# Council Work Session - June 27, 2023 > Auto-transcribed civic record · June 27, 2023 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/5855 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/5855?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2023-06-27 - **Last revised**: June 27, 2023 - **Length**: 22,900 words - **Speakers**: Chair > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed with OpenAI's open-source Whisper large-v3-turbo model, run locally by The Lexington Times. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude. Verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Lexington-Fayette Urban County Council convened on June 27, 2023, at 3:00 PM in the Council Chamber in Lexington, Kentucky, with Mayor Linda Gorton presiding. The meeting addressed two primary agenda items, including the approval of a Short-term Rental Ordinance and an informational presentation on the Planning and Development Approval Process Study. Council members conducted two formal votes during the session and heard from two members of the public during the comment period. The meeting resulted in the passage of new regulations governing short-term rentals in the community, while also providing council members with updated information on development processes within the urban county. ## Attendance All council members were present for the June 27, 2023 meeting. **Present:** • Mayor Linda Gorton • Vice Mayor Dan Wu • Council Member James Brown • Council Member Chuck Ellinger • Council Member Hannah LeGris • Council Member Liz Sheehan • Council Member Preston Worley • Council Member Fred Brown • Council Member Whitney Baxter • Council Member Jennifer Reynolds • Council Member Kathy Plomin • Council Member Tayna Fogle • Council Member Shayla Lynch • Council Member Brenda Monarrez • Council Member Denise Gray • Council Member Dave Sevigny **Absent:** None **Late:** None ## Votes and Decisions The council took two unanimous votes on amendments to the short-term rental zoning ordinance during the meeting. **Amendment to Planning Commission's Short-Term Rental Ordinance** [timestamp: 01:30] Council Member James Brown motioned to amend the planning commission's recommended short-term rental zoning ordinance text amendment, with Council Member Liz Sheehan providing the second. The motion passed unanimously by voice vote with 14 ayes and 0 nays. All council members present voted in favor: Vice Mayor Dan Wu, Council Member James Brown, Council Member Hannah LeGris, Council Member Liz Sheehan, Council Member Preston Worley, Council Member Fred Brown, Council Member Whitney Baxter, Council Member Jennifer Reynolds, Council Member Kathy Plomin, Council Member Tayna Fogle, Council Member Shayla Lynch, Council Member Brenda Monarrez, Council Member Denise Gray, and Council Member Dave Sevigny. **Amendment to Section 13-77-b-5** [timestamp: 02:15] Council Member Liz Sheehan motioned to amend section 13-77-b-5 of the short-term rental ordinance, with Council Member James Brown seconding the motion. This amendment also passed unanimously by voice vote with 14 ayes and 0 nays. The same 14 council members who voted on the first motion all voted in favor of this amendment as well. Both votes demonstrated complete council consensus on the proposed changes to the short-term rental regulations, with no opposition or abstentions recorded for either motion. ## Budget and Financial Actions The meeting addressed two significant financial items totaling over $884,000 in expenditures and contracts. **County Road Aid Appropriation** The council approved Resolution 0663-23, appropriating $812,955.10 to the Fayette Fiscal Court for County Road Aid projects in the Rural Service Area. This substantial appropriation represents the largest financial action of the meeting and will fund road infrastructure improvements in rural portions of the county. **Engineering Services Contract** Resolution 0664-23 authorized a contract with Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. for $71,737.00 to provide engineering services for the Furlong Drive Greenway BMP (Best Management Practices) Project. This contract supports environmental infrastructure development as part of the city's greenway system expansion. The combined financial commitments of $884,692.10 reflect ongoing investments in both rural road maintenance and urban environmental infrastructure projects within the jurisdiction. ## Public Comment Two speakers addressed the board during the public comment period, both focusing on concerns regarding the proposed short-term rental ordinance. **Crist** [timestamp: 00:10] expressed opposition to the proposed short-term rental ordinance, arguing that it is poorly written and could negatively impact existing legal short-term rental operations. Crist raised concerns about the potential harm the ordinance could cause to property owners who are currently operating short-term rentals within legal parameters. **Gary Cheddester** [timestamp: 00:15] also spoke about the short-term rental ordinance, specifically requesting that children be excluded from occupancy count calculations. Cheddester argued that larger homes have the capacity to accommodate more adults, and that including children in occupancy limits may unnecessarily restrict the use of these properties. Both speakers focused their comments on technical aspects of the proposed short-term rental regulations, highlighting concerns about how the ordinance would affect property owners and the practical implementation of occupancy restrictions. ## Contested Items The primary contested item during the June 27, 2023 meeting was the proposed short-term rental ordinance, which drew significant community opposition. **Short-term Rental Ordinance** Several community members voiced concerns about the proposed short-term rental ordinance during the public comment period. The opposition centered on two main issues: potential negative impacts on existing rental properties and concerns about how the ordinance might affect neighborhood dynamics. Community members who spoke against the ordinance expressed worry that the new regulations could harm current short-term rental operators and potentially disrupt the character of their neighborhoods. The specific details of their concerns regarding existing rentals and neighborhood impacts were not elaborated upon in the available meeting materials. The outcome of this contested item was not specified in the provided information, leaving unclear whether the council took action on the ordinance or deferred the matter for further consideration. *Note: Specific transcript timestamps are not available for this meeting summary.* ## Short-term Rental Ordinance [timestamp: 01:00] The council discussed a proposed short-term rental ordinance that would establish new regulations for vacation rental properties within the city limits. Council Member James Brown presented the ordinance, which includes amendments to occupancy limits and licensing requirements for short-term rental operators. The proposed regulations would require property owners to obtain proper licensing before operating vacation rentals and would establish specific occupancy limits based on property size and type. Council Member Liz Sheehan participated in the discussion regarding the ordinance's provisions. The debate centered on balancing the needs of property owners who operate short-term rentals as a source of income with concerns about neighborhood impacts and housing availability for long-term residents. Key components of the ordinance include: • Mandatory licensing requirements for all short-term rental operators • Revised occupancy limits based on property specifications • Enhanced oversight and enforcement mechanisms The council ultimately approved the short-term rental ordinance, establishing the new regulatory framework for vacation rental properties. The approved ordinance will require existing short-term rental operators to comply with the new licensing requirements and occupancy restrictions within a specified timeframe. This regulatory action represents the city's effort to create a structured approach to managing short-term rentals while addressing community concerns about their impact on residential neighborhoods and local housing markets. ## Planning and Development Approval Process Study [timestamp: 03:00] Philip Walker presented recommendations for improving the city's planning and development approval process during this informational presentation. The study focused on identifying ways to streamline procedures and enhance efficiency for development projects within the municipality. Walker's presentation highlighted two primary recommendations emerging from the study: • **Streamlining infill development processes** - The study identified opportunities to reduce bureaucratic barriers and expedite approval timelines for infill development projects, which are typically smaller-scale developments that fill in vacant or underutilized parcels within existing neighborhoods. • **Establishing a development liaison position** - The recommendation includes creating a dedicated staff position to serve as a single point of contact for developers navigating the approval process, aimed at improving communication and coordination between applicants and city departments. The presentation was delivered as an informational item, meaning no formal action was required from the governing body at this meeting. The study appears to be part of ongoing efforts to evaluate and improve municipal processes related to planning and development approvals. The recommendations suggest a focus on both procedural improvements and staffing solutions to address potential inefficiencies in the current system. By streamlining infill development specifically, the city appears to be targeting a development type that can contribute to urban density and efficient land use while potentially facing fewer regulatory hurdles than larger-scale projects. No specific timeline for implementation or additional details about the study methodology were noted in the available information from this presentation. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approve Requested Rezonings/ Docket Approval - **Motion** — passed (0-0): amend the Planning Commission’s Recommended Short Term Rental Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment to change the use of Hosted Short Term Rentals (occupancy greater than 12) from Conditional to Accessory, and the use of Un- Hosted Short Term Rentals from Conditional to Principal, in B-1, P-1, MU-1, MU-2, and MU-3 zones - **Motion** — passed (3-13): amend the Planning Commission’s Recommended Short Term Rental Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment to remove the phrase “and principal uses” from Section 3-13(c) and replace with the phrase “uses in residential zones” - **Motion** — passed (0-0): remove from table an item relating to proposed changes to the Code of Ordinances of the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government relating to short term rentals, including but not limited to short term rental license requirements and administrative procedures relating to short term rentals, and to place an ordinance regarding same on the docket for the Council meeting on Thursday, June 29, 2023 - **Motion** — passed (0-0): approve placing the Code of Ordinances Short Term Rental on docket for Thursday, June 29, 2023 (as amended) - **Motion** — passed (13-77): amend Section 13-77(b)(5) (contained in Section 3 of the Short Term Rental Ordinance) to replace the existing text with the following: “(5) Approval by the Division of Planning that the short term rental is a hosted short term rental or is otherwise a legal nonconforming hosted or un-hosted short term rental under Section 3- 13(i) and (j) of the Zoning Ordinance; that the un-hosted short term rental has a conditional use permit issued by the board of Adjustment if applicable; that the hosted short term rental with an occupancy greater than twelve (12) individuals has a conditional use permit issued by the Board of Adjustment, if applicable; or that the short term rental otherwise complies with Zoning Ordinance” - **Motion** — passed (13-77): amend Section 13-77(f) (contained in Section 3 of the Short Term Rental Ordinance) to remove reference to un-hosted short term rentals - **Motion** — passed (13-77): amend Section 13-77(h)(5) (contained in Section 3 of the Short Term Rental Ordinance) to remove reference to un-hosted short term rentals - **Motion** — passed (13-79): amend Section 13-79(a)(7) (contained in Section 5 of the Short Term Rental Ordinance) to reference the zoning ordinance for the maximum occupancy of short term rentals - **Motion** — passed (13-77): amend Section 13-77(b) (contained in Section 3 of the Short Term Rental Ordinance) to add subsection 11 to read: “(11) For short term rentals utilizing septic tanks, evidence indicating that the septic tank is of sufficient size to accommodate the occupancy requested in subsection (6)” - **Motion** — passed (0-0): approve changing the presentation name on the Thursday, June 29, 2023 docket from “Smoking Ban 20th Anniversary” to “Indoor Smoking Ordinance 20th Anniversary” - **Motion** — passed (0-0): place ordinance #8 (An Ordinance changing the zone from a Highway Service Business (B-3) zone to a Wholesale and Warehouse Business (B-4) zone, for 0.91 net (1.16 gross) acres, for property located at 763 Newtown Pike) on the docket without a public hearing - **Motion** — passed (0-0): approve the June 13, 2023 Work Session summary - **Motion** — passed (0-0): approve budget amendments - **Motion** — passed (0-0): approve new business - **Motion** — passed (0-0): approve an ordinance repealing and replacing ordinance no. 103-2014 in its entirety, and instead setting a minimum budgetary funding goal of one percent (1%) of the general fund revenue collected from the previous full fiscal year for the affordable housing fund, commencing with the fiscal year 2025 budget, and continuing to designate funding in the amount of at least $750,000.00 each fiscal year for the innovative and sustainable solutions to homelessness fund - **Motion** — passed (0-0): refer to the General Government and Planning Committee the Recommendations for Planning and Development Approval Process from today's presentation (#8 and 10 in packet). [Tighten Certification to lock in the requirements and establish a Development Liaison position] - **Motion** — passed (0-0): approve the Mayor's Report - **Motion** — passed (0-0): approve the Mayor's Report - Price Contract Bid Recommendations --- ## Full transcript Music Thank you. Good afternoon, everyone. I'd like to go ahead and call to order the June 27th, 2022 meeting of the Urban County Council, the work session. And we have a capacity issue right now. So if you do not have a seat, we need to ask you to go out into the hall and they're setting up overflow seating. Thank you. All right. I would like to start our meeting today with a moment of silence. Our urban county government family has lost two wonderful women. Both of them passed on June 19th. Juneteenth. Councilmember Fred Brown's wife Judy, whom many of us have known for many, many years, and we really express our condolences to her family and to Councilmember Fred Brown, and secondly to Chief Lawrence Weathers' family for his mother's passing. She passed at a ripe old age and had a wonderful life and left a fine legacy of many children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren. And we will all miss them and want to express our thoughts and sympathies to both those families. If we could have just a moment of silence, please. Thank you. The first item on our agenda is public comment for issues on the agenda. And we have a few people signed up. So the way this works is that I will call your name and then I will also call the next person who can queue up. And you'll go to the podium and state your name and your council district for the record. And then you'll have three minutes to speak. So first up is Chris Eustis. Welcome. And after Chris will be Gary Chidester. Thank you. Hello, my name is Chris Hustis. I am an Airbnb super host. It's my job. I keep the toilets clean. I'm here to save my job. Let me tell you what my job means to Lexington, Kentucky. In the past six years, my Airbnb has directly generated approximately $15,000 in state and local taxes. On top of taxes, my Airbnb has generated approximately $325,000 spent locally by my guests and the income from Airbnb. To some of you, that's not a lot of money. It is to me. That money circulates through Lexington economy, generating even more dollars. I am not an economist. They can figure it out. And when you do the math for all the other hosts, it is in the millions of dollars for the local economy. We are excellent for the local economy. We get zero dollars in government subsidies. The local hotels get millions of dollars in government subsidies. Most of the profits from the hotels go out of state. Do you want to buy us out like PDR for the horse farms? That's an option. It is our own interest to run our Airbnbs well and to keep them up as good as possible. We are not criminals or slumlords. Our business is helping people and providing service to people. I get along with my neighbors. My house may be the most diverse house in Lexington. I have had homeless people stay, as well as people who come to Lexington to buy thoroughbreds at the Keeneland sales. So I'm not sure what to say about some of the people in the neighborhood associations who do not want people staying in their neighborhoods. Do they not like people? I do. People who know me know I am a people person. The ordinance on the short-term rentals should never have made it this far. It is very poorly written, and nearly everything in it has been designed to eliminate existing legal short-term rentals from effectively staying in business. Why? Everyone I have talked to with the same answer. They say it's for the benefit of the hotels and large landlords so they can have an even stronger monopoly. We can make housing more affordable by instating rent stabilized apartments, but that would mean standing up to the powerful landlords. The ordinance suggests a fee of several hundred dollars per host to pay for an app for scrubbing social media on the internet to find unlawful host. It is spyware to be used on Lexingtonians. That makes no sense either as Airbnb hosts know that operating under the legal radar would make them very little money. This ordinance has divided the community. I don't know of any short term rental hosts who have worked on it. This ordinance should be voted down completely or at least tabled until it could make more sense for everyone. We have been operating legally for several years. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Lexington is going through a renaissance. Don't kill it. Thank you very much. Next is Gary Chidester. Chidester. Chidester. That was okay. and then following gary will be um let's see who's next here with an item on the agenda dotty bean so the council's guidelines are that you can speak once during the council meeting so i noticed you're signed up twice would you like to speak for an issue on the agenda or or not on the edge. Yours is. Okay, thank you very much. So you will be next. Welcome. Thank you. Madam Mayor, thank you, Councilman. Thank you all for allowing me to be here. My name is Gary Chuggister. I'm here representing the Farm LLC out of Danville. I'm here to talk about the short-term rentals. We have got three short-term rentals in Lexington. I am proud to say that people from all over this country come to Lexington to these three different houses because they're in Lexington. And we thank you for that. Lexington is a unique, unique, unique town. But as you're getting ready to pass an ordinance this afternoon, in that ordinance, you're going to put a cap on how many people can stay in a house. The Farm LLC is not 1,000 square foot. We're talking about 9, 12, 15,000 square foot homes. To put a cap on that and to say, well, you can only have a total of 11 people, that really hinders what we're doing. We do not have a problem with law enforcement. We do not have a problem with our neighbors. We are not staying in small homes. The people who are coming here are people that respect property, respect their neighbors. And we would ask, I would ask that you would consider removing the children from the count that is a part of how many people could stay at a home. Now, as we all know, our children motivate a lot of our money. We understand that. But the ones who are spending the money are the adults. And so I would just ask that you would seriously, respectfully consider removing children from that count so that there are more adults that can come and stay in these homes. There's a lot more room for adults in a lot of these larger homes that we are using and that we are taking care of. Thank you very much. Thank you. Next is Dottie Bean, and following Dottie will be Seth Hillenmeyer. Seth, are you here? Okay. Thank you. Welcome. Thank you, Mayor. We're commenting on two issues on today's agenda. Both, unfortunately, have not been vetted in public to let interested parties know you are considering them. The first is several ordinances to borrow about $100 million, $38 million for some very questionable capital projects that the public has not heard enough about and hope you will question the administration in public before you pass on them. The second is about $75 million for some unknown purpose, and the administration claims it is being refinanced because this is a great time to do it. We do not believe that. Interest rates are up pretty much across the board, but we'd like to see you present some actual numbers to prove that comment. The items are items G and I under new business and also item L. We believe public hearings should be held on both of those bond issues and are requesting it. In addition, we see a massive plan in here to revamp planning and do not believe the public has been very involved in this other than some stakeholders, all with vested interest. Where did this come from? We were told this was quite a ways off, and it really does require some very careful reading and considering by the public and all sectors of Lexington to take a look at this and see how it could impact their neighborhoods and businesses and schools and properties and it will, as you know. Believe me, they will want to know about this before you pass it. I and others who are watching this council every week will be very displeased if you take any action on this today and if you do not make every effort to make sure This proposal gets to every neighborhood in this city. Thank you. Thank you very much. Next up is Seth Hillenmeyer, and following Seth will be Doug Burton. And just to remind everyone, as you say your name, to please say your council district. Good afternoon. Seth Hillenmeyer, District 5. Welcome. I'd like to express my gratitude for the time and effort you council members have taken in developing the proposed regulations. As a proud resident of Lexington and a local business owner with short-term rentals throughout the city and in several different districts, I understand the importance of responsible regulation to protect the best interests of our community. I would like to commend Councilmember Sheehan and Brown for their diligent work in finding a balanced approach to these regulations. They've clearly taken into account the diverse perspectives of all the different stakeholders. I appreciate their commitment to finding fair and effective guidelines for us. As a professional and responsible host, I want to highlight the proactive measures we undertake to mitigate any potential problems associated with short-term rentals. We prioritize open and clear communication with guests. We provide detailed information regarding noise limitations and expectations while at the property. Additionally, we employ outdoor noise decibel monitoring devices that operate 24-7, ensuring a peaceful environment for both guests and neighbors. However, I would like to address the specific concern regarding the proposed occupancy limitation of 12 individuals. While I understand the reasoning behind this approach for most units, it may have a detrimental impact on hosts like myself who have larger properties specifically designed to accommodate larger groups with the appropriate amount of bedrooms and bathroom capacities. I kindly request you consider grandfathering in existing hosts, allowing us to continue to operate above a capacity of 12 without having to seek conditional use permits from the Board of Adjustments. Additionally, I'd like to request your consideration for an important amendment to the transfer of a license from one STR property or from upon the sale of a property. As a property owner, it's crucial that we have the ability to transfer our short-term license upon the sale of a property. Restricting the transferability of licenses would not only create unnecessary barriers for hosts, but also discourage potential buyers from investing in properties that have been successfully operated as short-term rentals. By allowing the license to be transferred, we can ensure a smooth transition for a potential new property owner and protect the value of our homes. This amendment would not only protect the rights of property owners, but contribute to the overall stability and growth of our economy. In conclusion, I appreciate the City Council's dedication to striking a balance between regulation and the interests of both residents and local businesses. I'm confident with the continued open dialogue and careful consideration, we can achieve regulations that foster a thriving short-term rental industry while preserving the unique character of our city. Thank you. Thank you very much. Next is Doug Burton, and following Doug will be Brenda Oldfield. Hi. Welcome. Hi. I'm here today not as my Doug Burton, District 3. I'm here today not as the director of engineering, but as a person who has an Airbnb on either side of him. And it's serendipitous that Seth was before me because he's one of them. Seth used to be my neighbor, and now he's not. As he said, he lives in District 5. And there's a problem when people aren't your neighbors that own Airbnbs, is that if I have a problem with my neighbor, I can go talk to them. With Airbnbs, I have anywhere from 500 to 1,200 neighbors a year because I have one on each side of me. So I have the potential of having problems with 500 to 1,200 people a year. And I won't give you the entire history of all the problems we've had with those two, but I'll give you the worst and I'll give you the latest. The worst is a party that started at 6 p.m. during the peak of COVID, ended at 6 a.m. with about six cop cars, two ambulances, and a fire truck. The most recent was the new Airbnb in front of the left, which is owned by Property Management out of London, definitely not my neighbor. had a motorcycle gang. They were wearing all the same outfit. Roll in at 12 o'clock, 1 a.m. in the morning, loud motorcycles, loud music, and parked on the sidewalk. That's just a sample of the hundreds of problems we've had. Can't count the number of sleepless nights my wife and I have had because people are loud, and they don't care. I know most people care, but all you need is when you have 1,200 neighbors, 10% of that not caring is a lot of sleepless nights. So I'm glad we're doing something with the soda. I'm glad we're putting something in place that's going to help us because right now all I do is call the cops. Now, we'll give Seth credit after a lot of back and forth and a lot of, frankly, head-butting with him over the first year or two of his Airbnb. We've got to a point where communication is good. that said problem people are still problem people and i can't walk over and address something with my neighbor i have to call seth and if it's four in the morning i have to call the police i'm glad that we're doing something all that said i do wish there was a method that existing airbnbs had to prove that they are not problem causers like the ones that i've seen in the past and we again we're we're surrounded by it so and and the first weekend we had the other one was the hardly. It's the very first weekend they rented and we had a problem. So I do wish there was more of a chance for the public to speak. So I wish that we weren't grandfathering everyone in. They had to come get a conditional use permit just like anyone else would if it was brand new, because that will give people like me who have complaints an opportunity to speak so they can be heard, because up until now we really didn't have the opportunity other than calling the police. Thank you. Thank you very much, Doug. Next is Brenda Oldfield and following Brenda will be Ralph Senninger. Just to remind you to say your council district. Hey, I'm Brenda Oldfield, District 12. Basically, I didn't prepare notes. I operate the Kentucky River Cottage, which is VRBO, and I'm just here to let you know that I've had wonderful guests. There are two or three other VRBOs down on Beach Road. And I love doing this, and I own this with my husband who will speak next. But I think it's important for people to realize the nurses, and I've spoke to Chuck about this before, the nurses that I rent to are working in hospitals. They don't want to stay near the hospital. We're down by the river. They love staying. I have great reviews. I do have guests coming in for different activities. but I've never had any problems with unruly guests, whatever. I guess the old school teacher in me would be, if there is a problem, then I want them to call me, and I will call the police to take care of it. But I just am in support of VRBO. I want to make sure that I did not get to know, I didn't get to come to any of the meetings since the November meeting, so I commend that we are discussing it, and I know that there's a lot of supporters here, but I know that there are people that have concerns. And to me, if there is a concern, then you need to take action, call the police, and take care of it. But my guests have been great. They're from all over the United States. They come in for the Bourbon Trail. I have three different floors, mainly the nurses. They're here for a short term. They have a difficulty time getting a contract with housing for three months or six months. And I also want to learn what the rest of the crowd's doing. So I'm here. My husband's going to speak next. Thanks. Thank you. Ralph Seninger is next, and following Ralph is Landon Salee. Welcome. Yes, my name's Ralph Seninger, and thank you for letting me come in today to speak. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. I'd like to say I'm against the regulations on the short-term rental and additional fees, plus the burden of additional expenses enforcement that it puts on the city. As my dad says, if it's not broke, don't fix it. Most of all, people who participate in the short-term rental are the upper elite that spend more money than most transit tourists. As a short-term rental, we have had great reviews. We have had no complaints from neighbors and a history of no problems. A great city is a city without extreme amount of regulations. That's limit freedom. Let's keep Lexington great without creating additional burdensome regulations. As you listen today, as everyone speaks, please make your decision on the vice of the operators and citizens of Lexington. We show up to voice our concerns on the guidance of the future of the city. Look to the future to shape the city in the right direction. Thank you. Thank you very much. Next is Landon Sally, who is our last speaker signed up. Welcome. And if you'll state your council district and your name. Landon Sally, District 10, but work out in the county as well. We know that this version of the ordinance does not include 70% of our county, mainly speaking to properties that are in the ag and an zone. And I know that the Rural Land Management Board has been asked to come up with regulations for the council to adopt at a later date. I guess what we're asking for is a little bit more clarification in when those recommendations are coming to you all and if you all have set a strict deadline. Because as we know, this process has been going on for several years because of COVID and whatnot. But for the entities in the county, I feel like we're kind of being left out of the discussion. so is there going to be a hard deadline and could also the council clarify the locations that are currently participating in airbnb vrbo be grandfathered in so that existing businesses would not have to suffer in the future thank you thank you very much that concludes our public comment for issues on the agenda. Next is our docket approval. Could I have a motion to? Motion approved. Thank you. Council Member Ellinger, Council Member Gray seconds. Are there questions or comments? Council Member James Brown. Thank you, Mayor. On item number seven, an ordinance for first reading. It's the ordinance that addresses short-term rentals. I want to make a motion to amend that ordinance for a couple of motions. So is it all right if I proceed or do I need to do something else to separate it out? Yes, now's the time. Okay. All right. So I move to amend the Planning Commission's recommended short-term rental zoning ordinance tax amendment to change the use of hosted short-term rental occupancy greater than 12 from a conditional use to an accessory and to the use of unhosted and short-term rentals from conditional to principal in the B1, P1, MU1, MU2, and MU3 zones. So moved. Is there a second? Second. Council Member Sheehan. Is there discussion or are there questions? Council Member Ellinger did you have a question? No but I have to recuse myself. Yes you do. So I want to do that. I think this is the time to do it. This is the time yes. Being a super host as you all know I've said many times. On an Airbnb I will recuse myself from this vote. All right. And any future discussions on this. Thank you. Are there other questions? Council Member Legree. Thank you, Mayor. Councilmember Brown, would you mind explaining to us and for the sake of the audience what this means practically speaking in terms of the process? Thank you, Councilmember, and I'll try to say it as practical as possible. So there's a chart in the ordinance that outlines what zones are allowed to have short-term rentals and what that use is categorized at. section lists these commercial zones all the ones i've listed and we have it as a a conditional zone a conditional use zone my amendment will make it a principal use in that zone for all the hosted and then all the the other unhosted categories will be in accessory use so you would have allowed you would be allowed to have a short-term rental in those zones by right and wouldn't have to get a conditional use. And I would ask somebody from planning, if I misspeak, to please come to the podium and clarify. But that's what the intent is, is to make short-term rental uses in those zones by right use because they are commercial use zones. Any other questions? Council Member Civigni, do you have a question about the motion? I do. Thank you, Mayor. Could you just, when you're talking about, the chart okay could you specifically say because this thing is so long i really want to make sure that the that we all like cross out the word that you're talking about and