# Council Work Session - December 3, 2024 > Auto-transcribed civic record · December 3, 2024 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/6285 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/6285?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2024-12-03 - **Last revised**: December 3, 2024 - **Length**: 30,775 words - **Speakers**: Mayor, Mayo > ⚠️ **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 December 3, 2024, at 3:00 PM in the Council Chamber in Lexington, Kentucky, with Mayor Linda Gorton presiding. The meeting addressed three agenda items, including public comment on agenda issues, approval of a summary, and budget amendments. Council members took three votes during the session, with both the summary approval and budget amendments receiving approval. The meeting also included a public comment period where three citizens addressed the council on issues related to the agenda items. Overall, the session focused on routine administrative matters and budget adjustments, with all substantive items receiving council approval. ## Attendance The following members were present at the December 3, 2024 meeting: **Present:** • Wu • J. Brown • Ellinger II • Fogle • Lynch • LeGris • Sheehan • Gray • Worley • F. Brown • Baxter • Sevigny • Reynolds • Plomin **Absent:** • Councilwoman Monarrez **Late:** • None A total of 14 members were present for the meeting, with one member absent. ## Votes and Decisions The council conducted three votes during the December 3, 2024 meeting, with all motions passing. **Approval of November 21, 2024 Council Meeting Docket** [timestamp: 00:00] Ellinger II motioned to approve the November 21, 2024 Council Meeting Docket, as amended, with Gray providing the second. The motion passed unanimously with all 14 council members voting in favor: Wu, J. Brown, Ellinger II, Fogle, Lynch, LeGris, Sheehan, Gray, Worley, F. Brown, Baxter, Sevigny, Reynolds, and Plomin. **Motion to Remove Zoning Ordinance from Docket** [timestamp: 00:00] Worley motioned to remove an ordinance changing the zone from the November 21, 2024 Council Meeting docket, seconded by Gray. This motion required a roll call vote and passed 11-3. Council members voting in favor were: J. Brown, Ellinger II, Fogle, Lynch, Sheehan, Gray, Worley, F. Brown, Sevigny, Reynolds, and Plomin. Three members voted against the motion: Wu, LeGris, and Baxter. **Approval of New Business** [timestamp: 00:00] Ellinger II motioned to approve New Business, with Baxter providing the second. The motion passed unanimously with all 14 council members voting in favor: Wu, J. Brown, Ellinger II, Fogle, Lynch, LeGris, Sheehan, Gray, Worley, F. Brown, Baxter, Sevigny, Reynolds, and Plomin. All three motions were successful, with two passing unanimously and one passing by a substantial majority despite some opposition regarding the zoning ordinance removal. ## Budget and Financial Actions The meeting addressed three significant financial items totaling $193,862.00 in expenditures and agreements. **Equipment Purchase - Resolution 1146-24** The board approved the purchase of replacement monitors from ZOLL for $182,062.00. This represents the largest financial commitment of the meeting, accounting for approximately 94% of the total financial actions discussed. **Patient Safety Agreement - Resolution 1147-24** A contract agreement with the Center for Patient Safety was approved for $1,800.00. This agreement establishes a formal relationship between the organization and the Center for Patient Safety for unspecified services. **Broadband Infrastructure Contract - Resolution 1159-24** The board authorized an agreement with Charter Communications valued at $10,000.00 for a broadband project. This contract appears to be related to telecommunications infrastructure improvements or services. The three resolutions collectively represent nearly $194,000 in financial commitments, with the ZOLL monitor purchase comprising the vast majority of the expenditures. The remaining two agreements with the Center for Patient Safety and Charter Communications account for $11,800 combined, representing operational and infrastructure investments. All three items were presented as formal resolutions with specific identification numbers, indicating they went through the standard approval process for financial commitments of this magnitude. ## Public Comment Three residents addressed the meeting during the public comment period, with all speakers focusing on short-term rental regulations [timestamp: 00:00]. **Gail Lightner** spoke first, expressing appreciation for changes made to the proposed short-term rental zoning ordinance. Lightner voiced support for the revisions that had been incorporated into the current proposal [timestamp: 00:00]. **Loni Byrnes** followed with concerns about the impact of short-term rentals on local neighborhoods. Byrnes highlighted potential issues related to neighborhood safety and the preservation of community character, suggesting that short-term rental operations could negatively affect residential areas [timestamp: 00:00]. **Blanca Dennis** presented a contrasting perspective, arguing in favor of short-term rentals. Dennis emphasized the economic benefits these accommodations