels designated as potentially developable that are currently split by or contiguous to the urban service area, just considering a process to bring those in. Additionally, authorizing the completion of a new sewerability study separate from this process. We must update that sewerability study, which is currently 15 to 20 years old. It's really important to have that accurate data as this process considers to future decision making. And then finally, we request that the Planning Commission do implement a Zone Ordinance Text Amendment for allowable uses for the Agritech and the Agriculturally Supported Development in Zone C just to further define what that means moving forward. As you all know, it takes a lot of time to get ready to build homes or to have land for job creation. It can take upwards of 10 years for that process to happen. And so it's really important to take this first step now and begin that planning for future generations to come. Thank you. Thank you. Next is John Tucker. My name is John Tucker. I live at 5751 Athens, Walnut Hill Pike. I'm here on behalf of the agricultural community. No matter which direction you grow in or go in, you're going to involve agriculture. And so with that being said, we'd like to have a request for any task force that is put forth that agriculture is represented in one way or another, either by a Farm Bureau representative or a Farm Service Agency farmer in any way that we can to have somebody on that board. We also support the rule management group that somebody from that board should be serving on it. For you all to get a full understanding of what's going on in the community, this board works on that every day. They know what it is, and for you all to get an understanding, they need to be passing along to you all what it's going to take to keep expansion. Expansion's necessary. We understand that. But before you do anything, think about it. The consent decree costs $700 million. I don't think the taxpayers need another 20 years of that. Thank you. Thank you. Next is Blake Hall. My name is Blake Hall. I live in the third district. Overall, I believe this report describes the process of expanding the urban service area that I can agree with. Being able to see an actual development plan lets us consider the pros and cons of expansion. This is significantly better than annexing large swaths of land under the false assumption that it will lead to more affordable housing and instead resulting in speculators sitting the land for decades. I would only ask for three changes or considerations. That there is a requirement for any new development to be contiguous with the urban service area, that we put a limit on how much land can be annexed at any one time, and that the true cost of expansion is weighed properly. The city has spent a lot of time and effort on updating our zoning and regulations to better facilitate connectivity in and in between our neighborhoods. Allowing isolated development would make for worse bike, ped, and transit connectivity and all but require car ownership in these new developments. While I appreciate that multiple plans can be considered at once, potentially allowing different areas of the city to benefit from the new development, I am concerned that we might end up with large monolithic developments or needlessly expand unchecked. A limit on how much land can be annexed at any one time would serve as an important check to ensure that we expand intentionally and only as much as we need to. I also applaud the inclusion of a requirement that new development be fiscally sustainable. Personally, I'd like to see that apply to all new development. But I want to make sure that the metrics for that sustainability are accurate. I've heard members of this council say that we don't build roads developers do. But if you don't have enough new taxpayers to cover the costs of maintaining that road when it comes time to repave or mill, you've just added an expense. This is especially pertinent as we cannot currently afford to maintain our existing roads without borrowing money. Road maintenance is just one example as many government services have their costs scale faster due to area covered rather than people covered. Overall, I think that this is a good starting point. It's much more intentional than previous expansions, but I would hope that you keep those considerations in mind. Thank you. Is there anybody else who did not sign up who wishes to speak? If not, thank you all for being here, and now I'll open the floor for council comments or questions. If you'd sign in, please. Council Member Lamb. Might as well jump in. Thank you, Vice Mayor. And I want to also thank all of the people that were part of this work group. I know it was a big, big task, and I appreciate all the energy and efforts that went through to bring this forward and to be able to bring this forward for some of us that, you know, won't be here next year to be able to listen and have some input on it because this is really important to our community. You know, I've sat through many, many, many, many discussions about expansion. And while I have always been very, very careful about it, I realize that it is inevitable. But this job that you all have done on these recommendations is going to, I think, help us get us closer to the place where I'll feel more comfortable with us to be able to expand and not do it without proper thought process. So I guess some of my questions, I mean, I know that some of the comments today, I really appreciate all the public comments today. But I do want to make sure, and I don't know at what point that it is appropriate to say this or to make sure that this is a part of it. But when it's talking about developing the preservation map and the work group considering the following criteria, it talks about the conservation areas, including PDR. And I think that's the perfect opportunity for involving the Rural Land Management Board. and I'm curious, were they involved in the discussions of the Go4 workgroup? And I don't know who the proper person asked, but Vice Mayor. If Council will allow it, I'd like to answer questions without yielding the chair over and over again. If there's an objection to that. So the answer to that question is no. Okay. The only people who participated in the conversation with, I think, There was one comment that in fact somebody asked Beth Overman to respond to. But outside of that, the only conversation was with the members of the Goal 4 work group. And if I can add a comment to that, part of the thinking was that we understood full well that