does that make sense yeah it does so so in article three general zone regulations or section in section three dash one three and then there's item a and b and then there's the chart so if you go down the chart and it the first two columns or the first two zones are the residential in the ear zones the next it comes to the b1 the p1 so in that zone if you go over to where it says uh hosted and the hostess hosted column you could cross out accessory use and put principal and then the in the hosted and the next hosted column will be an accessory use in the unhosted column. That would also be an accessory use. And is that primarily because in those zones hotels are allowed? Yeah. Well, those are commercial zones. And a lot of our conversation in drafting this policy, we were more sensitive to the residential zones. Thank you. That's it. Thank you. Vice Mayor Wu. Thank you, Mayor. Council Member Brown, can you talk a little bit about, I guess, the why of this amendment? Because it does feel, and correct me if I'm wrong, it essentially kind of loosens or gives more leeway to the operator for both hosted and unhosted. but can you tell me a little bit about kind of your thought process in putting this forth? I can, Vice Mayor. If you don't mind, I'd like to see if Evan was going to correct me on something that I said. I believe the motion was for hosted occupancy greater than 12, which is currently under the text existing now would be a conditional use, would be an accessory use. the motion was and the unhosted would be a principal use i think there was switched when you were describing it but the the underlying motion was was the uh is going to be hosted greater than 12 would be accessory just like hosted occupancy up to 12 and then unhosted would be principal. Yeah, well, no, that, so I may have misstated it, but that that wasn't my intent. The intent was for the hosted to be a principal use, and then the hosted with the occupancy greater than 12 as an accessory use, and unhosted use as an accessory use. So for me, just to clarify, for hosted, we're going from accessory to principal, and unhosted, we're going from unconditional to accessory is that correct that's correct okay so like I said can you give us a little bit sort of your thought process on why I'm making this change yeah well part of this so like I said before when we were drafting this policy we were very considerate of the residential zones and how short-term rentals would impact neighborhoods and I feel that if there are short-term rentals in these commercial zones then that a loop that use may be more tolerant in those zones and will give those operators a chance to operate and sell the property with that use convey and with the sale if it's about right use in those zones so that was part of the thinking with making this change. In terms of the the transfer of the use when the property is transferred that's addressed elsewhere though right like this this amendment that you're making doesn't really directly address that is that correct? Correct, yeah. But just general speaking, and the way that it's written now without any amendments to change in the conveyance, is if you don't have a conditional use permit, then that use doesn't convey with the change of ownership. But if you have a conditional use permit, it does convey, or that use does convey with the transfer of ownership. Okay, so if this amendment is approved, then both unhosted and hosted, that use would convey to the new owners. In those zones. In those zones. Yeah. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you. Council Member Gray. Thank you, Mayor. Council Member Brown, I just need some more clarification with your amendment, and I'm going to have you walk me through this like a student. So in the first column where it says zone allowed, R-1A, is that where your amendment is taking place? Where is it taking place? It's in Autumn, if you can come to the podium just to be ready to help me. So my amendment is taking place in the third column down. In the third row down. So it's the one that starts with B1, P1, MU1, MU2, and MU3. Sorry, we just realized the confusion is that we were given multiple copies in the packet. But carry on. Yeah, so in that third row, when it moves over to hosted, hosted, and unhosted, We would change that use to principal use as opposed to accessory, and then accessory and accessory for the two conditions. I believe that you had it the other way around. My notes and Evan's notes were that the posted up to 12 would remain accessory. Posted greater than 12 would also remain accessory. The thought being that there are hosts on the property, so the short-term rental is accessory to the long-term dwelling unit that is also occurring. And then that the unhosted would be principal, since there would not be a hosted unit on the property. I think that's where we were going with that. Yeah. So is that the correct way to state that motion and to do it with the intent that I have in mind? I believe that you would, yes. The hosted above 12 would change from conditional to accessory, and unhosted would change from conditional to principal. It's what you want. Okay. So just to make me understand, I thought in order for it to be an accessory use, you would have to have a principal use on the property. And I thought the principal use. So in the hosted scenarios, the principal use would be the dwelling unit that is occupied by the primary resident, who is the host, effectively. so in the unhosted category that needs to be a principal use not an accessory use because you don't have that okay okay all right well then that makes sense to me now no is that clear to everyone else so i'm stating it backwards the the motion that i made was correct so is it still my time Okay. So, Council Member, could you state that one more time, just for clarification's sake? So, in row three, where it starts with B1, P1, MU1, MU2, and MU3, under hosted, it would be accessory used, under the second column of hosted, it would be accessory used, and then the unhosted column, it would be a principal use. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Does anyone else have questions? And I'm not sure the public, has the public seen this? Councilmember Brown? No, ma'am, but I think they may have seen it in emails that we have sent out and in the copy that came from the Planning Department when the Planning Commission made their changes. They may have not seen these amendments that I'm making now, but I think they will have a chance to see them before, if it makes it to the docket before the first reading on Thursday. Okay. Does anyone else have questions about the motion? All clear? Council Member Worley? Thank you, Mayor. Council Member, I understand what you're saying, so I'm just going to state this so that I think it, because this is a comment that I actually made when this item was discussed in our committee, before it was sent to the planning commission for their recommendations. And I made the comment that a business zone, a P or professional zone, MU or mixed use zones, these are all zones in which commercial are predominantly commercial and then in some cases have commercial and residential mixed. And it's your, make clear, I understand your intention is to relax some of the heavier regulation and to allow for more uses of short-term rentals in these predominantly commercial zones. Is that correct? Yes, sir. Okay, thank you for the clarification. Any other questions about the motion? All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Is anyone opposed? All right, that motion passes. And Council Member Ellinger recused. Council Member Brown. Thank you, Mayor. I also have a corresponding motion, which is to change text in a different section that corresponds to that change. And I move to amend the Planning Commission's recommended short-term rental zoning ordinance text amendment to remove the phrase and principal uses from Section 313C and replace with the phrase uses in residential zones. So move. Is there, Council Member Sheehan seconds. Now's the time for questions, Council Members. Council Member Savigny. Thank you, Chair. and council member round can you just then please take us to the page and the letter and what you think should be strike stricken thanks so on the on the very next page item c it talks about maximum occupancy limits and then in parentheses it has for accessory and and that's the language that would be deleted it says and principal uses and replace it with the the language that was in the motion from principal uses to uses in residential zones It's 13C. Yes, section 313, item C, when it speaks about maximum occupancy limits. Okay. Other questions? Can you explain for the public, since there are many of them here, what that means? So in section three, it talks about and reinforces the maximum occupancy limits that were listed on the chart. So this change would identify that the maximum occupancy limits needs to be adhered to for accessory and in the uses in residential zones. So it's just clarify what is in the chart. Thank you. Council members, any other questions? Vice Mayor Wu. Thank you, Mayor. Council Member Brown, so how does that, the removal of the word principal use, because now as amended, unhosted units are now considered principal use. So how does that relate to the occupancy then if we're removing the word, which is now the category of use for unhosted? So in the role where it says the B1 to P1, when it gets over to the end, when it talks about number of short-term rental units, in that column it says 25% max. So it means only 25% of the units in a property in that zone could only have a maximum of 25% be used as short-term rentals. So if you have a structure or building that has 10 units, you can only use 2.5 of those units as short-term rentals. I think that's a separate issue from the change to item C. The modification to C would result in the ones that are listed in the table as principal uses not having that 12-person cap. That would apply to accessory uses in residential zones. And then item D, which is not being modified, allows the board to establish the maximum occupancy for conditional uses. So by that explanation, are you saying that unhosted units, because they're considered principal use, do not have the occupancy cap? In the commercial zones where they are listed as a principal use, yes. In the commercial zones. Right. It feels like, I don't know, it feels like a significant enough of a change and not a semantic change. To me, I'm not sure how I feel about it just yet. Honestly, trying to understand it a little bit. And I wouldn't mind hearing your thinking on this change as well. So this change actually came from a recommendation from Autumn just to create consistency in the policy. I think the whole ZOLTA is complex. I think between today and before we get first reading, if it passes on Thursday, I think we can get some clarity to that. And then we can continue to get clarity on these issues before we get to second reading, which potentially could be two weeks from now. But I think the way that it's presented. So in regards to the motion I made prior, I felt comfortable making that change in that role because of the 25% max. And I think our planning, and I don't want to speak for our planning department, but I think they're comfortable with that change in the other commercial zones because that's what was proposed in the original text. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you. Council Member Worley. Thank you, Mayor. And Council Member Autumn may be able to. So my understanding from this motion and this change is to coincide with what we just did with the original motion. Because we've now created a principal use in a zone that is otherwise than residential. So now it needs to be clear that this particular occupancy limit addresses those accessory uses and uses in a residential zone. And then the remaining occupancy is addressed elsewhere. Am I simplifying that too much or misstating it? Right. So the initial reason that I did suggest this to Council Member Brown was because the commercial zones that are already principal uses, the B2, B2A, that final column or final row, So those would be limited at 12, and there would not be any means for an applicant to request a conditional use to go to the board to increase that, which they can do in the residential zones. Anything above 12 becomes a conditional use. So to create some consistency there so that we were not regulating the commercial zones more strictly with regard to the occupancy cap, changing this to, say, for accessory uses in residential zones resolves that, leaving that 12 for the accessory uses in the residential zones. The conditional uses are taken care of in the next category by the board. And then principal uses would not have that 12-person cap. So, again, where the council member made a motion to try and relax restrictions in commercial zones, this is not any more substantive. This is making the language consistent throughout the rest of the ordinance. This is not a change itself. This is keeping up with what we just did. It is a change, but it's consistent with the other change. Well, I mean, I know it's a change in the language, but yes. It's keeping up with what the council member just did previously. Yeah, thank you, Anna. Thank you. Council Member Legree. Apologies, Mayor. I was just trying to look at a zoning map on my device because I think it would be really helpful for us maybe as council members to review all of the areas. And maybe everyone has already been doing this, but since this does seem like a fairly substantial change, practically speaking, if there is no cap for 12 now, with this proposed amendment in the B1, P1, MU1, MU2, and MU3 zones, I was just trying to kind of get a sense of the scope of that impact in my district. I think that goes back to Council Member Brown's point about the 25%. So if you go back to the table, it's all interrelated. But the number of units on a property that can be utilized as short term rentals in those zones is only 25%. So even with a larger occupancy, it's at least not the whole property. It's limited to one out of four units. Okay, and so then just so that everyone who's watching and so that we're all clear, How is that measured, that 25%? Is that with the Department of Revenue that tracks that, or is there other software? That will be part of the application process for the license. Whenever the license comes in for an address, we'll be ensuring that there are not more units than are allowed on that property to be operating at short term rentals. Okay, so that would be kept kind of on record and then it would be dependent on kind of the order of application. So if you lived in an area where 20% of the units were already used as short term rentals, then that would limit. It's per property. So if you own a fourplex, you can have one of them be a short term rental. So you would not then go apply, if you were to go and apply to have a second one be a short term rental, you would not be able to receive that license. If you lived in a fourplex that was in a B1, P1, MU. Yes, which is very unlikely. Right. But then for like an R4 or R5, it's at 10% max, right? Yes. So it's more restrictive. Yes. Okay, thanks, thank you. Any other comments about the motion? All right, all those in favor say aye. Aye. Is anyone opposed? Could we do that again? All those in favor say aye. Aye. Thank you. Anyone opposed? All right, that motion passes. And we have one recusal. Anything else? Yes, ma'am. I may have one more motion, but I'll ask Autumn for clarity before I make it. So I'm prepared to make a motion to create a situation where, in a change of ownership, if a conditional use has been applied for and granted when that property is sold, that use conveys the sale. Autumn, can you clarify for me the way that the policy is written now? Is that the case? If an applicant goes to BOA for conditional use, they are granted a permit when they sell the property, does that use convey with the sale? So if the applicant goes to the Board of Adjustment, the way this is written, I'll kind of go back and then go forward, I guess. So under 3-13I, that allows for an existing short-term rental operator to operate with some of the benefits of the new regulations without having to go before the Board of Adjustment. They're still considered a conditional use, even though they've never been before the Board. But it does say that a change in ownership would require a conditional use permit to be approved by the Board of Adjustment. That does not say that the current owner cannot go ahead and go to the board prior to listing their property for sale. The board does have the authority to include a null and void condition, but as part of the applicant's application, they could say, I'm coming to get a conditional use because I plan to sell this. I want to be able to market it as a short-term rental. And then the board would take that into account in their assessment of the application. And that's without changing anything in this ordinance. But the way it's written down, as somebody comes in with a conditional use that doesn't have a permit, a non-conforming use or conditional use, that doesn't convey with a sale unless they have been granted a permit. Correct. Okay. So with that clarity, I do have concerns about devaluing property, but at the moment, I'm not prepared to make a motion. I think if someone is granted, they go through the process and get a permit, and if it conveys with the sale, then I'm fine with the way the language is written. So I don't have a motion. Thank you, Mayor. Okay. Thank you very much. Okay. There's no motion on the floor. So with that, I'll ask. I do have one more motion. This is about untaken. Okay. So when we first passed this out of committee, we sent the ZOTA to the Planning Commission. The code of ordinance piece we tabled until it came back. So at this time, I want to move to untable. So I hereby move to remove from the table an item relating to proposed changes to the code of ordinances of the Lexington Fayette Urban County government relating to short-term rentals, including but not limited to short-term rental license requirements and administrative procedures relating to short-term rentals and to place an ordinance regarding same on the docket for the council meeting on Thursday, June 29, 2023. So moved. Thank you. Is there a second? Vice Mayor Wu seconds. I'm just asking our parliamentarian if this is debated. I know it's not debatable to table, so it's not. Thank you very much. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? All right, that motion passes. All right. Did you have something for the docket? Council Member Sheehan. Since we brought that code of ordinances back, I do have some motions that need to be made. Now that there have been changes to the Zota, there are some changes that Evan, the attorney, we have been working with on this recommended for the code of ordinances so that we make sure the language is all consistent. So if there isn't any other discussion on the ZODA, I'm prepared to make those motions. There's nothing on the table right now. Do you have a motion? Yes, I have a... I was just waiting for the question. So when I made the report out, and you'll have to forgive me colleagues, it's been too long since I remember. When I made the report out, I moved to move this out of committee to the full council on behalf of the committee and that was approved and then immediately tabled. So now it's been brought from the table just to make sure we're following procedure correctly. I think we may need to have a motion to put it now on the docket because I don't think we actually took that action. I reported it out, but we didn't place it on the docket. So on behalf of the committee, so moved. Second. Thank you. Council Member Sheehan seconds. Is there any question? All those in favor say aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? All right, that motion passes. Now, Council Member Sheehan. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. So I have five motions for language for the Code of Ordinances, and Evan is here to answer any questions if anyone has those. The code of ordinances, just as a reminder, is the document that establishes the special license fee and the process for revoking a license and then the appeal process and all of that. So we have some language that needs to be slightly modified to make sure that those are consistent with that. That the code of ordinance is consistent with the ZOTA. So the first motion is for Section 1377B5. that if you have the code of ordinances that is on page six of the code of ordinances so i move to amend section 13-77b5 contained within section three of the short-term rental ordinance to replace the existing text with the following approval by the division of planning that the short-term rental is a hosted short-term rental or is otherwise a legal non-conforming hosted or unhosted short-term rental under section 3-13 I and J of the zoning ordinance. That the unhosted short-term rental has a conditional use permit issued by the Board of Adjustment if applicable. that the hosted short-term rental with an occupancy greater than 12 individuals has a conditional use permit issued by the Board of Adjustment, if applicable, or that the short-term rental otherwise complies with the zoning ordinance. So moved. Council Member James Brown seconded. Is there any discussion? All those in favor, say aye. I'm sorry, Council Member Savigny, I had you covered up. Thank you, Mayor. That was really long. And you've replaced one sentence with that, is that correct? Yes. And what's the intent again? Sorry to make you go through that. So the intent is that because we have nonconforming uses, conditional uses, and the hosted and unhosted uses, So basically this is expanding what the applicant would need to show as approval from planning to be able to apply. They would have to show that they meet one of those conditions. Evan, jump in. Yeah, no, that's exactly right. So after the planning commission came back with the Zota text, which you just amended a few times, It added different ways that somebody could have a legally, according to the zoning ordinance, compliant short-term rental. You could have non-conforming uses now that wasn't in the previous version, so that's added to that section. And then also you can have a conditional use permit now for hosted short-term rentals in order to get more than 12 individuals on the unit. So basically the intent of that section is to basically outline all of the ways that a person would be compliant with the zoning ordinance in an effort to, so that way in the application process one of the items that's going to be requested is approval from the Division of Planning in order to okay their use of the property of the short-term rental as it pertains to the zoning ordinance. You're welcome. Anyone else? All right. All those in favor say aye. Is anyone opposed? All right. That motion passes. Thank you, Mayor. For the second one, I have an amendment to section 13-77F. I'm gonna read the motion and then we can have questions on it. I move to amend section 13-77F contained within section 3 of the short-term rental ordinance to remove reference to unhosted short-term rentals. So moved. Is there a second? Second. Council Member James Brown is there any discussion? All those in favor say aye. Is anyone opposed? All right that motion passes. Thank you, Mayor. We have Council Member Ellinger's recusing on all of these. The third motion is very similar to that one. It is Section 13-77H5. I move to amend Section 13-77H5, contained in Section 3 of the Short-Term Rental Ordinance, to remove reference to unhosted short-term rentals. So moved. Council Member James Brown seconds. Are there any questions or comments? All those in favor say aye. Is anyone opposed? Thank you. That passes. Okay, we're more than halfway through now. We've got two more. Section 13-79A7. on this one. This is on page 10 of the code of ordinances if you're looking at that. I move to amend section 13-79A7 contained in section 5 of the short term rental ordinance to reference the zoning ordinance for the maximum occupancy of short term rentals. So moved. Council member James Brown seconds. Are there any questions? All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Is anyone opposed? That passes. Okay. And then the last one is on page six, if you're on the code of ordinances. And this is section 13-77B. It is adding a subsection 11, so I will read what is being added. I move to amend section 13-77B contained in section 3 of the short-term rental ordinance to add subsection 11 to read. For short-term rentals utilizing septic tanks, evidence indicating that the septic tank is of sufficient size to accommodate the occupancy requested in subsection 6. 6. So moved. Second. Also, Member James Brown seconds. Are there questions or comments? All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? That motion passes. That is all done. Thank you, Mayor. Okay, thank you very much. Is there anything else for the docket? Vice Mayor, I'd like to turn the chair over to you as I have an item for the docket. Thank you, Mayor. You are recognized. Thank you. It is about the presentation, which is listed as smoking ban 20th anniversary. When we passed the indoor smoking ordinance in 2003, we all knew it was not a smoking ban. So I request that that be changed to indoor smoking ordinance 20th anniversary. I guess I should make that a motion. So moved. Second. Yes, it was a motion. We have a motion and a second. Any discussion on that item? Seeing none, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? That motion passes. Thank you very much, Vice Mayor. May I have the chair back? All yours. Thank you. Is there anything else for the docket? All right. All those in favor of approving the docket, did you have an item for the docket, Council Member Reynolds? Can I ask a few questions about an item that's on the docket? Yes. Okay. Sorry, I'm going to go back to short-term Reynolds. I just wanted to, for the public, answer a few questions that folks have. So the 1,000 square feet for the BOA was removed. I don't know who to ask who can answer my questions, if I'm going to answer. 1,000 feet away. To Council Member Sheehan or if there's someone else. I would ask maybe planning staff. Maybe Autumn can come up to talk about what happened at the Planning Commission meeting, if the question is about something they changed. There's some confusion in the public about that. Could you explain the 1,000 feet? Sure. So under 3-13G, for short-term rentals regulated as conditional uses, the Board of Adjustment shall take into consideration the following four things. In the draft that was initiated by council, that number one said the number of short-term rentals, if any, within 1,000 feet of the property being considered for such use. The Planning Commission recommendation changed 1,000 feet to in proximity of. So it now reads the number that the Board of Adjustments shall take into consideration the number of short-term rentals, if any, in proximity of the property being considered for such use. But that will be objective depending on the neighborhood and the structure? Yes. Okay, thank you. And then why was the, I guess I had some concerns about the amount of stays being limited. What was the reasoning behind that? I don't know what you're referring to. About how many stays can be at, how many times someone can stay? There is no limitation on the number of stays except for in item J under 3-13, and that's referring to short-term rentals that are currently operating today in zones where short-term rentals will not be a listed use, so that's essentially going to be our ag zones until the Rural Land Management Board comes forward with their recommendations for that zone. those short-term rentals would need to continue to operate based on the current interpretation of the shortest rental period for a dwelling unit. So that's four unrelated individuals or a family. So if it's not in an ag zone, there's not a limit of how many stays per week, month, year? Correct, yes. So in the ag zones, that would be limited to the 52 rentals a year, which is the current guidance. but any short-term rental as listed in all the other zones would not have that restriction. Okay, thank you for clarifying that. And then the registry that we would have based on people's license that they would get, is that something that would be public? I know some hosts are concerned that their personal information would be made public and they would know where they live, the hosted one. funds, especially. Just like there is in other communities, some other communities have put maps up to provide the public the information to know where short-term rentals are in the community. So I think that's still discussions on what LFG is going to be doing. would be, is still ongoing as to whether or not we'd provide some kind of map like that for the public. But, you know, as to the actual license, I think typically, you know, home residential addresses of the actual hosts, so for those people who aren't living on the property, would probably be redacted as private information. But the idea that the public would be able to see a license that for a hosted, it would likely be a public document able to be seen subject to root action under the Open Records Act. Okay, I would just like us to investigate that a little more so that we're not putting people's, you know, because the short-term rentals are very careful to keep people's addresses secure until the person rents it. So I would just like us to look into that, how we can make that more secure. And then so people that have a short-term rental already have to have a business license in Lexington, correct? Yes. So they will now have to have a business license and a permit, in essence. They would have a special, yes, they would have a special fees license. In addition to the other. Yep, and if they have over $50,000 in rental receipts, then they would have to also pay occupational license fees. And that's $200 for the first one and $100 for every one? That's for the special fees license. As it pertains to occupational license fees, it's employee withholdings to the extent they have employees, which I'm not sure if they do. And also net profits, and that's where that $50,000 plays in. They don't need to pay occupational license fees, which is different than the $200 if they make less than $50,000 in a year, to the extent that subject to some exemptions for private landowners who aren't LLCs or aren't private businesses. But yes, they would have to do both. Okay. Thank you very much. I just wanted to clarify some things for the public. I appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you. At this moment, I need to hand the chair over to Vice Mayor Wu. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. Council Member Savigny. Thank you, Chair. I just have a question, too, for you. So we pulled something off the table. I think it was on the table. We pulled it off the table, and we put it on there about three or four months ago. we've made some changes to it. And I do think we've done I think the whole process has been pretty decent and we've done a lot of good work. Do we first of all I want to make sure that at least I know exactly what I'm voting on by getting an altered like the actual red line version by the time we actually get to vote. And I don't know do we have is what we've done considered substantive and do we need to do any sort of additional hearing or public reading on this i think whether or not more public comment is needed is up to the council um as it pertains to uh it hasn't been on the the council docket yet so as uh um for you know usually if it's substantive and it's on for second reading and a change is made that makes a substantive change at second reading, you might require you to have another reading again. But that's not in this case because you made the amendments now. But if you choose to make some amendments later in the process, then it might require another reading if you make a change in the second reading on another day. But as to your question about whether or not you'll get a track change version, yeah, you should be able to get one tomorrow. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Legree. Thank you. I'm going to go ahead and take this opportunity, Vice Mayor, to ask a couple of questions that people have asked me. Councilmember Reynolds asked one of them that I've been getting about proximity and that process, so I appreciate that. People have also asked about the cap at 12. And what is the route that people can take? I know this answer, but I'd like it to be said publicly. If they want to apply for a higher number of occupants. Sure. So with the modifications that you all made, any that are a principal use would not be subject to the 12 person cap. The ones that are listed as accessory uses already have the cap of 12, and any short-term rentals that are currently operating that are coming in that would be considered conditional uses can continue to operate without going to the board, but they're subject to that cap. But if they want more than 12 or they're listed as a conditional use here and it's a new one, the appropriate step is for them to make an application to the Board of Adjustment for a conditional use permit, at which time they can make the case for whatever occupancy they are seeking. Okay, excellent. Thank you. And then one other question. I think maybe this is to Council Member James Brown or Council Member Sheehan. I know you all have been working on this for a really long time. And I also have heard this discussed in various ways as a starting point, and that we're going to see how things move forward with this proposed legislation in practice. And I'm wondering, as with something like ADUs, for example, if we're going to do an annual update or some kind of check in about the legislation once we have these other tools, tools with the potentially with software and whatnot. Do you mind? No, I think that's right. I think this is a policy that we can put in place and like other municipalities, go back and tweak or change it to best suit our community. But I think until we know how many short term rentals are actually out there and the impact that they're having on neighborhoods in our community, it's hard for us to continue to try to craft a policy to be until we actually know. So I do think it's something that we will have to check back in and give an update and maybe make amendments to the policy. Okay. Thank you very much. I think that'll be helpful for us to have additional context in the future. That's it. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. Council Member Fogle. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I would like to move to place on the docket number 8041-23, an ordinance changing the zone from a highway service business B3 zone to the wholesale and warehouse business B4 zone. For 0.91 net, that's 1.16 acres, the property located at 763 Newtown Pike. It's LLC and District 1. Approval was 9-0. to be heard by August the 23rd, 2023, Division of Planning, Duncan, without a public hearing. So moved. We have a motion by Council Member Fogel, seconded by Council Member James Brown. Is there any discussion on this item? Seeing none, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? That motion passes. Thank you very much. Is there anything else for requested rezonings and docket approval? All right. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? That motion passes. Moving on to approval of summary. Can I get a motion? Summary. Council Member Sheehan, Council Member Gray, is there any discussion? All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? That motion passes. Moving on to budget amendments. Can I get a motion to approve? Second. Second. Councilmember Plowman and Councilmember Sheehan. Any discussion? All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? motion passes you have budget adjustment for information only on pages six through eight and now we are on to new business get a motion to approve councilmember Baxter councilmember legris we have any comment discussion things to add to new business Council Member Plowman. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I have just a couple of clarifications. The first thing being for, it is the letter R. And I guess that's Ms. Carey. Mr. Allbright, are you? Since this impacts the health of the Veterans Council, What is our intent there for this additional service? It is to design the dam removal that is across the creek that's caused a lot of safety issues and water quality problems with sediment accumulating. And so then once that dam is removed, they will do additional design to make that more of a natural stream channel through there and then regrade the banks and just sort of return it back to prior to how that stream was before it was a farm. That's great news. I thought that perhaps that was it, but I'm glad that's coming our way. So thank you. Also, this would be for letter O. And this had to do with the Senior Citizen Center. I was trying to follow. Let's see who's here. There we go. So in trying to follow these additional monies, the $61,000 is an additional to what Bluegrass had originally- Correct, correct, it's just an additional sum, yes ma'am. So do you know what the total is, or 61 on top of what we originally had at the beginning? 21 on top of. Okay, great. Yes, I know. Yeah, we'll take it all we can, but that's super news. Okay, wanted to clarify that. Thank you. And my last one, and this would be for Director Burton. And this has to do with our allocation from our fiscal court for our county roads, which obviously are all out in 12. That figure's pretty much flat with last year, correct? Yeah, it's plus or minus a couple of $10,000. Okay, right around $800, because we always want more. And we always need more. Correct. Is there any more opportunity on the horizon to receive other funding from Fayette County, or do we know that yet? Not directly through the county road fund, because that's fixed based on gas tax percentage. That would require a legislator at the state level. So if we can get that changed, there may be. But locally? Locally, no. Physical is going to be it. Right. We don't participate in the setback for the rural and secondary program because we can spend it where other companies tend to put in a bank. And then if emergency happens, they can pull out of that. We don't participate in that because we can spend the money. Gotcha. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you, Vice Mayor. That's it. Thank you very much. Council Member Allender. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Doug, before you go back, I want to talk to you about P with County Roads. And I was talking to Council Member Plowman. And I know Mount Horb and Royster are in bad shape. Do you know where the $800,000 is going to go for? Yeah, it's not in the packet, but we have basically a list of about 10 or 12 streets that we vetted through both the council member and public complaints that we've gotten, as well as the judge executive and complaints that she's gotten. And then we, Andrew Greenwald in our office actually went out and visited a lot of those based on the complaints. For instance, Royster, there was a desire to pave the entire thing. Well, the entire thing doesn't need paving. There's a couple focus spots, so we pulled those out so we can pave those short sections rather than the entire roadway. But as part of the agreement that this will pass, there's a list of prescribed roads that we will be repaving. I know Royster, a portion of it is. And Mount Horv was the other one. Yeah. Did you have that list, or can we get that list to us? It's in the agreement that will accompany the packet, that it's in the blue sheet, but I can send it to you. Okay. Thank you. Yep. I appreciate it. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you. Anything else for new business? All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? That motion passes. Moving on to continuing business and presentations. We're going to start off with a summary of the Budget, Finance, and Economic Development Committee meeting of March 21, 2023 by Chair James Brown. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Budget, Finance, and Economic Development Committee, March 21, 2023 summary and motions. The meeting started at 1.03 p.m., approval of the February 28, 2023 committee summary. The committee unanimously approved of the February 28, 2023 committee summary. The Baird Financial Advisors Debt Bowering and Rating, Chip Sutherland, Managing Director at Baird Financial Advisors, presented on LFUCG's debt borrowing and financial ratings. LFUCG currently has $373,759,334 in outstanding debt. Since 2009, LFUCG has bonded $610,045,000. Sutherland emphasized the strength of LFUCG's ability to achieve an 8.3 year average principal payback on loans. LFUCG also does a good job of matching liability of debt with a lifespan of bond issues. The city's most recent rating reports reflected strong credit profile favorably by rating agencies. Moody, AA2 stable, and S&P AA stable. The cost difference if LFUCG were to achieve a triple A rating versus a double A rating is not significant. LFUCG is on target with other municipalities of its size. No action was taken on this item. I introduced the review of the Affordable Housing Fund ordinance item and reviewed the historical context for Affordable Housing Fund, including the history funding and recommendation. 36.5 million has been invested into the Affordable Housing Fund since fiscal year 15. There is a total of 3,082 affordable units with an additional 880 under construction that should come online next year. Loan receipts are approximately $350,000 annually, but is expected to continue to grow over time. Commissioner Lanter shared the capacity to spend affordable housing funds. is challenging and should be limited to approximately $4 to $5 million per year in order to expend them in a timely manner. A motion by Ellinger to approve of the amended Affordable Housing Fund ordinance, seconded by Plowman, the motion passed with a 9-1 vote. On behalf of the committee, I so move. Second. All right. We have a motion and a second. Is there any discussion on the motion? All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? That motion passes. So thank you, Vice Mayor. That ends my report, but I'd like to say thank you to the BUILD organization who is here today and who has worked with myself and Council Member Ellinger on this ordinance and also Council Member Clover. So the next step in this process is it will be on for the repealing of that ordinance and replacing of that ordinance will be on the docket for first reading this coming Thursday at the council meeting. So thank you. Thank you very much. All right, moving on. Thank you very much. We have a presentation for recommendations for planning and development approval process study. And we have by Philip Walker of the Walker Collaborative. Good afternoon. Craig Bentz with the Mayor's Office. So last year as part of the annual budget process, council allocated funding for a study of the city's planning. I'm going to pause you for just a second. Yes, sir. Make sure everybody can hear you. Let people leave. Thank you. Here as part of the annual budget process, council allocated funding for a study of the city's planning and development review processes. An RFP was advertised at that time and at the conclusion of that process, the Walker Collaborative Team was chosen to complete a six month study. Phil Walker is here today with members of his study team to provide the council with recommendations. That will be forwarded ultimately to the new commissioner of planning for their review and implementation. With that, I'd like to turn it over to Mr. Walker, and he'll present the study recommendations. Thank you. Welcome, Mr. Walker. Good afternoon. Thank you. I tend to have this effect on audiences. When they know I'm coming, they leave by the droves. Sorry about that. Yeah, it's good to be here and make sure my technology is working. I do want to, real quickly, I'm going to introduce my team. In addition to me, my team includes Keith Covington, who's here. He's an architect, urban designer, and planner. We've got Adam Clyer, who's a planner based here in Lexington with EHI Consultants. We've also got Steve Garland, who's a civil engineer with Prime AE based in Lexington. And last but not least is Craig Richardson, a land use attorney and planner with Clary and Associates out of Chapel Hill, North Carolina. And the purpose of this project, it wasn't to do a plan. It wasn't to do zoning regulations or anything. It was really just one thing, to look at your approval process for various types of applications that go before the Planning Commission and this body to figure out how to improve the process, both for the urban county government and for applicants. And so this is the final step we're in out of six different stages. And I'll talk about those. The first thing we did was to look at your current processes. You've got this fantastic resource, by the way, the Development Handbook, that was a good kind of starting point before we dug into all your regulations. The planning staff was able to pull together for us a lot of statistics about approvals for different types of applications over the last five years. And we broke that all down. It's in the report with a lot of infographics and so forth. As far as the stakeholder input process, we had an initial video conference meeting. Our team was here in late February, and we had a series of stakeholder meetings with, you can see the list of the different kind of interest groups, particularly the development community, but also people that are interested in representing neighborhoods and kind of keeping an eye out on development. And then we had follow-up interviews with individuals. There was a lot of those were people who just couldn't make the stakeholder meetings. We also, as part of the project, looked at some peer communities. And we started with a big, long list, narrowed it down to six. We had some general criteria that you can see listed there. But the six communities that we looked at were Chattanooga, Columbia, South Carolina, Greenville, South Carolina, Knoxville, Louisville, and Madison, Wisconsin. And there were some, first of all, there are no comparables for Lexington-Fayette County, as you know. When you think about the horse farms, the urban service area, all those things, it's very unique. So there are no comparables. But we thought we might be able to learn some lessons from some communities. And some of these, as you can see, most are in the south. A few have major universities. We looked at that. We looked at their numbers as far as how many development applications do they get per year, how many days does it take to get through the process. It turned out that that was kind of an interesting academic exercise, but the problem is you're always comparing apples with oranges because a site plan approval process in one community means something totally different in another. So we decided not to get too fixated on those numbers. But there were things we learned that these places were doing that are useful. So we then put together, per our scope, a series of criteria for measuring the recommendations that we would subsequently make. And these are the seven criteria to measure each recommendation. What's the impact on the quality of land use and development relative to community character? Predictability of the approval process and development outcomes. What are the costs to applicants? What are the costs to the urban county government? How does it affect the protection of natural and cultural resources? opportunities for public engagement and then finally equity issues for the disadvantage so those are the seven things we're thinking about after we put these together I'm about to launch into the recommendations and I'll go through them quickly we have ten total but before I do that I do want to just kind of reiterate that you know when I had always heard really positive things about the planning program you know your department in Lexington I always assumed that was correct I got to see it up you know up close and personal and it really was, it's really impressive. When you look at the plans you've done over the years, just the quality of your regulations, the philosophies behind it, it's really a top-notch program. Now, that doesn't mean we don't believe there are things you can do to improve the approval process, but overall, looking at your program, it's kind of top of the heap. So that's something that you ought to be really proud of. Okay, so here are the 10 recommendations. First of all, number one, We propose future land uses in the comprehensive plan. If you remember in 2013 with that plan, they got rid of proposed land uses or place types as we typically call them. The issue is that it makes it a little tough to have predictability and clarity. And we think that by going back to adding place types, proposed place types map in the comprehensive plan, that would be a big improvement on predictability and clarity. and the solutions could be either, we have kind of four different levels. Number one would be create a place types map, just straightforward. Number two, create an ideal place types map that at least says this is the ideal scenario, but doesn't take other potential place types off the board. Expand small area planning. This is something they do in Chattanooga, by the way, where their overall comprehensive plan just talks about development intensity, but then defers to all the small area plans. Now, that does require more small area plans to be done, your current ones to be updated, but that's another way to tackle it. And then another way is to take place builder, which is a great tool, but prioritize which policies might apply. Number two, limit place builders' use to supplementing the codes. Now, in theory, that's all it's used for. It states very clearly place builder comes into play when you're looking at rezonings. And then, of course, when you do a development plan for part of a rezoning, it would apply to that. but that the regulations that you have supersede the place builder. But it appears that place builders still use to kind of exact certain requirements out of development. So what we would recommend is that, first of all, you should make sure that your development regulations are their true gauge when you're reviewing applications. And if you have regulations that are just falling short of the aspirations of Place Builder, you need to update the regulations to be more in line with Place Builder. And if you do that, we recommend that you not do it in a piecemeal fashion, but instead do it comprehensively. Number three, streamline the process for infill, particularly small infill developments. Because, you know, the profit margins are a lot slimmer. It's tough to do. And so what we'd recommend is that really any of these following four ideas could be looked at. Number one, encourage and expand mixed housing districts. That is as of right approvals. Prioritize place builder policies. Again, maybe deciding these are always going to be required. These are important but not mandatory and kind of down the line. Number three, utilize the group residential project tool that you already have to the fullest extent. And then consider administrative approvals for infill projects or technical review committee approval. And, of course, you'd have to come up with criteria on what makes for a smaller project that could be done that way. Number four, reduce the workload of the subcommittees. And of all the recommendations, this is the one that's probably the murkiest in that it's going to take a little bit more digging to figure out what could possibly work. The reality, though, is that you have a lot of committees that are involved in the approval process. It's more than most communities. Most communities do have a TRC, Technical Review Committee, but you've also got a zoning subcommittee and a subdivision subcommittee. And we're just figuring out is there some way to streamline that a little bit more? One might be to reduce the number of applications that have to go before those committees. And again, you'd have to quantify the scale of the project to be able to do that. Then another one would be to give the zoning and subdivision committees some limited approval authority. And then lastly, you might even consider if there's some way to eliminate those committees, but create planning commission appointed seats on the TRC. Number five, utilize video conferencing and record meetings. Now, of course, that's done right now for public hearings. But when it comes to committee meetings, whether it's the TRC or the subdivision committee or the zoning committee, that's not really done. So what we're recommending is virtual broadcasting for all public meetings