We will move into our work session and we have Mr. Chris Taylor. He's up for the Urban Growth Master Plan update. Chris, how you doing? All right, how are you? All right, is everybody okay? Nobody needs a break? Move ahead. All right. Do you need a break? Are we good? Plowhead? All right. Thank you. So I appreciate you all letting us add this to the end of your work session today. We have another work session next week where the consultant will be in to go over the draft concept plans. And that's a meaty topic that it was going to have a lot for you all to absorb. and we have some upcoming public input events around that over the next few days that we've coordinated and wanted to give the public the opportunity to give you all some early feedback on that before the consultants come next Thursday. It's a little unusual for us to bring something forward publicly that the Planning Commission hasn't looked at, and we've made it clear that these are early drafts, but we felt that at this level it was really important to start getting some of that public input, get some feedback and then be able to report to you all at your work session next week sort of where we are in that and what we've already started to hear. But for today, we wanted to talk a little bit about infrastructure funding and I really didn't want to put two items on the agenda for next week with the master plan and so I appreciate giving a little time today to talk about this. In many ways, I think what we're going to talk to you about today is probably going to not provide a ton of answers and is going to identify a lot more questions. But we needed to get started sort of talking about some of this and hear some of your all's thoughts, and hopefully for you all to hear some of our thoughts and things that we're looking into. But just so everybody knows, the Land Use Master Plan is typically about projecting growth in accordance with a policy vision. For us, the policy vision is outlined in the comprehensive plan. It's about establishing a framework for future development to follow that and to provide guidance for the property owners, the developers, and the appointed and elected decision makers throughout that process. But it's a time period where we also identify important questions and we make some recommendations for next steps that are going to fall beyond the planning commission's authority, but they're critical to the success of the master plan. So in particular, elements involving the expense of providing new infrastructure, they require us at this stage to evaluate how the urban county government at the highest levels has traditionally funded infrastructure, and even more importantly discussing how we're financially able to do that going into the future. I mean, we know that development is going to pay for the initial construction of most new infrastructure. However, maintenance and the provision of associated services, those persist forever. And so the question of infrastructure funding is not solely about financial mechanisms for construction and for developers. It's the government has an equal or greater financial obligation that requires some consideration. So all that is to say, we're still in the early stages of gathering information, identifying costs and structural elements that the government needs in order to manage infrastructure investment on the front end and for the long term. So a couple things we're going to talk about here today. We're going to talk a little bit about a little context and table setting, some recent history and current practices, and then we'll look a little bit at the examples provided to you by the sub-consultant in the memo that we've handed out to you today. And then a very high-level discussion of one option that we're currently looking into. So just a reminder of where we're at right now in this process. We have until December 1st to get a master plan adopted. We are sitting here around task five right now, drafting the conceptual plans for the five areas and starting some of the public engagement and stakeholder meetings around that. And as you can see, task seven gets into the identifying costs and the funding strategies. And just so you know what the master plan said on this topic, it was to identify innovative funding mechanisms for infrastructure, provide a comprehensive analysis for the costs associated with construction and maintenance. And so this is sort of the extra step above and beyond what we've typically done in the past. We've only done one master plan for new development, and that was in 96. but then also to identify funding mechanisms, public-private partnerships, sort of identify what some of those funding approaches might be. And in the consultant's response and their scope, they identified that in task seven, and it shows up in October. But I can tell you that it was immediately when we started this project, the first piece that we started working on behind the scenes with them and letting them know how important this was. It could not be something we just started talking about in October and expect to be ready to move forward with something. and so we've been having these conversations with them and as you can see you have a may 15th dated memorandum so we've had this now since may 15th it's it's um it's sort of like when someone explains quantum entanglement to you and you go what do i do with this what do i do with this knowledge i we've been given this and we have to absorb what these things mean and who implements them and it's not planning in its entirety we're not going to be one organization responsible for implementing and managing this type of program and so we've had to take some time to have some conversations about what this memo means what some of these options mean and it raises other questions particularly around what is needed infrastructure how are we going what are the things that we're going to need to cover in this in this program we'll have to cover obviously our transportation issues that are our primary roads like the boulevards major collectors things like that sidewalks bike lanes utilities for all these all the different