the work of the Goal 4 work group was an initial recommendation that was going to have to go to the planning commission, which would undoubtedly have public hearings, and then would have to go to the council, which would undoubtedly have public hearings. And so, for better or worse, we wanted to get something nailed down and that's how we proceeded. Okay, well I appreciate that, I do. So I guess as far as it talks about the Urban Service Area Evaluation Task Force being created eventually. As of right now, if I remember correctly, the task force are created by the vice mayor. And so in the future, a task force would be set up by a vice mayor. Is that in the council? Is that your thought on that? I think the way that the report is written, at the point when there is a review committee, the vice mayor would appoint that committee. Okay, that's great, that's great. And then I guess a couple of, one last question. There was a comment about the acres, and I'll be honest, when I read through this and saw the 27,000 acres, that was startling to me to think, oh my gosh. But I realize that you have to have a starting point. I get that. I'm not negative nanny over here. But I was curious as to the number of acres that were added between October 26th and November 10th. Because I did not watch the meetings, nor did I go back, I'm admittingly saying this, I did not read the summaries or anything. How was it that acres were added? I mean, how was that? All the decisions about what land was to be included and not included was done by consensus. So if someone had a proposal for adding or subtracting, that proposal was discussed by the work group. And if there was consensus, it was approved. That's essentially what happened with the land that got added at the last meeting. It's the process that we use for designating Area C as different from the rest of the land. There was some land, some small parcels out, I want to say along Winchester. No, I'm talking about going north. Anyway, there were some small parcels that were added. People looked at the map and they said, it kind of makes sense to add this because of where it is situated. They were mostly small. But anyway, the process was the same for all of those decisions. Okay, all right, I appreciate it. And I will at some point go back, and I know my time's up, but I appreciate your answering these questions. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Reynolds. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I'm going to ask some questions. So first of all, we have to all acknowledge that it's going to be impossible to come to a decision that everybody is happy with and And that we're looking for something that we can all live with, but that it might not make everyone happy. But when we're looking at this map, I just have a few questions about, there's some areas that are in orange for, and it says agri-tech and agricultural supportive development only. Can you go into, somebody from the group, go into more detail about that and what that means? So I'm going to take a first shot at it and then I'll ask the other people who served. But Area C has some of the most fertile land in the entire county. And that was a consideration in thinking about the best use of that land. It's also presently the location of the horse park, of some parts of the university land, and some already, I guess you consider them commercial activities that are equine related. I think there's a major veterinarian facility out there. So when you looked at that map, there were some questions about whether it needed to be treated separately and differently. And the conclusion was if there's to be any development there, it should be solely related to agricultural activity. And in addition, the condition was set that that land that is designated for development in Area C, a proposal can be made to bring some of that land in before we do anything. any need identification. So that land right now, if someone has a proposal for the use of it that is consistent with the criteria that have been set out, they would be able to make that recommendation. Just in that area. And so the- Let me, Kathy, do you want to add? Yes. Council Member Plowman. Thank you, Vice Mayor, and thank you, Council Member Reynolds, for asking that. I was able to bring that forward and as Vice Mayor Kay explained, it was consensus. And I was very appreciative of the work group looking at that area because it is very unique. Just like you would have a business park. This is for the ag community, a very, very special rural area. The soil is the best in our county. You already have entities out there, such as UK's farm, such as you've stock yards, such as Spy Coast. Then you've also got a veterinarian clinic that's known worldwide. So that's a cluster that already exists, so it made sense to look at it differently. And so bringing in egg supportive businesses to support those entities that are out there, or I should say align on a very similar, was something that we all looked at and we took very serious. And we earmarked it to be treated differently. And I think that was the right thing to do. Okay, and just so everybody's clear, what's in the blue on C, that's already state owned property. That's correct. Okay, so that limits what's there anyway, right? Okay. And then out Versales Road and near Parker's Mill and Military Pike. Those were other areas that were recommended for development, correct? Yes. Okay, I was just curious about that because I know the area out there pretty well. So, okay, well that answers all my questions for the moment. Thank you so much and thank you for all your work on this for this group. not envy the work it's hard work so thank you great thank you uh council member allenger uh thank you vice mayor and i did attend a few of the meetings and i want to thank all the people who did because it was a prairie labore's um meetings and was got really down in the weeds so to speak and i guess what i'd like to know is look kind of from an overview what is our process going forward where where do we stand what are we going to be doing with this and how does that go with the comprehensive plan and our goals and objectives and how is this going to fit into that? And you talked about having hearings and I just want to know first from that perspective and then get a little more deeper into this. Okay, so starting with tonight, we'll take no action. But I will bring forward a resolution on Tuesday to place on the docket consideration of approval of the Go 4 report. That, to be clear, will have no standing in law. It's simply