and work sessions, record those meetings, and then finally make it very user-friendly so that people know, the general public knows how to find those and access them. Number six, change, and this is going to get a lot of moans and groans from certain people, change the time of planning commission meetings. Right now, your meetings are at 1.30, which is great for professionals, planning staff, land use attorneys, engineers, people like that. But it's not necessarily very user-friendly for your average citizen. And so we think a lot of communities will have these kind of meetings at maybe 5, 6 o'clock, something like that. And even looking at some of the committee meetings being at similar hours. Now, your biggest challenge, I think, on that is space. finding the meeting space and having it available, but it should at least be an objective that you look into. Number seven, utilize the Accela portal in a more effective manner. And I'm assuming most of you know what the Accela portal is. And apparently they are the folks, you talk to anybody in any community, everybody seems to use this, but it's certainly not perfect. And we looked at Louisville as this one example, because we kept hearing like, well, they don't seem to have as many issues. One of the biggest problems here is that a lot of times applicants don't see comments from, say, staff, and then they find out about it later. What they do in Louisville, they generate weekly reports that apparently help some. And a lot of it just has to do with staffing. They have literally four to five Accela staff people, IT folks that work on Accela that represent different departments in their local government. So it may take more staffing, but we think Louisville might have some ideas for you. Number eight, tighten the certification process to lock in the requirements. And as you probably know, certification is that last step in development approval where all the I's are dotted and the T's are crossed. But one of the issues is that sometimes a developer will have this approval and the requirements seem to change on them. And so what we would recommend would be the following. You can see this list of bullet points. Number one, limit staff members who are on the sign-off list, that is, if they sign off on the plans, to those whose expertise is clearly relevant, right? Number two, require TRC meeting attendance by at least one representative of any department that's involved with the review process. Number three, prohibit new issues from being raised by staff after a plan has been revised per the TRC meeting. Next, limit conditions for approvals to quantifiable specifics. And this is something that really jumped out at us. Usually when you have conditions for, let's say, a subdivision or a site plan, the conditions are quantifiable. Like instead of four shade trees in the parking lot, we want to see six. In Ural's case, a lot of times it's satisfy the city engineer, satisfy the bike ped coordinator. A lot of times it's about satisfying a particular staff person, which is kind of open-ended. So we would recommend that you stick with quantifiable conditions when approving plans. Next, adopt a policy that prohibits increasing requirements after an application has been approved. And then finally, allow applicants to get administrative approval for really minor modifications that might have to occur after their approval. Number nine, and we've got ten total, so we're almost there, adopt a new policy for ex-party communications. And this is something our land use attorney, Craig Richardson, worked on quite a bit. And as you know right now, the approach is that your body, your members cannot talk to the public before a rezoning vote or something along those lines. And Craig took a look at all the land use law, the case history, and he thinks there's a way actually to get around that. The key is that all this stuff be part of the record. So number one, you can meet with the public. You need to focus on the merits of the application. You might want to set time limits. There should be a specific location for the meeting. It should all be documented carefully. If anybody requests a meeting and it's turned down, it should be indicated why the meeting was turned down and didn't occur. Any sort of conflicts of interest, of course, need to be announced. And then there needs to be a procedure where the public can submit their comments in Louisville. Apparently, it's done online. And so anyway, we think you have a lot more leeway when it comes to ex-party communications than the current practices. And then finally, establish a development liaison position. We think this is really important. In fact, Louisville and Chattanooga both have funding requests for this position. Now, Columbia, South Carolina, one of our six peer communities, has a development liaison. It's called the business liaison there. And apparently it works very well. Now, this person would not be part of the planning department. They would be in another department, but they would sort of bird dog applications through the process. And you can see this kind of list of things that they would do as far as communicating with developers, keeping them aware of any kind of changes in the regulations. And they could also, and this was raised at our planning commission meeting earlier today, that could also communicate with the general public, neighborhood folks who are interested in the development process as well. So that is our, those are our 10. I see the shot clock's about to go off. I won't go into the application of the process criteria, but if we have time for questions, I can answer them. Yes, absolutely. Thank you so much. I appreciate your hustle on the presentation. Okay, thank you. Council members, please sign in for questions and comment. Council member Plowman. Thank you, Vice Mayor, and that was a very good presentation. You can see a lot of good thought went into that. The one I'm questioning here is on recommendation nine, when we're talking about a new policy for the ex parte communications. And I'm sure there's a good reason for this, but It talks about as long as the meeting focuses on the merits of the application. What about the other side? Because it seems like so many times we're looking at not the positive side of the development. Yeah, and I guess maybe we should change, maybe, you know a better word, and where's Craig, might be like the substance of the application. As opposed, I mean there's going to be pros and cons to every development application. I bet a better word that we might want to use instead of the merits would be the substance. Okay, so we're not talking about plus and minuses. Do you agree with that, Craig? Yeah, he agrees. Okay. Very good point. I'm thinking, oh, all the good things. I'm sure there's some bad things. Yeah, no, that's a really good point. Make sure it was more balanced. We'll change that language. Okay, super. Thank you. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you. Council Member Savigny. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Great presentation. And typically, what do you find that after you do a presentation like this, who tends to run with the ball on this? Because I see some numbers compared to other places like subdivisions, average days for approval of 523, like it's five times the next one. And so obviously I think we have just, there's probably some things inherent in our process that create some tension. And I'm just trying to figure out how do you normally see people take this information and who runs with the ball? Yeah, so typically, so whoever would figure out, can we hire this, you know, the development liaison position, they would probably spearhead. That might be your first starting point. I personally think, I mean, when you think about the 10 recommendations, you're probably not going to adopt them all. You know, if you adopted half of them, that's going to improve things. I personally think that that one would be a key because they could then implement the rest of it. But, of course, you know, Craig is our client and his office, I think, and Kevin would probably be the ones to kind of take the next steps. Sure. Just to add to that, if I may, what we're envisioning is that this report will be forwarded to the new office of the Commissioner of Planning. and so that whoever's installed in that position will have a chance to review this document in its entirety, ask questions, we'll have that discussion with them as well. And they would work with the Planning Commission and with this council in determining which of these options or maybe other options would be reasonable to move forward with. Thank you very much. That's great. Thanks for the presentation. Thank you. Council Member Gray. Thank you, Vice Mayor. And thank you for your wonderful report. It's very thorough. And the 10 items I think will be extremely useful for us. But I have a question. On the third page of your presentation, which states the approvals over the past five years, and there's data given with numbers, of course, I'm just curious, in your research, did you go over how many actual rejections or how many applicants we have had for such as variants, BOA variants or anything like that, that we've had rejections? and how do those numbers correlate with, I guess, these other areas that we were, I guess, measured against or compared against? Yeah, that really wasn't one of the things that we looked for. We were focused more on how many different types of applications are processed each year and what the duration, you know, the time it took to get through the process, which, by the way, as I mentioned before, it's a real apples and oranges thing. I wouldn't get too fixated on those numbers because I don't have a lot of confidence in them, including, by the way, Madison, Wisconsin gave us nothing. They were the only place we didn't get. There were other communities where we got some information and not. But I think they tended to be overly optimistic on their estimation. I was hoping to get real numbers. Like your planning staff gave us hard numbers on applications. These other cities, because they didn't have as much at stake, I think we're guessing. But I think it was a real ideal scenario. If everything goes perfectly, this is how many days. So I wouldn't really worry too much about that. But on the rejections, I don't know. We didn't. Okay. I was just asking because I've heard from numerous businesses and other entities that were saying that it was harder. Lexington was the hardest place ever to make like it's its home because of the number of hoops they had to go through and the number of rejections and different committees they had to go through with differing answers. in order to make Lexington its home. So I was just curious. But that was the kind of stuff, it's not really quantitative, more qualitative that we got from all of our focus group meetings where we sat down with developers and their professionals, and we got a lot of that perspective. Of course, not everything we heard was necessarily accurate, but we at least took notes. Okay, well, thank you. Thank you. Council Member Baxter. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Okay, so earlier in your presentation, thank you for the presentation and for doing this work. I was so excited to see the presentation, something I've been looking forward to. So did you feel like, or you stated that you felt like we had some great policies in place, but do you feel like our policies are so restrictive that they're extending the approval process? Did you see anything that really stood out to you that you were like, why are you all doing it that way? Not really. Of course, we weren't looking much at the substance of your regulations. Again, it was all about the process. But I don't think there's anything in there that's just plain too restrictive. It's more about how can we make the process work a little bit better for everybody. But there wasn't anything that jumped out to me on, oh, wow, that's just overly restrictive. Okay. And then when you were going through the stakeholder meetings, I know that they started in February, but how many total did you have? We had six. Six? And each of those had roughly, I mean, some of them were four or five people. Most of them were ten to a dozen. And that was by design, by the way. We really capped it off because it's different from one of these town hall type meetings where you have a lot of people and everybody's chiming in. And there's a certain threshold where when you get more than about a dozen, people won't speak up. They won't be frank. And you won't be able to dig as deeply into certain topics. So it was kind of that was our optimal number. Okay. And then how did you or who was responsible for identifying those stakeholders? So we came up with sort of the types of people, not the individuals since we don't know the individuals, but the types of folks. And then I guess Craig and other people were the ones that were able to match those types with actual people. Okay. I was really excited to see the recommendation about a streamlined process for infill development. I think that's really important for us, if that's going to be a focus of the community. But I was curious, as you were looking at these other communities, if anything stood out as a really creative way to combat NIMBYism, because that's something that we see a lot. So I didn't know if you all got that far in your research or, you know, while we would love to make the process as streamlined as possible, if we still have the community fighting us at every turn on every infill project, those are the types of hurdles that we're trying to jump. So I'm trying to figure out how we streamline it and make an approval. And to me, that's more of a, you know, local government, public relations and getting the word out. But there may be an opportunity for this development liaison position, even though a lot of their focus would be to help applicants through, as was raised at the Planning Commission meeting earlier today, they might also be a great resource for neighborhood folks who are kind of trying to keep an eye on development. So that may help in that regard. Okay. And then my last question is, I know you presented to the Planning Commission earlier, and what were their general feelings on your findings? Yeah, so they had a lot of questions. I'm trying to think of the things where we got a little bit of pushback. Number one, on the future land uses, a lot of them weren't real comfortable with the place types map. And I think that they may have a picture of something a little bit different in their heads than what we have. And I almost felt like they thought we were suggesting going back to the old days where you had all these single-use districts and office district here and single family half acre lots here. And you can have, and they seem to think it would stifle creativity and flexibility. You can create place types, which are basically like land use categories, but they also go into form and density and character. And you can have diverse uses. I mean, there's one example brought up about the distillery district and some of the industrial areas that have been rehabbed as if using a place types map couldn't achieve that when it certainly could. It would just be a place type you would describe in your comprehensive plan. And a lot of the stuff, you've really already got most of it in your place builder, which is a great tool. And we're certainly not suggesting that you not continue to use place builder. We just think there would be a lot more predictability and clarity, and it may get people through the rezoning process more quickly if there is a place types map. Great. Thank you. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you. Council Member Fogel. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you for your presentation, and I would just like to make a comment first. Thank you for putting in this presentation where you lift up the constituents in the community when you said about moving the time so that voices can be heard. I am very touched with that. We very seldom hear that from that podium. And so reflecting on the infield piece and the recommendations, so from our community, that's like a slippery slope because infield has been replaced with gentrification and some of the history and ancestry has been lost within the infield. So that's a little slippery slope. It shows with the pop-ups of the short-term rentals. And because we need affordable housing in the infield, but we have a lot of short-term rentals now, that has replaced folks' history and longevity and being born in a certain community. I love this report. I just wanted to thank you for that. And I'll just keep an eye on it. And most of the stuff I was going to ask you, sidekick already clarified it. So thank you for your presentation. Thank you. Thank you. So as the chair of the infill and redevelopment steering committee, I was very, very excited for your presentation. I'm excited about a lot of these recommendations. And I've got a bunch of little things I'm going to pepper you with now. Looking at some of these timelines in terms of the amount of time to approval, and I know you said the comparative data with the other cities is kind of hit and miss because of what they provided, but the three things that jumped out at me at the approvals over the last five years is final record plat, seven months, major development plan, five months, and zone change, eight months. And then, as I said, they don't necessarily compare apples to oranges to other cities. In your experience, are those time frames out of the norm? Are they drastically longer than what you think they should be? Yeah, every community is different. I'd say it is on the lengthy side, though, compared to most communities. In your recommendation number one, when you talk about place types, is that the same thing as proactive zoning? So instead of waiting for applicants to come through with zone changes, the city itself goes in preemptively and proactively to zone areas according to what we think we need in those neighborhoods. Well, so let me start off separating the place types and the comprehensive plan from zoning. So think of this as, you know, 10, 20 years ago, we just said proposed land use map. And you would describe what those areas were. And that's different than zoning which implements that land use plan. The problem with the old way of doing it was the focus was on land use. You might have an area colored red and it says commercial. And that red could be for your downtown and that red could be for a strip commercial corridor. Well, we know that there's a heck of a difference between a historic downtown and a strip commercial corridor. So the place types, the beauty of that, it not only designates land use and intensity, but development form and character. And so the good news is that when you have a comprehensive plan with the place types map, and this stuff can all come right out of your place builder, you've already defined these different place types, then it makes it easier to then adopt the zoning because you've already described some of the key elements. So you're really just kind of quantifying it with zoning. Did you all ever talk about the idea of zoning reform and inclusionary zoning as potential sort of solutions to speed things up? So on inclusionary zoning, you know, again, I think that would get a little bit beyond just the process that we're focused on. So we did not look at inclusionary zoning. On recommendation, let's see here. 3D, when you talk about consider administrative approval for infill projects and then also leading into a couple of items in recommendation for reducing the workload of the subcommittees. Are we talking about creating some levels of approval that don't require the planning commission's authority? Exactly. Now, you'd have to quantify, you know, when we say smaller projects that might be administratively approved by staff or even the TRC possibly, you need to quantify either by the size of the site, number of housing units, square footage of non-residential developments. Somehow, there needs to be a threshold that would distinguish between what would still need to go before the planning commission or, you know, staff. But, yes, some of those would be approved administratively. I really also appreciated recommendations five and six and to echo Councilmember Fogles about meeting times, transparency. It does show that there was public engagement and those are the kind of things that we hear from the public. My last question is, are most of your recommendations going to be sort of process level changes between the planning commission and the planning staff? Or are any of those changes will require council ordinance or resolution type changes? Yeah, I'm trying to think on implementing some of these, what would be required as far as a resolution by council. Clearly that the ex-party meeting issue is something that directly impacts council. Most of the other things are more related to the planning commission and the committees. Thank you so much. If there are no other questions or comments, thank you Mr. Walker, thank you Mr. Benz. It was a great presentation. Thank you. Appreciate it. All right, moving on. Our last presentation for today is the Human Rights Commission Financial Review by Executive Director Ray Sexton. Come on up. Good afternoon. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you, Council. It's good to be here. I appreciate your all's support. We're going to liven up the conversation a little bit by the talk of financial audits. Let me make sure I can drive here. All right. As you know, to kind of give you a background, the Commission has been a little behind on our financial audits. And I'm going to kind of go through the purpose of the presentation is bringing the LFUCG Urban County Council up to date on the Lexington Human Rights Commission's financial review delinquency. Before I start, I'd like to introduce, I brought some people with me. I have Alan Norville, who's the director of Blue and Company. He's going to be my financial whiz here. So any particular questions you have regarding the audit itself, I'm going to defer those to Mr. Norville. We've got Barbara Ellerbrook, she is our chair of the commission. Got Ed Dove, commission attorney, as well as Tammy Reed, senior office manager, who does a lot of the communication back and forth with our auditors. Now we'll preface this presentation by saying that the steps taken, not taken during this, kind of what I'm going to do is kind of go through how we got here, where we've been since last year, and kind of where we are moving forward. I will say last night at our board meets third Monday of every month. Third Monday this month was Juneteenth, so we met last night. And the board did approve the final draft of the all fiscal reviews from FY 2016 to FY 2021. So those have been passed out to you and they kind of look like this. So those are available for you on your desk. I will say that every step that we took or did not take, it wasn't a decision by Ray Sexton or Tammy Reed. Our board was very active in this process. Every meeting that we did, we had in our budget portion of our meetings, we had an audit update. We knew this was something that needed to be done, but as you can see, as we'll take you through it, coulda, woulda, shoulda, this is what we did in the past. our financial capabilities in 2009, 2010 are a little bit different than where we were here. So in 2009, we had an unprecedented financial situation. That's a discussion for another day. If anybody wants to take me out for cocktails or beer or something, I'd be glad to talk about this. I was a lowly compliance director back then and was placed in a position of as the interim executive director. and that precipitated on May 26, 2010. We went through an internal audit with LFUCG. A draft report was issued in May of 2010 and that had some certain recommendations. Nothing nefarious was found. It was just kind of an issue with most Americans. We had more money going out than we had coming in. So after that internal audit, you could say that audits weren't on our brain for a little bit. But in 2011, we engaged another auditor who was Natalie Barrett. She was going to do our financial reviews. And she was appointed to their board. So the fact that she was appointed to our board, she could no longer serve as our auditor. So she recommended a gentleman by the name of Doug Allen. So on July 8th of 2012, we entered an engagement letter with Doug Allen, with Allen and company. This is a public meeting, so that's all I'll say about that. Mr. Allen was supposed to get the Human Rights Commission current with their audits. Again, this is kind of where it goes. From 2012 to 2018, he only provided us with three audits. The reason, again, when early parts of me being in charge of the commission, we were in really financial quagmire. It was one of those situations where our board was dropping off office supplies to us because we could not even afford paper and things like that. So back then, and I will say, I'll probably say it again, back then we were doing a full accrual accounting. It was all assets, all liabilities. Those tend to be more expensive. If anything, if any blessing came out of this situation is we found out that we only have to do cash basis financial statements, which is cash receipts and cash disbursements. It is quicker to do, and it's a lot cheaper alternative. But back then, somebody down the line took that to mean we had to do a full-on audit. So Mr. Allen was a cheaper alternative. He charged $5,000 at that time, and we knew if we went with a different auditor, it was going to be probably two to three times more. And at that point, he had all our information. So it was kind of one of those things where we're at a point of no return. We couldn't say, okay, give us everything back and forget about everything you've done so far because we were kind of waiting for him to give that point. So that boiled all over on August 2, 2018. Doug Allen was told to submit the FY 2013 audit, or we would report him to the State Board of Accountancy. And so he submitted that audit on December 17th of 2018. So in August of 2018, the board chose Blue and Company as our new auditor. On October 2, 2018, the agreement with Blue and Company for the FY 2014 audit. So in November 2020, the FY14 audit was reported to our full commission with no changes or concerns. Keep in mind this time span, the pandemic, with each offices having limited in-office operation. Also during the pandemic, we were trying to, as everybody, navigate the pandemic and provide the basic services that our office provides. and then July 28, 2022, our FY 2015 audit was completed. Again, at that time, the HRC was doing full audits that cost about $15,000 per audit. We knew at that point we typically had two audits budgeted to be completed per fiscal year and that kind of gets into a situation like with a credit card, if you're only paying the minimum balance, you're really not going to get caught up. So we had a commissioner one time chimed in, well, why don't we do all the audits and get caught up? I was like, that's a great idea, but we've got to have the money to do it. So that took us to the timeline of getting caught up. How did we get caught up? Well, it started March 22nd of 2022. We got a letter from Teresa Reynolds. We get a community block development grant, and we got an email regarding that saying, based on the review, they had lack of financial statements. So April 7th, 2022, email from Charlie Lanner asking Human Rights Commission for explanation of why the most recent financial statements was from six years ago. April 11th, 2022, I sent a memo to Charlie Lanner detailing reasons for the audit delinquency, much like we talked about the last slide, but a little more in depth. And then April 26, 2022, letter from Charlie Lanter requesting that Human Rights Commission to bring the financial statements current through FY 2021, no later than June 30th of 2023. So that's kind of where we are today, although we did still get it in before the deadline. So May 5th of 2022, email from Blue and Company with outline of the two cost proposals for two different audit options. And again, May 5th, 2022, a letter to Charlie Laner asking for clarification of what type of audit is requested, because we're talking about realistic being able to get this done on a financial standpoint. May 11th, 2022, email from Charlie Laner stating that the Human Rights Commission is not subject to a full single audit requirement, but need financial statements from each year approved by the board. So the HRC engaged with Blue and Company for services to get caught up. January 19th, 2023, email from Charlie Lanner regarding update on our financial reviews. January 24th, 2023, email to Charlie Lanner informing him that Blue and Company determined that it would be easier and more cost efficient to complete all reviews at once. And we will submit them before the June 30th, 2023 deadline. mine. March 15, 2023, Human Rights Commission had meeting. I call it the pre-link group. It was a meeting I totally missed in my email, but we basically had to go before a group of people to explain our FY 2024 budget request before it was considered. At that meeting, we were asked about the status of our financial reviews, and we gave an update at that time. Sally Hamilton requested the Human Rights Commission to get a letter from an auditor asking exactly what was being done, expected results, and if reviews can be completed by our deadline, again, of June 30th. March 16th, 2023, we got a letter from Blue and Company. They graciously got that letter to us, and we forwarded it to the LFUCG per their request. On May 30th of 2023, Tammy Reed and I had a draft financial review session with Blue and Company and received it and reviewed it with our auditor. June 7, 2023, the final draft of financial reviews were received from Blue and Company. And again, our regular meeting was to fall on the third Monday of June, which is June 19th, which was Juneteenth. So our regular due to that being a commission holiday, it was moved to the fourth Monday, which was yesterday, June 26, 2023, final draft of financial reviews approved by the board. And then today, June 27, 2023, final draft of financial reports submitted to LFUCG. Now, this is where I'm kind of not going to get in too much detail because I'm not the financial expert. But essentially, our financial audit reviews, if you look through each fiscal year, it consists of several sections. We got the report by the auditor. Summary of significant accounting policies, cash, inter-fund transfers, operating leases, retirement plans. And again, if you want to learn any and everything about the county employee's retirement system that you were afraid to ask, it'll be in that section. Post-employment health care benefits, commitment and contingencies, concentrations, subsequent events. And then 11, 12, and 13 is, if you really want to know without having to read the whole thing, it's going to be in sections 11, 12, and 13. That's report on internal control over financial reporting, report on compliance and other matters, as well as a summary of auditor's results. So I'll go through these fiscal year, barring my time. I know I had three minutes and 35 seconds. And they got a little star next to it because when I created this PowerPoint, these financial reviews have not been finally approved. I did not want to give anything that didn't have our final approval yet, so that's why I brought them in today. FY 2016, on the section report on internal control over financial reporting, did not find material weaknesses or significant deficiencies. Report on compliance and other matters. No instances of noncompliance or other matters that are required to be reported under government auditing standards. And then, of course, the summary of the auditor's results. No instances of noncompliance, which are material to the commission's statement of cash receipts and disbursements. So if you go, I know you guys can read. So I'm not going to, and for the sake of time, I'm going to say FY 2017, same results, nothing found on the internal control. No instances of noncompliance or other matters with respect to report on compliance and other matters. And of course, the summary of auditors results, no instances of noncompliance. 2018, you're going to find the same thing, no material weaknesses, no instances of noncompliance, no instances of noncompliance which are material to the commission statements of cash, receipts, and disbursements. FY 2019, this is a good time to have a bill. Have a broken record, this is a good time to have a broken record. No material weaknesses, report on compliance, no instances of non-compliance or other matters, and the summary of auditors results. No instances of non-compliance. FY 2020, same thing in every category. No weaknesses, no non-compliance, no instances of no compliance. And finally, FY 2021, again, not finding material weaknesses. No instances of noncompliance or other matters. And the summary of auditors' results, no instances of noncompliance, which are material of the commission's statements of cash receipts. So what do we do moving forward? Again, we budgeted. We still have FY 2022 and FY 2023 to go due to our funding, budget, all that fun stuff. It's set to take place after July 1st, which is Saturday. So what we're going to do is once July 1st gets here, we're going to go into the FY22 and then into the FY2023 audits. They're going to be back to back. And then once the FY2023 financial audit is complete, the Human Rights Commission will be completely current. And that's it. All right, thank you very much. Council Member Baxter. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I just wanted to take a moment to thank you all for your hard work on getting this done. I know it was an undertaking, and I know that we asked a lot of you to do it. This isn't anything that I haven't said to you all off the record, but our responsibility as council members is to provide financial transparency to our taxpayers because we are the stewards of their dollars. so we just wanted to make sure that we were helping be as transparent as possible, and we appreciate your all's cooperation in the process. I don't have any questions for you. I just wanted to say thank you. Sure. I mean, yeah, it's been a dark cloud hanging over us, and believe me, we were motivated as anybody to get this completed because I haven't had to address this every time. It's not been fun. But, like I said, if anything good ever came out of it, It's to find out we didn't need to do the full on audit, which was very expensive. And doing what we were doing, it was going to be a long time to get caught up. So the fact that we were able to do it, and we appreciate Blue and Company, they've never done six at once. So it was fun for them as well, but yeah, we appreciate your all support and understanding during this time. Thank you. Councilmember Savigny. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Thanks for the report. Very good. So the real thing is, so what have you learned and what do you really want to, how are you going to change? Because this tends to be like a board issue a little bit and it also tends to be a management issue. Right. Doing certain things. Well, it was kind of, again, we learned that, again, we don't have to, you know, we were adjusted the way somewhere down the line. somebody thought this is the way we needed to do things and it just built on, it's kind of like the game Tetris, it just keeps building on. So moving forward, it's simple. We're going to stay caught up. We're going to get them done. We've got a great auditor that we can depend on. You know, we pinned our hopes onto somebody who talked a good game and could get us current and come find out he did just the opposite. He was very charismatic. And when you talk to a guy, you wanted to give him a million chances, and that's what we do. And if I could do it all over again, I wouldn't have given him that many chances. I would have cut it. But again, we were financially, from a financial standpoint, we didn't have a lot of choices. But moving forward, it's the board, the staff, we have a great board and great staff. This is going to stay current, and this is not going to be an issue again. Appreciate it. Thank you very much for hard work. Thank you. Council Member Savigny took my big question, so I have just a smaller question for you. The packet that we have in our hands, this is current and approved by your board, is that correct? Yes, sir. Okay. Are there any differences between this and what's in your slide deck with the little asterisk in terms of the findings? No, no, I just put that because they were preliminary findings at that point, and now we can take those off. Okay, thank you very much. Council Member Fogle. Thank you, Vice Mayor, and thank you for your presentation. My only comment and question is 2020 to 2022, COVID. My constituents, well, Council Brown was their council member at that time, But they were having a hard time getting in touch or getting any services from the Human Rights Commission. So is that reflective in the audit about how many people did not get service versus the people that were able to get services with their complaints? And I know your staffing was short, but we were inside and there was all those evictions and other complaints that came through your office. Is that reflected in this audit? The information regarding compliance statistics, that's more in our annual reports and not in this financial. This is specifically just our cash flow and things like that. If you contact me, we do have those statistics. Those are usually in a separate annual report. So with the financial, because they weren't serviced, there was no financial. Okay, I got you. All right, thanks. Yeah. Thank you. If there are no more questions, thank you Mr. Sexton, appreciate your presentation. Thanks so much, appreciate it. All right, let's do council reports. Council members, please sign in. Council member Reynolds. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I wanted to highlight two things that happened this past weekend. A lot of stuff happened. But first of all, the Pride Festival was in the Central Bank Center for the first time. And it was a really great event and free from the heat and sun. So that was great. And I'm glad so many people turned out, even though it was in a different venue. It was good to see a lot of you all there as well. And then the goat project that has been happening on Oxford Circle was kind of shortened. I showed some pictures a while ago. The goats were supposed to be there to clean up the creek, the Wolfram Creek at Vons Creek right there, Vons Branch Creek. And the goats ate the invasive plants so quickly that they were only there for two weeks. instead of three weeks. They ate a lot of the area. They did a great job. And it really did bring people together. I'm so impressed with Paula Singer getting a grant and doing that project. The people, the business owners came out, the community came out, and the goats went home on Saturday. And then a few goats came back on Sunday. And a bunch of us were out there helping take down the fences and everything with a baby goat. It was so much fun. So those goats are going to be back there in October to continue eating the invasive plants. So that's fun. Y'all will have to come out for that. And then I did want to place an item in committee. after talking about the recommendations for improving planning and development, two really stood out to me that I've been thinking about for a while. So I would like to take a deeper look into these. So I moved to place into general government and planning recommendations around tightening certification to lock in requirements for development, and that's number eight in our packet of presentation that we just saw. And then number ten, establish a development liaison position. So moved. We have a motion and a second from Council Member Sheehan. Any discussion on this motion? Seeing none, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? That motion passes. That'll be all. Thank you. Thank you very much. Council Member Plumman. Thank you, Vice Mayor and colleagues. I don't know how I do it, but whenever I push my button, it takes me to the top of the list. If you want to hang out, I'll teach you how to do it. No, I'm kidding. Okay, but I am next. And I wanted to share with you, a week from yesterday, we hit our Juneteenth, the kickoff, fundraising kickoff of Census Space. And that has to do with the celebration and recognition of our hamlets. and the cool part of it is that we're going to have a history center when we collect all the artifacts and we raise the money. And this was the kickoff. And the first picture you saw was at Cadentown Baptist, and that's where we held the announcement and the festivities. What was really cool afterwards, and I'll show the picture of the council folks that were there, we all went downstairs into their hall, and that's Ms. Yvonne Giles, who's a member of our steering committee. We've got a great 12 member steering committee, very vested, very diverse group, and represents a lot of different important facets of our community. But there we are. The goal of our campaign, a census space, is half a million dollars, 500,000. And drumroll, I'm proud to report that we have $131,000 to that goal right out of the starting gate. And I want to thank those council members whose offices have already contributed to that. And that helped a lot. Here we are downstairs, as I said, had a great lunch. We had over 140 people show up for this event with basically announcing our fundraising goal. So well attended, a real sense of community. And our next event will be, let's see here, our next event is going to be another one, a community outreach. And it will be at Uttington Town. And that I believe is on September the 17th or 19th. But you'll hear about it and you can tell here who everybody was that was here. That good looking guy, well, I was going to say you, my smear. Holding the sign and then myself and then Council Member Cray, Council Member Lynch, Council Member Worley, Sheehan, and Saviti. So thank you all for coming and again, thank you to the council members that have contributed thus far and it's never too late. It's a great event. I just wanted to share that with you. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you. Council Member Fogel. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I don't even know where to start. So I would like to say happy birthday to my legislative aide who is not here, Tyler Morton. Today's his birthday. And so I'm pretty sure he's not sitting at home watching the council meeting. And so without him, I do not have my photos. So I'll probably be repeating this same thing on Thursday when he returns. But we took a group of Brand Station students and some people from Lexington to Washington, D.C., and they were able to go to the House and the Senate and to the Supreme Court. They were amazed, and it was some inner-city students that had never been probably out of the state. So that was a great adventure. Also, there were many Juneteenth events, and I was very tired at the end of the two days that we participated, but you will see those photos. I also would like to uplift, oh, y'all not going to believe this. I would like to, the Hope Center. I finally went on tour, and so I'm team Hope Center now. So just want to make that report and all the hard work that they're doing out there. And I have several pictures to post with that. It's just a learning experience sitting here in this seat about other people's hard work that I don't see. And so I'm very appreciative to that. And the last thing I wanted to lift up is that I don't know, council, if we have a plan. but I would like for you all to think about a plan. I was so tired coming back from my Washington trip that I went to sleep, and when I woke up, the storm was happening and the news was on. And the first thought was, what is going on with the unhoused people? Where are they? Are they wet? Are they under tree? Do we have a plan? Where are they supposed to go? And so as we move forward, I am just asking that at some point we have this conversation, Is there an emergency plan for them if the hail is falling down and if they do make it down to the courthouse, they're soaking wet. How do they get dry? What do we do? And so it's almost like the winter storms. So these things have popped up. We haven't had time to discuss it. I've got some thoughts that will concern Commissioner Ford with opening some of the shelters that are in the parks. Because the unhoused are up in the parks anyway, trying to sleep and hide under bushes. So my heart was hardened when I woke up to the storm. And I just wanted us to be mindful of folks who don't have houses. I know there is a plan. Thank you all for the $443,000 that was added to the affordable housing. And there is a plan coming about housing folks at hotels. So I wanted to put that out there. And I want to thank each and every one of you all for your hard work that you do each and every day that people don't even see us and what we do up here on this horseshoe. I call it the shoe. You know I've got to break it down. And so just thanks. Thanks, social services. I know you guys are doing a good job. So that's my report until Tyler Morton gets back. Thank you very much. Council Member Brown. Thank you, Vice Mayor. And I'll be brief. And, Council Members, I apologize. When I was doing the report out for the BFED committee, I skipped over a paragraph which gave context to the ordinance that we put on the docket. So I'm going to go ahead and read it now for the record, but I blame it on my heart, not my head. But it says, there was an ordinance proposed repealing the ordinance 103, 2014 in its entirety and replacing it with an ordinance that sets a minimum budgetary funding goal of 1% of the general fund revenue collected from the previous fiscal year dedicated for the Affordable Housing Fund. In addition, the proposed ordinance will continue designating funding in the amount of at least $750,000 each year for innovative and sustainable solutions to homelessness fund. This proposed ordinance will go into effect at the start of FY 2025. I apologize moving past that. I think all of us know or most of us know that's what was proposed and what came out of committee. So I just wanted to get that on the record. And then I also just want to say, you know, there's been a lot of deaths recently, I feel, around us. So I just want to, you know, tell LaShawn Barber that's in the council office, Chief Weathers and his family, and our colleague Fred Brown and his family that our prayers and thoughts are with them and that we'll just continue to pray and be here to support them in their time of need. So thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you for that. Council Member Legree. Thank you, Vice Mayor. We have had so many wonderful events to celebrate over the last couple of weeks. We've mentioned Juneteenth and pride and I just wanted to share a few photos of the 100th anniversary birthday event at Ashland Terrace where I had the privilege of presenting a proclamation for 100 years on behalf of Mayor Gorton declaring June 17th Ashland Terrace Day. Council member James Brown also was there, and thank you council member for being there. I have to say I visit with the ladies at, there he is. I visit with the ladies at Ashland Terrace pretty regularly. So if anybody wants to come with me to visit with them, they always ask tough questions. They have great ideas and they stay up on everything we're doing here in City Hall. So I just wanted to say congrats again on 100 years and celebrate that. One other thing I wanted to bring up is something to look forward to starting in the month of July. It's National Parks and Recreation Month and there are going to be celebrations all throughout the month with partnerships with local businesses. So that every Friday in July there's going to be a collaboration released and a portion of the proceeds from each special drink or bite from these restaurants and establishments will be going toward a fund to plant trees in local parks around the city. So just so that you know, July 7th is the first celebration and collaboration. And that's with Lucy Brown Coffee Bar. And they'll have a maple, black walnut, and vanilla iced espresso and iced espresso cocktails. And so I hope that you all are able to get out and about and try one of these local businesses in the process and support our trees and our parks as well. That's it. Thanks. Thank you very much. That's all of our council reports. We do have a mayor's report. Can I get a motion to approve? Second. Motion by Councilmember Ellinger, second by Councilmember Baxter. Any questions? All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? That motion passes. There's also a mayor's report on price contract bid recommendations. Take a motion there as well. Second. Councilmember Civigni, Councilmember Gray, any discussion? All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? That motion passes. On to public comment for issues not on the agenda. We have two people left over, and one is yielding time, so I want to make sure everybody's here. Is Charles Merle here? And is Rick Day here? And you're yielding to Rick Day, is that correct? Okay. All right, Mr. Day, you'll have six minutes when you get up there, and please state your name and council district for the record. Thank you. My name is Rick Day. I live in the third district and have worked for the urban county government for 23 years. Not long ago, I stood here and commented on the urban county government's employee compensation policies. Today I will begin to explain those comments and begin trying to convince you that my comments were justified. I realize that may take a while and that's okay. I have gathered a lot of information. I have numerous examples in plenty of time. My first example, let's take a look at how current employees Nathan Dickerson and Jason Martin have fared under our policies. Many of you probably know Nathan, but not Jason. I know Jason, but not Nathan. But you do not need to know them to understand this example. It is not as much as them as it is about their positions. The value of their positions to the residents of Fayette County and how they are compensated for the value that they provide. Jason and Nathan started working for their county government in the summer of 2014. They both have been here nine years. Today, Nathan is an administrative officer in the public works commissioner's office. Jason is an infrastructure program manager in water quality. They work in different areas, have different job titles. job different requirements and responsibilities but they are both 523s they are both in the 523 pay category that means it has been determined by hr and the mag study that the value of their positions is the same the value of the services they provide the residents of Fayette County is the same. So Nathan and Jason have worked here the same amount of time, and the value of the services they provide the residents of Fayette County is the same. Currently, Nathan makes $29,000 a year more than Jason. Maybe there's a good reason for that, so let's look and see. Maybe Nathan's job is more difficult or takes more skill. Not according to HR in the mag study. Maybe nation's job takes more education or training or has more responsibility. Not according to HR in the mag study. HR in the mag study have determined that when all those things are considered, both Nathan and Jason provide the same value to the residents of Fayette County. I know maybe Nathan just does his job better. First of all, I don't think that's the case. And second, our compensation policy is not performance based. You don't make more money simply because you do your job better than somebody else. So why is there a $29,000 per year difference in their pay? That's a good question. And I don't know the answer. I can't explain it. Maybe someone else can, but I can't. The Irvin County government says their policies ensure fair and consistent pay practices. I don't think so. One other thing. Under our policies, there is nothing Jason can do to close that gap. No matter how long they work here, Nathan will always be at or near the top of the pay scale. And Jason will probably never reach the midpoint. The $29,000 difference will continue to grow. you might say Nathan can't lose and Jason can't win we say our policies inspire excellence I don't think so we have over 35 pay grades almost everyone has at least one example I hope to share many of them with you I will be back Thursday to look more at just the other 523s. There are actually more and better examples than what I just gave you. Thank you. Thank you very much. That's the end of our agenda. Without objection, we are adjourned. Thank you. Thank you.