things that go into making the community but then there's some social infrastructure pieces like housing that we want to be able to include in an infrastructure funding program we want to be able to consider how much you know the need for housing and different types of housing that the market may not provide meets an infrastructure need for you know economic development and so if we can broadly expand what we consider and have typically considered in the past as infrastructure then we start getting a little bit more creative about the funding mechanisms to support that but i think it's you know it's important to back up a minute and talk a little bit about the exaction program which is and sometimes it's the is the elephant in the room that we've heard that is something that we would like to not repeat but there has been elements of that that have been very successful and then there's also been lessons learned the exaction program you You know, it identified a needed system-wide infrastructure like boulevards and regional detention facilities. That was something that we had not done through infrastructure development in the past. Previously, it was piecemeal. You know, it provided cost estimates. It created a system of debits and credits for providers and users of infrastructure. And it was predominantly constructed by private developers, but the program was administered by the Irwin County government. but structurally you know we did not set up sort of the internal government structure to support that system over a long much longer timeline than I think maybe we expected at that time so again tracking the debits and credits the maintenance of the rate tables you know we didn't have a process built in to evaluate new projects and new needs and then it didn't adequately acquire park land and so we have a real gap in the expansion areas from 96 for our parkland but the lessons learned about how we sort of arrived at that is we we don't have the coordination of a typical infrastructure funding program that most cities our size have it needed dedicated cross department staff to ensure program compliance and modernization and that it was being kept up with and so the policy review document that you have in front of you you know it contains funding mechanisms from across the state and from the country and under a variety of frameworks innovative is a very subjective term what might be considered standard practice in many places you know the city has never done it it's pretty innovative but all of these represent potential options that can be part of a final recommendation each one you know it needs further review by our law and our finance departments as well as you know the community engagement aspect of it but Lexington is historically at least prior to 96 development build infrastructure on a piecemeal basis using a developer construction and dedication system after 1996 the exaction program modified that system in order to provide those system-wide improvements that I mentioned But there have been other examples specifically where the government has built the infrastructure on the front end with a reimbursement system to cover the cost of that investment And development later on And so just I don't know how much you know any of you are familiar with some of these other programs But in 1986 we had development of an OPSS the outer perimeter sewer system It was similar to a capital improvement program. It identified 22 needed facilities and the associated cost projections. It established design standards and parameters, and the urban county government and the developers built those facilities. Developers paid user fees as they accessed that infrastructure. And really the only issue we've had in the decades of implementing that infrastructure program was an interpretation on how we calculated interest. And that's really been in the last, you know, five to ten years. but that's around just one piece of infrastructure so it's one isolated infrastructure program the EPA consent decree the remedial measures program that's a comprehensive it has comprehensive data and tracking protocols so there's a ctems website where you can track every project the capacity assurance program is very transparent with all of the information and where we stand in the different sewer sheds as projects get completed you know those projects are identified they're bonded so they identify a funding source and then they're constructed by urban county government and so the funding is provided through grants and development fees and sewer fees and then the MPO has their transportation improvement program and really that's an implementation plan for their master plan for their comprehensive plan and so that that they're in their tip program you know it identifies and ranks project priorities. It identifies design, right-of-way, utility, construction. It has a policy committee, so there's your public engagement aspect. It has local elected officials on that policy committee. They review and approve projects. Public participation and engagement is all part of that. And so what all three of these examples highlight is that infrastructure funding programs, even within the existing urban county government, they succeed and have been sustainable over long periods of time. when the government has a pretty detailed strategic plan in place to ensure plan implementation from the very beginning. And so I think one of the things that we wanted to sort of, I guess, break the seal on discussing in that we have been working with the administration and the Department of Finance is the development of an infrastructure funding plan that mirrors the typical process that other cities our size have. An IFP would have the process rigor of the MPO's tip. and have the transparency and the staff support resources structurally inside the government of water quality remedial measures program, you know, and the flexibility to support developer construction and government construction of those projects like the OPSS system. This type of program would fall under the umbrella of the city's, you know, already existing capital improvement program