council expressing his support, if council is willing to do that. The report has already been forwarded to the Planning Commission for their information. The next step is for the planning commission to do what it usually does, which is to develop a set of recommendations about the goals and objectives for the 2023 comprehensive plan. So they will look at our report, I hope. Our recommendation says to incorporate the details of the report in the language that we're suggesting is appropriate for the new goal three, to replace goal three and four. The planning commission will, I believe, have public hearings as they always do when they're considering what recommendation to make to council for the goals and objectives. They will then make a recommendation and they will either adopt what we have suggested or they will adopt what we have suggested with modifications. So they may choose to accept the language but say as amended and they may choose to modify some of the details. Or they may reject the report in its entirety and they may construct their own set of goals and objectives for what now is goals three and four in the theme. So from here, a resolution for council, which I will ask to place on the docket that basically says we approve of the report as submitted. The planning commission will do whatever it needs to do, and their main job is to create the goals and objectives for the new comp plan. When they have done their work, they will forward that to council, and as is always the case, council will then either accept the recommendations for all of the goals and objectives or they will modify one or more of those goals and objectives. So we have a long way to go. And council has always had hearings before it adopts the goals and objectives. I won't be here, but I expect that the council will do exactly that at some point. So this will be after the first of the year. Okay, because that's what I thought. But I had kind of a misunderstanding that we wanted to get this done before this council was out and I didn't see how that was going to happen. So I just, that helps clarify. And now getting into this goal, it's a new process. Is there somebody who can actually talk about the process or do you want to speak on that or do we want to ask the planning staff to speak on? Because when we've looked at potentially expanding and we did in 96, we actually put the acres that we were going to spend. Now we're going to be looking at an RFP, I guess, and how is that process because that's a whole different new system that we're going to be going forward in that. Can you speak on that or can I ask somebody to speak on that? Let me take a first crack at it. So it's laid out in great detail in the report and it was summarized in the presentation. But essentially the difference is that there's a three or four step process. The first step would be to convene a group that looks at whether there is a need for additional land in the urban service area. If that group determines and there's process for approval from the planning commission and the council. If the final decision is yes, we need more land in order to meet the identified need, then a set of criteria would be established by a different group, outlining what would have to be contained in any proposal for development of land outside the urban service area. So if, for example, the need, as it was determined to be, we need a mixed use development that includes x percentage of housing, the next percentage of retail, perhaps some office buildings, whatever. That would all be detailed. And any owner of land in the areas that's been designated as potentially developable would be able to put forth a proposal that is essentially a zone change amendment. And each, so we might say we need 3,000 acres. So if you're interested, you can put a proposal in that says, I can provide 1,000 of those acres and I meet all of the criteria. And here's my proposal, which is an actual application for a zone change. Then each of those applications would be reviewed in the normal process by the Planning Commission. Each one of those would be treated as a zone change amendment. The planning commission would do whatever it needs to do, yes or no. Yes with modifications, it would then make, as it always does, it would forward their decision to the council. The council would most likely have hearings on each of the proposals and make a determination on each of the proposals. And that would be it. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I see my time's up, I might have some more questions, I'll maybe get back on the list. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Claiborne. Thank you, Vice Mayor. First, I'd like to say I'm very impressed with the map that you guys put together. I know that in the 2018 comprehensive plan, that was one of the big requests was let's identify this. And I think you did a great job and took into consideration pretty much all the factors that we should in making these kind of decisions. The second half of that was also to identify triggers, and it appears that in the recommendation, We've moved away from establishing those concrete triggers into allowing more discretion so that the stakeholders in this task force have the ability to deal with things at the time. Is that a fair assessment? So I guess a couple questions to that. The first one is we just had a big conversation about redistricting. And in that conversation, we talked about the instructions given to a task force beforehand by council. Is there an understanding or something in this document that the same kind of thing would happen from council with this task force, outlining what are the present day needs that we have that we want you to give certain weights to in that discussion? There would be direction. It would not come specifically from council. Would that be, there would be direction coming from, I'm sorry, from where would that come from? Initially, a joint council and planning commission effort. Okay. I always have some concerns when we take responsibilities away from the elected officials, especially when we're elected to represent and put it in the hands of someone else. I might want to ask us to look at that, to maybe have something where it is that kind of direction ahead of time, where as the task force is being empowered, the council does have a say in the kind of things or the kind of data we want to give weights to. Just a suggestion to throw out there now for consideration. The second question was, how do we land on 2026? I know that this was asked for in 2018. It's been a process. We're getting to this and it takes a while, but where did we land on not needing to reevaluate it until 2026? the main reason for that number was to get it off cycle from the from the update of the comprehensive plan and that's and that does that so we're in 2023 we might i mean we're in 2022 but we're going to be in 2023 the likelihood is that the new plan will be approved in 2023 the next effort on that would be 2028. So if we're aiming at 2026, starting it to get ready and hopefully to make a determination in 2026 would keep it off cycle from the update. And then also, I guess, give it enough time where all the data from that could be incorporated into the next plan, which takes more than a year to get done. Well, thank you for that. The one comment I had about trying to get that instruction out there is the one I'll stand with, but overall, I think you guys did an amazing job and put this together, so thank you. Thank you. Council Member Wally. Thank you, Vice Mayor. So, am I to understand as I read this that there will be an Urban Services Area Evaluation Task Force that would be charged with identifying a need to expand for a particular purpose. Is that correct? Yes, sir. And so, my question then is how will that need evaluation be initiated? Is that only within that task force? Can an applicant initiate that? Could the planning commission or could this council? Because most zoning issues have several different avenues to be initiated. And so I guess that's my question of how will that need evaluation come to pass? Well, at this point, the notion is that before 2026, the mayor and the council would in fact appoint this body to evaluate need. But there is no specific trigger, and there is no, right now, the way it's phrased, there's no opportunity for individual landowners to basically move that process forward. Now, having said that, I think everybody on council understands, and maybe the public does or does not, council has wide prerogatives. And so, if the council, aside from all of this, felt the need to convene that group sooner rather than later, council could undoubtedly do that. Thank you. So I think while that certainly gives deference to diligence, which I think is appropriate with this discussion, I do have concerns that it's overly limiting to establish a group that, while maybe not necessarily all elected officials, will in and of itself be political, and that then that group will be making the same determination that is otherwise made in the Comprehensive Plan discussion. Now, I'll be away from the comprehensive plan. And so it kind of takes, in my mind, it takes away some market-driven process that I think needs to be a part of our expansion of land. I think if you only establish what one group says a place should be, then you basically are just making that particular land more valuable and not paying homage to what the community and the market actually shows. And I think when you have a process that, to me, while I think this is a great, great first, maybe second, even third step, this still seems laborious to me in a process which translates to expensive, which translates to not alleviating strains on housing affordability and job creation. I still see those same issues there. The process to me is still somewhat stagnant and not making the move as far as we need to make it. That being said, this report is fantastic. The work is fantastic. I want to particularly note that the growth areas identified match current and future plan transportation, sewer, and economic development improvements that the community is already seeing. So I think there's obviously intentionality given to those areas. And then I think the Area C, I know I have seen, and I agree with Commerce Lex, that we should get a Zota in place to what that agri-tech and agri-business might mean. But that area is prime for that work. There are so many people who want to do work to service the horse park and to service that community right there off the interstate, but they're not able to because our current ag zoning requires 40-acre tracks and very limited uses. So I think that's a great identification there. All by way of saying, question criticized, but I do think that this is a good work. So thank you. Great, thank you. Council Member Baxter. Thank you, Vice Mayor, and thank you to the work group for, like Council Member Worley said, it's amazing work. Very impressive. I was wondering if Director Duncan might give us his take on their role in the process. Because like Council Member Worley said, I feel like we have really good second, third, fourth steps. But how we get, like what the impetus is for actually, is he, could you come and chat with us if that's okay? Is that okay if he comes and chats with us? If the director is willing to add a comment or answer a question, certainly. He might be sitting back there. Because I know, you know, step one of the process says the planning staff will oversee annual review and update of the data set included in the report of the Sustainable Development Task Force, which I think is Stantec's like yearly update that they'll be giving us, correct? Yes. Okay, so could you kind of just give me a summary of how you expect this to go from your viewpoint? Because I just, I feel like we are, we have a really good process on down the line, but we need to know, like, what that trigger is. Well, thank you, Council Member Baxter. I believe that, I would like to preface that by saying we still believe there's work to be done on this report. So this is an outstanding foundation, and as many of you have said, this takes us much further than we've been before. But with that, there's more work to do. So that will be our first task with the Planning Commission this winter, is to sort this out, find where the disconnected tissue is, and try to fill things out. Take the comments, certainly, that have been made, and put that together so that we feel like that we can then present, through the comprehensive plan, a well-informed and a well-balanced report that will then guide these kinds of decisions. We think that certainly keeping an updated, robust data set is extremely important to helping us make this. So that's why we're looking forward to continuing that relationship with Stantec and keeping, or like that, and keeping that data updated, which will go a long way then to informing these other task forces and other groups that will be making these decisions. So while I don't think this is ready to jump out of the gate immediately, I think after some time and after we sort of get our rhythm with this, that we can make this work into a very good process that will address the needs of the community, preservation and expansion and growth, with data that people can understand and believe. Whether they like what happens, they can at least understand why the decisions are being made and agree that the data are there to support those decisions. Thank you so much. That helps a lot. So I guess I'll just wrap up with my thoughts. I feel like, I do feel like we do have a lot of work left to do on this project or on this particular issue. I feel like as long as we stay data driven, that it will work well. My concern is, similar to Council Member Worley, is the task group that's put together to evaluate the data set that is brought before us and how that remains unbiased and intentional, I guess would be the right way to say it. So I look forward to further conversations and just in general clarifications. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Fred Brown. Thank you Vice Mayor. I want to commend those who are on the task force. This is a good step forward I think for the future of Fayette County. And I'm always supportive of plans and planning and things in place and make sure everybody gets seated at the table. In your process that you looked at, I was just curious about what you all did with the ED, that's the economic development. There's four or five parcels in Fayette County that are already designated. Did you all take those into consideration? And I know they're not shown on this map, but they're certainly part of the planning process. Well, they're inside the urban service boundary, and we did not do anything with any land that's inside the urban service boundary. All the ED is inside the? Yes, sir. Okay. I thought there was some outside, but it's all inside, so okay. That's fine. That answers my question. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Legree. Thank you, Vice Mayor, and thank you to everyone who worked really hard on this. I know it was a pretty intensive process that involved a lot of dialogue and compromise and consensus. This may be getting a little down into the details because it's in the 20 page report. And I know that wasn't presented on the screen today. But I do have a question that you may be able to answer about the process. Once a need is determined and then proposals can be input in order to meet that described need, what would that look like if there were multiple proposals in different parts of the gray area on the map that could potentially meet those needs? In what order would those proposals be assessed? So what would that look like in practice and how much do we need to talk about that now if it's also going to be discussed with the planning commission? Well, so the process is designed for there to be multiple proposals and for the zone change amendment process to sort out one or more of those to be approved. So there's a goal for how much land and ideally there'd be a goal for what the use of that land would be. And then proposal would be submitted to meet that need. And if there's multiple proposals, they'll have to be balanced against one another. Okay, so they would all have to be balanced against one another. If they were all received within the same time frame and then contingent upon whether or not they were successful in the zone change process. Is that accurate? The way that the process is envisioned is each individual application would be evaluated on its merits and approved or not approved to be included. Okay, so even though they'd be meeting the same need, they wouldn't be evaluated against each other just individually. But in relation to that need, I know that this is getting down. These are just the types of questions I had about what would this look like in practice while we're discussing it theoretically now. Because I feel as though this will come up repeatedly and I want to make sure I understand what the actuality would look like as zone change processes would occur as well. Vice Mayor, you want me to try to weigh in to help? So I think part of this is a template or a framework that still needs to be flushed out with the help of planning staff and the planning commission. And I think during our discussion in the work group, we talked about a process similar to the subdivision review committee. That they would weigh these proposals up against each other based off of metrics or information in regards to the infrastructure that exists, how contiguous it is to the existing boundary, and other factors, and have some kind of approval or disapproval from the staff or from the group for it to move forward. And then I think by setting it up for a zone map amendment, based off of how it came out of this review process, they can continue to pursue that process in regards to their proposal. So I think it's still something that has to be completely flushed out, But I think we have similar processes in place that we can model from as we build this process going forward. So I hope that helps. That does help. And I guess my question was also about are they weighed against each other, are they weighed individually? But it sounds like we still need to work through the process. I think it's fair to say that they will be compared amongst one another. But I think they would all stand individually on their own merits. Okay, thank you. Yeah, I would add that in the discussion about this process, there was a strong interest in not having simply a competitive process that would then have to be, each of the proposals would be evaluated against all of the other proposals. In the final instant, the interest was having each proposal stand on its own merits and essentially avoid what we didn't avoid with the 1996 expansion, which was to expand and then have developers have to go through a separate process for zone change amendments. This would basically collapse those two processes, and it's unusual. And I think there's a question about how you balance if you have competing proposals, what does that really mean in terms of the process? I think what Council Member Brown said about the review committee, it's parallel to the process now. In the Planning Commission, there are subcommittees. There's a technical committee. The technical committee reviews first in interaction with the developer. Then the subcommittee does that. And so when it comes forward to Planning Commission, it's been vetted. So we have to assume that a similar process would take place and that we would not, what we'd end up with was individual proposals that would then be judged on our own merits. Okay. I'm out of time, but thank you very much. That was helpful. Thanks. Thank you. Council Member Sheehan. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I also want to thank everyone who was on this task force and who participated in this work, including our council members. While I was not serving in this work group, I attended all the meetings so that I could follow along with the conversation, because this is one of the most important things we do and review. I appreciated that in the task force and on the work group meetings and in the discussion, um varied perspectives were represented within the group including economic development law agriculture development in general so those voices were in the room um and and the deliberation that happened in that group i think was um it reflected the realities of the conversations that we're having out in the community and that people are presenting to us. So I appreciated that part of this work. Because I listened to the reasoning of how this went, I don't have any particular questions today, but what I would like to support is moving forward with the things that we can do on council while this is going through the planning commission and the rest of the public feedback process along with our comp plan. But in the additional work group recommendations on page 12, we could move forward with working on making our infrastructure process more efficient. We could work on a new sororability study, updating the rural area master plan, requesting that the ZODA for defining agri-tech and agricultural supportive development, those pieces move forward. So I'm going to defer to the council members who served in this work group on how the next step for that But on Tuesday, I would like to see at least some of these either be placed in committee or us start to take some action on these pieces that we can work on now. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Lamb, I'm going to go to Councilmember Maloney, who has not spoken yet. Councilmember Maloney. Thank you. I, too, commend you all for all the hard work you all did on this. And it's a lot better than it was in 1996. I do have a couple concerns that came up in the discussion. One was the marketing. When we first, when you got your committee put together, they would sit around and evaluate it's time for us to span the boundaries or do something. When I'm sitting, who the marketing is going to be the people that are the developers or homeowners and all that? Are they just going to go complain to the council members and say, we need property? And the council or this committee is going to come out and say it's time for us to look at this and expand it because of these reasons. So is that where the marketing is going to come from? The council getting complaints from the developers saying we need more land and we want to do this area here and we ask that you all go on to the next phase. Is that your recommendation? I think the recommendation is to update the data about need on an annual basis and then off cycle from the comprehensive plan, determine whether there's sufficient need at that point to meet one or more of the specific kinds of needs. And as a result, to open up the process to bring more land into the urban service area. Okay, good, I appreciate that. Now, my next question is, and I've done a lot of these competing for, like let's get down to the phase that the council member was talking about. You're going to set out a piece of land for 1,000 acres. Is everybody going to know how many points they get if they put this affordable housing in here or this kind of business? Well, they all know because how are you going to know what's the best value for them to get what they want? points where everybody know that the points are going to be there to do that because if that's true everybody's going to come in with the same process to me because everybody's going to go for the most points and we're going to be sitting here with five people tied and I mean I've been in that situation before and I've got with non-profits when we competed for these kind of things I mean not this but similar grading like this If they all have the same score, because everybody's going to go for the high score, and they all get the same score. My question then becomes, if that committee is going to have to pick, what knowledge do they have on each one of these five, four groups? Because this is really going to be the first time anybody's ever done anything like this to bid on something like this. So are they going to use the past experience performance that we've had with their development over the years, that they're going to get more points? Or are we going to use, I mean, if it all came in tied, I'm guaranteed they're all going to come in with the highest points. They're all going to be real close door tied. So I just want to know how you get around that curve to pick who gets it. Because everybody's going to try to get the most points. It's a point system. I just want to know who's going to decide that. And why and how does that committee have the expertise to say this group gets it over, even though they're all tied, this group gets it before somebody else gets it? And if it does, it becomes a mess because then we're talking about lawsuits. And we don't want to get in that situation. We've been in that situation. We've gotten in trouble with that. I just want to be sure to understand how you're going to fix that problem because I guarantee people are going to come in with the same scores. I'm not exactly sure how to answer that because it's a little bit speculative about what we might encounter. But the way the process is set up, there's a set of criteria, and there's a group put together that's supposed to be a mix of people who have technical ability and development experience and so on. Their job will be to evaluate each of the proposals according to the criteria that have been set up. They may want to use a numerical scoring system. I have no idea at this point, but I'm not sure we can set up a process that will avoid all problems. I've seen this happen. I'm just wondering, I hope you all fix that problem before it comes, because I guarantee you everybody who applies for that are going to probably come in with the same score, close to the same score and if that happens you better have a plan to back it up because we'll all be sitting here in trouble because everybody can compete for the most points thank you thank thank you let me recognize council member lamb i'd like if possible the people who are on the work group would like to have I was just