that would help us have a better picture of what the forecasted impact of projected growth and new development would be, you know, for construction but also for the future year future budget years and the as far as maintenance and ongoing services is They will also provide potential paths forward for other funding opportunities not limiting Everything in this area in these five areas to a single impact fee or a system development charge on which the whole plan Rises and falls and we feel like that's a real opportunity to improve upon You know something we learned in the last last round of expansion But it's important to point out that an IFP in itself does not fund construction. It is not a funding mechanism in itself. It is a strategic plan. It is a process for identifying funding, typically through bonding, various sources and types of bonds, and those funding sources. It affords both the government and developers an option to build needed infrastructure. But throughout the rest of the summer and the fall, We're going to continue to update you all and talk about this and how these efforts are progressing and who we're hearing from and what appears to be sort of in the realm of possibility. And part of task seven is also identifying cost projections for infrastructure. And I'll go ahead and caution you now. We're talking about a lot of houses, a lot of infrastructure. There's going to be some big numbers. And these aren't five-year projections. These may be 25, 30-year projections. We don't really know, but we know what the identified infrastructure costs can be in today's dollars, with variances in place to sort of give us some wiggle room, because we just don't know in some cases. But that is another component of that task that we will be bringing back to you. But since the components of this plan would require action by the Urban County Council, We expect to have this body adopt what we hope to be detailed recommendations and an implementation schedule for the next steps that would continue on almost seamlessly after the completion of this master plan. I realize that's a very sort of vague introduction to something, but when we're talking about hundreds of millions of dollars of infrastructure, I think what we wanted to get to you all was that we have received some information It is a lot to digest and we are working with other folks in coordination with the government That we feel like again one of the biggest lessons learned from the from the last 30 years is that The other divisions of government that are involved in the finance the construction and the planning need to be working seamlessly together And so we're having those conversations they take some time and we wanted to update you on that So with that if you have any questions, which I'm sure you do, I'd be happy to try to answer them. Floor is open for questions. Mr. Owens. You always got a question. Yeah, I did. Thanks, Chris. You touched on something right at the very end, talking about infrastructure costs. It may not be five years, it may be 25 years out. Are these numbers going to be built in for what I'd call inflation costs as well? We are literally working on that discussion with the consultants right now on the scope of those costs. I think the thing we want to make sure we get is as solid of a projection in today's dollars to start with that we can do. And then we can make some general projections on inflation based off of historical trends. But that's always risky when you're looking into the future and basing it off of past precedent. So we're trying to be cautious there. We don't want to err wildly in those projections, but also admit they are projections. But that is part of how what we're looking into provides us an ongoing way to reevaluate those over time. And it doesn't lock us into something where we don't have any other options, if that makes any sense. uh just thinking back as far as exaction cost and so forth i think when those started you know obviously in a 2025 year time span those numbers increased too and i think some were caught left holding the bag so to speak right and the updating of the rate tables was it was an impact was a factor in that what about durability cost have numbers any updated numbers come out on that yeah I think division of water quality had stand tech update their report and we have added that to the supplemental materials on our website and I can share that it back out with the Planning Commission they did modify slightly the numbers for the areas that were not originally included in their study when the advisory committee and the planning commission made some alterations. They had to figure some stuff. We do have those numbers and they again are in today's dollars. So. Okay. And you're a sheriff? Yes. Okay. Well, they're already on the website. I'll send them out to you also, you'll have a direct link to them. Okay, thanks. Thank you, Chris. That's a lot of information pretty quick. Yeah. I have some, I guess, questions, because I think this topic is one of the challenges that we see even in current applications. and you touched on it with water quality, but some of the examples in this packet have to do with transportation and also just overall design and the way that we want our spaces to look. And when we're looking at these neighborhood plans and we see opportunities, for example, for a single loaded street along a public green space. But, you know, we're asking the developer to build the full cost of the street but essentially sell only one side of the street in terms of lots. Not surprisingly, there's pushback on that kind of a thing. but it is the way that we want our city to look and we want our city to be designed and i mean i think there's a lot of examples like that where we see we want we want more multifamily so what's coming before us is multifamily surrounded by parking and i don't know maybe Larry can touch on, but my guess is if they go and ask for a loan for underground parking or a parking structure, Larry's going to smile. And, you know, so I guess all I'm saying is I really appreciate some of this thought, and I mean some of these things that I just gleaned really quickly where they talk about, like, resolving loan fund as a self-sustaining enterprise sort of that, you know, I mean, I think, I think funding the city that we want people to build is essential. And, and I really, I'm glad that you are putting thought into that and working towards realizing that that's sort of a weak link in this and and I thank you for that thank you Mr. Mickler any other questions comments mr. work you want his work work for you got it I'm not sure I'm ready to ask this question but I'm going to go for it anyway as I'm looking at this and I'm thinking about the things that some of us have been passing around looking at linking our goals about energy and seeing things like outdoor parking lots with metal roofs with solar generation on top and divided highways with energy generation going down the middle how far out are we thinking in terms of as we go forward what we might do really differently from the way we do things now we're not that far out we're not there i mean we're not thinking that part right now honestly we're thinking about what is the framework that's going to give the government the ability to to do some of these elements like mr mickler said the 96 expansion created something new and something innovative for lexington but it was also the only method we had at that point really to finance it unless the government stepped in and did it through our ad hoc process what we would like to build in is something like the transportation improvement program where there's a policy committee and you're reviewing your policies on a five-year two-year strategic plan cycle you know it's on that one slide with the sort of the rotation there is you know it never stopped evolving good lord okay yeah so it never stops it never stops evolving it never stops getting reprioritized over a you know a 25 30 year period the transportation improvement program just in the last you know six months has taken the fact that we're doing something around Parker's Mill and adding that to their program to start evaluating does it go into the next one or two years maybe not but it goes into the years three four and five so that's sort of nimbleness and then to identify your funding sources and your project prioritization as you go I think is really important and so the ability to do that for these five areas not all five are going to develop at the same time in the same time frame and so the government may have to make some hard decisions about where it wants to invest its dollars based on where where development is ready to occur and where it's not ready to occur. And so we want to give the government the tool there because we have a tremendous financial obligation here as well. What we're doing for future budgets has a big impact based off of the decisions where developers might do new infrastructure construction today. So trying to coordinate those into some sort of strategic process is really I think what we're talking about as being the value added to this master plan over the previous one. I need a little clarity because I've been trying to skim through the report on a couple of things and I was particularly as I always do talk about affordable housing and what it says of course and that affordable housing development primarily has to have the general same impact fees as does commercial. Then you You go on to say somewhere in the report that there's a possibility in some states that they've wavered that fee. But then you go on to say it's not clear whether Kentucky is one of those going to be one of those states. So my question from you all's perspective, are you all going to promote, look into, review as to what could be done about that? Yes. I think I tried to skim through that on one of the previous slides. got to further evaluate with the law department just which one of these options are statutorily available to us in in Kentucky there's things mentioned for Louisville Jefferson County there's things mentioned for you know Berea and Versailles but again there's just there's all sorts of innate differences between each of those communities and we've got to vet them each through the law department and take stock of that and that takes some time yes we are okay I got about 50 other questions but I'll wait okay that's fine send him an email okay not any further questions yes sir Chris the draft presentations next did you say next week yes next Thursday's planning commission work session okay and did you say you're rolling it out yes we will have a public meeting at the senior center from 2 to 7 on Monday we'll be there most of the day we've advertised that done the press release done the full the full thing social media promotion I'm just curious why would you be taking it to the public before you bring it to us and that is because we it is likely that you will hear a lot of feedback on that and we thought it would behoove us to start having some of that discussion ahead of time and as I said it is unusual for us to not bring that to you all when we get them friday from the consultant we will send them to you all so that you have them as soon as we get them but in terms of a presentation we're going to start letting the public give us some feedback on that as soon as possible okay just so we're all clear we're on a very compressed timeline here so okay thank you okay okay mr taylor i think uh Clear to go for today. Thank you. Thank you. Appreciate your time. Mr. Duncan. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just want to punctuate that there is a public input meeting on Monday and the planning commission is invited to that. You are part of the public, so if you all want to come and overhear what the people are saying about the plan, you're welcome to do so from 2 to 7 at the Senior Center on Monday the 15th. And then, as Chris said, we will be presenting those formally to you. The consultants will be here to do so on Thursday the 18th back in the Phoenix building at 1.30 at our regularly scheduled work session. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mr. Duncan. The meeting is adjourned. Mr. Duncan, did you say- Thank you.