trying to be respectful of those that hadn't spoken because that's what we normally do. And mine is very simple and quick. As respect to the Urban Service Area Evaluation Task Force, I feel the need to say this. I know that we are, I understand that there's summary is being taken for this meeting today. And so I would like to, for the record, I would like for it to be stated for the future council and the administration involved in setting up the task force that they take strong suggestion that we include, they include someone from the Rural Land Management Board in that task force. And I say that on the record because I just feel like that is very important to make sure that they're included in that process. And so thank you so much. Thank you. Council Member Bledsoe. Thank you, Vice Mayor. And thank you for all of your chimed in comments. And so I'll just give a few thoughts as a member of the subcommittee. One, this was a hard task. And this committee took this very seriously. We spent most of the summer, two hours a week, most of the fall together. And I feel like it was a little bit of a family. We were very honest, very candid, very open. I think the discussion was worthy of the debate and the seriousness of the issue. That's what I'll say. And I really appreciate that because it takes that to take all the issues into effect and into consideration. And I'm proud of the work that we've done. One, I think the task force is a representation of if you were a council member, you felt like the council should make the final decision. If you were a planning commissioner, you felt like the planning commission should make the final decision. And if you were someone else in the room, you felt like you should have a piece, too. So this kind of represents a little bit of a compromise on trying to figure out how do we represent the community well. That's one piece. Two, Councilman William, I appreciate the land conversation, which we went around the city at least twice, maybe three times. And at the end of the day, kind of said, so we discussed everything. And someone may have said, hey, this wasn't a motion before, but I feel like we need to discuss it and put it last minute. So it wasn't a last minute decision. It had been discussed previously, but I think the thought was it's easier to condense the option than to expand the option. So from my perspective, and this is mine only, I think the group felt like it was easier to have a more open perspective now that was more narrowed as it moved forward than a more narrowed perspective that tried to be expanded, if that made sense. And so I think there were some properties that were probably on the border that were included for discussion because for consistency or for discussion, we moved it forward. Not because we thought it was maybe the best option, if you will. And I think that the process will show that as it moves. And I feel a lot of trust in that process. And then the discussion on the last, on the suitability discussion, and Council Member Sheehan, you're exactly right. So one of the things that I think no matter where you sit on that table, you agreed, and I think Gloria Martin, former council member and chair of the Roland Management Board, feels very strongly about, is the sewability study. Director Martin is here. I will not put him on the spot, but we spent a lot of time talking about sewability, a lot of time. And there are some economic as well as topography, geographical considerations about our sewable options that he has put off because they were outside the boundary. And so what made fiscal sense, what made topographical sense, what made economic sense, he has waited on as we've had this conversation. And so I think that has to move forward immediately. I don't think we need to wait on that. So on Tuesday, I'll bring forward a motion to pay for this through the restricted funds, which would be applicable and appropriate, to move a suitability study forward. It will probably take six months to do so. So as the planning commission is doing their work before it comes to council, they can be doing that work. And I think that will be really important as we move forward to make sure that we're being wise with the taxpayer dollars, as well as making sense of what makes sense to have sewers where it doesn't. Those are two really big pieces for everyone. So I'll do that on Tuesday because I think that's really important to move forward. And it's about a $400,000 ask, so just keep that in mind. Again, we have that money in restricted funds as well as in the fund balance. So we'll figure out before Tuesday where to pull it all from. But I think that sends an important signal to the community that we're serious about this. We're serious about being wise. We're serious about making fiscal sense for our community and being a good stewards of development, which, quite frankly, even if we don't expand, we need to discuss today. There are some – as infill has moved up, the pressure on our sewers has continued. Whether we expand or not, the impact has gone up considerably. And so this is an important step to maintain current business as well as any other consideration moving forward. So I'm really pleased with the work we've done so far. And I'm like you. I wish we could be here to see it all the way through. But I feel like we're making good steps to be wise and thoughtful and good stewards. And I'm proud of that. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member James Brown. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you, Mayor, and thank you, Council Members, for sharing your concerns and comments in regards to this process. Let me start by thanking the Sustainable Growth Task Force. I think they got us started down this road, and hopefully this Go4 group picked up and continue to move the ball forward, so to speak. And thank you for everybody that was part of the work group. It was a lot of time and a lot of dedication, and a lot of good conversations, open and honest, about the future of our city. And then our staff, thank you to the planning staff, even Jennifer, thanks for corralling us and keeping us going. And then the folks in GIS, being able to see the information in real time on screen on a map was very helpful and useful to us going forward. And Charlie, I know we had you probably at our meeting three times, but we needed you at our meeting three times. Sewerability was one of the things that we focused on when we looked at and helped us create this map. but it wasn't the only factors. I mean, soil quality, we talked about soil quality and the importance of it several times. And other things, we talked about buffering in regards to the PDR farms and how that needs to be addressed and how we think about growth in our development moving forward. One of the most important things I thought that got brought up during the whole process is not all development is housing or jobs. There's other type of developments that support our agricultural area. So anytime you hear development, it's not always something negative. So I just think we've got to work to change the thought on that when we're talking about growth. The joint decision-making process, I really was opposed to it at first. I think if we could streamline the process, let the Planning Commission do its work, send the recommendation to council, then we can move this forward. But I backtracked and we got to consensus on the joint decision making process. Because I think this is an opportunity for us to bring other stakeholders into the conversation. And share their thoughts and input about what they want Lexington to be and what our community means to them. So I can get behind that. To Councilmember Worley's question about market forces. I shared those concerns early on in the process. The market is the market, and we don't want to, I don't think it's our job to hinder market forces. I think government can be in a position to help guide them and to help the market do what the market's going to do. And I think that opportunity still exists somehow, some way in this process. Anybody in the county at any time can submit a zone change application. they can do that now and they can get shot down i think what we did with this map and hopefully with this process is give other opportunities for folks to submit applications in look to justify on the grounds of what this new process looks like and whether or not that need is really not being addressed i think we can uh... set up put a system in place that actually can to have that conversation in a productive way and allow the market to steal thrive or push push demand can push the need the other thing i'll say and i think it's important it came out of this conversation is the small area plan uh... thought process to look at infrastructure we didn't talk much about it today but hopefully with the planning commission's guidance in the stand the staff uh... working in conjunction maybe we can identify some areas where we can go ahead and look at smaller area plans not in the historical sense of getting down in the weeds but maybe the ten thousand foot view about connectability where infrastructure exists what uh... after we do the serability study where that infrastructure may already be in place to help guide what development and growth looks like in our community based off of the map and then the other thing that we talked about not think it's going to be important is updating that data set annually and talking about real world real world in real time implications of what happens with zone changes as zone changes coming down and we looked at it's about neighborhoods that they don't pass and we don't create the housing in the infill areas that uh... we need to and we need to look for opportunities to address housing affordability i think that will help guide us in having those conversations Available and opportunities don't always mean we get what we need in this community. And I think having that information updated on an annual basis will help guide us. So thank you. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you. Council Member Plowman. There we go. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Obviously, everything that we've been talking about is in the 12th District. And I've kind of kid this. Some of the folks, I'm sitting here watching my district and what's going on. and it was a little worrisome, but I will tell you that there was a great deal of sensitivity to our agricultural. We must have said the egg word every meeting 20, 30 times and buffers. And so I felt good about it, but this is not done. And I think we all need to remember that. There's a lot of checks and balances on the way, and there's opportunity. Now it goes to the Planning Commission, then it comes to us, and we can still work on this. What I do like about it, first of all, always remember this is if and when. If and when. It's not like we're doing this right now. It's if and when. And it's a proactive approach that makes a statement to our community that says, yes, we will grow someday. But at least we have a plan in place that is out there, it's shared, and there's disclosure on it. So I think that, I just want you to know that since it is all in the 12th, that this was not thrown together. There was so much thought and sensitivity put in to where we are. Know that it will change, probably. There's going to be input on this. And again, remember, if and when, and what a statement that makes, if and when, and we've got a direction. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you. I see nobody else signed up to speak. I want to thank again all the members of the work group, our staff, all of you who came tonight with your comments, other people who may have weighed in along the way. We have a ways to go. Again, just to reiterate, I will put a proposal. It's my allergies. I'm not just choked up here. I'll put a resolution, a proposal for resolution before Council on the work session on Tuesday, and that's simply to say that they approve in general of the plan. It's already gone to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission will do its work. It will make recommendations to the Council. The Council will do its work. And hopefully at the end of all of that, what we have is what we hoped we would have. And that is a plan that says to the community, here's the long range notion of what this community is going to look like. We've identified a fair amount of land. By some estimates, the amount of land that's been identified, if it were all developed, it would take 100 years. And in the meantime, the rest of that land has been preserved. And that hopefully people will think that what we've put together is as fair a process as possible, and as efficient a proposal as possible, as efficient a process as possible. And of course we'll see. But hopefully, when people look at the map itself, what they see is that we have a long range vision which maintains Fayette County as primarily rural. So with that, unless anybody has a further comment, I'll entertain a motion to adjourn. Second. Motion and a second. Without objection, we stand adjourned. Thank you all. Thank you.