provide, noting that tourists utilizing short-term rentals contribute positively to the local economy [timestamp: 00:00]. The public comments reflected the ongoing community debate surrounding short-term rental regulations, with speakers presenting both supportive and critical viewpoints on how these accommodations affect neighborhood dynamics and local economic activity. ## Contested Items The December 3, 2024 meeting featured significant debate over a **short-term rental zoning ordinance**, which generated heated discussion among council members. The primary contention centered on various amendments to the proposed zoning ordinance governing short-term rentals within the jurisdiction. Council members engaged in extensive debate as multiple motions and amendments were introduced, discussed, and voted upon during the session. The disagreement involved the council deliberating different approaches to regulating short-term rental properties, though the specific details of the proposed amendments and the positions taken by individual council members were not detailed in the available meeting records. The discussion was characterized as heated, indicating strong differing opinions among the governing body on how to address short-term rental regulations. Multiple motions and amendments were proposed throughout the debate, suggesting that council members attempted various compromises or alternative approaches to the ordinance. The voting process on these various proposals extended the discussion as the council worked through the different options presented. The final outcome of the short-term rental zoning ordinance debate was not specified in the available meeting documentation, leaving the resolution of this contested item unclear from the provided records. *Note: Specific transcript timestamps, individual council member positions, and detailed amendment language were not available in the source materials for this meeting.* ## Public Comment - Issues on Agenda [timestamp: 00:00] During the public comment period for agenda items, three community members addressed the council regarding the proposed short-term rental zoning ordinance. **Speakers and Comments:** • **Gail Lightner** spoke on the short-term rental ordinance, though specific details of her comments were not provided in the available materials. • **Loni Byrnes** also addressed the council regarding the proposed zoning changes for short-term rentals. • **Blanca Dennis** provided input on the short-term rental ordinance discussion. The public comments reflected the community's engagement with the proposed short-term rental zoning ordinance, with residents expressing various perspectives on the matter. The comments represented both support for and concerns about the proposed regulations, indicating the ordinance has generated significant community interest and debate. **Outcome:** This was an informational session allowing public input on agenda items. No formal action was taken during the public comment period, as is standard procedure. The comments provided community feedback for the council's consideration during their deliberations on the short-term rental zoning ordinance. The public comment period serves as an opportunity for residents to share their views with elected officials before formal discussion and potential voting on agenda items. ## Approval of Summary [timestamp: 00:00] The council addressed the approval of the summary from their previous meeting held on November 19, 2024. This procedural agenda item was handled at the beginning of the meeting session. The council reviewed the meeting summary without recorded discussion or debate from the floor. No specific speakers were identified as addressing this item, suggesting it proceeded as a routine administrative matter. The summary of the November 19, 2024 meeting was approved by the council without noted objections or amendments to the record. **Outcome:** Approved ## Budget Amendments The council considered and approved various budget amendments for different divisions and projects during the meeting [timestamp: 00:00]. The budget amendments covered multiple city divisions and projects, though specific details about the individual amendments, dollar amounts, or affected departments were not provided in the available meeting materials. The council voted to approve the budget amendments without recorded discussion or debate. No speakers were identified as presenting information about the specific amendments or raising concerns about the proposed budget changes. The resolution was approved by the council, allowing the various budget modifications to move forward for the affected divisions and projects. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (0-0): approve the December 3, 2024 Council Meeting Docket, as amended - **Motion** — passed (0-0): place on the docket for the December 3, 2024, Council Meeting under Resolutions – First Reading, a Resolution approving the Economic Development Partnership with Madison County, Scott County, and the City of Berea; authorizing and directing the Mayor, on behalf of the Urban County Government, to execute an Interlocal Cooperation Agreement, Membership Agreement, and other necessary and related documents, forming the Central Kentucky Business Park Authority; and authorizing payment in the amount of $2,125,000.00 to the Authority for the purpose of carrying out the duties and powers of the Authority as limited by the aforementioned agreements and relevant state law; all contingent upon approval of the authority’s creation, and execution of all necessary agreements, by all parties to the Interlocal Cooperation Agreement - **Motion** — failed (3-13): amend the Zoning Ordinance relating to Short Term Rentals (STR), Sec. 3-13(g)(1), to strike the words, “if they operate other STRs in Lexington,”, so that it reads, “The demonstrated compliance record of the applicant.” - **Motion** — passed (3-13): amend the Zoning Ordinance relating to Short Term Rentals (STR), Sec. 3-13(l), to insert the word, “un-hosted” before “short term rentals”, and strike the words, “regulated as a conditional use”, so that it reads, “The number of un-hosted short- term rentals shall not exceed two percent (2%) of all dwelling units within one thousand (1,000) feet in residential zones - **Motion** — passed (8-5): amend the Zoning Ordinance relating to Short Term Rentals (STR) to add commas in Sec. 8-5(d)(15), Sec. 8-25(e)(15), and Sec. 23A-5(d)(10) between un-hosted short term rentals and hosted short term rentals so that it reads, “un-hosted short term rentals, and hosted short term rentals for greater than 10 occupants as regulated in Sec. 3-13 of the Zoning Ordinance.” - **Motion** — passed (0-0): amend the Zoning Ordinance relating to Short Term Rentals (STR) to add a new subsection (h) to Sec. 3-13 to read, “The Chair may admit all pertinent evidence for the Board's consideration, including but not limited to the sworn testimony of those present, letters and documents submitted for the record, and reports from LFUCG staff.” - **Motion** — passed (3-13): amend the Zoning Ordinance relating to Short Term Rentals (STR), Sec. 3- 13(g)(2) to remove the language, “Whether the property being considered is located in close proximity to the downtown core, or other mixed-use or entertainment uses.” - **Motion** — passed (0-0): place on the docket for the December 3, 2024, Council Meeting a Resolution authorizing the Mayor to execute an agreement with the Commonwealth of Kentucky Cabinet for Health and Family Services to maintain a Quick Response Team - **Motion** — passed (0-0): place on the docket for the December 3, 2024, Council Meeting a Resolution authorizing the Mayor to execute and submit a grant application seeking $1,000,000 in federal funds from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security under the 2024 Assistance to Firefighters Grant (AFG) Program, to provide any information requested in connection with this grant application, and to accept this grant, if awarded, the acceptance of which obligates the Urban County Government to the expenditure of $100,000 as a local match; and further authorizing the Mayor to transfer unencumbered funds within the grant budget - **Motion** — passed (0-0): place on the docket for the December 3, 2024, Council Meeting, a resolution amending Section 3.102(2) of Appendix A, Rules and Procedures of the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Council, relating to the order of business at Council meetings, to provide a separate opportunity for public comment for issues on the docket prior to consideration of legislative items by the Urban County Council - **Motion** — passed (0-0): place on the docket for the December 3, 2024, Council Meeting a Resolution authorizing the Mayor to execute an agreement with the Downtown Lexington Corporation d/b/a Downtown Lexington Partnership to present public events on behalf of, and in partnership with, LFUCG, including the Luminate Lexington Christmas Tree Lighting, the Christmas Parade, and Thursday Night Live - **Motion** — passed (0-0): place on the docket for the December 3, 2024, Council Meeting, a resolution authorizing and approving the transfer of Council Capital Project funds to the Lexington Leadership Foundation, in the amount of $50,000.00, for capital improvements in the Woodhill neighborhood, including, but not limited to a bus shelter on Codell Drive, the Woodhill Community Center, and Woodhill Park - **Motion** — passed (0-0): place on the docket for the December 3, 2024, Council Meeting, a resolution authorizing and approving the transfer of Council Capital Project funds to the Department of Parks and Recreation, in the amount of $5,000.00, for capital improvements in the Cadentown neighborhood, for the Sense of Place project - **Motion** — passed (3-13): amend the Zoning Ordinance relating to Short Term Rentals (STR) to add a new subsection 3-13(o) to state, “The Board of Adjustment may consider a maximum of five (5) new conditional use applications for short term rentals per month.” - **Motion** — passed (3-13): amend the previous motion to amend the Zoning Ordinance relating to Short Term Rentals (STR) to add a new subsection 3-13(o) to state, “The Board of Adjustment may consider no more than ten (10) new conditional use applications for short term rentals per month - **Motion** — passed (0-0): extend the deadline for encumbering Council capital project funds presently required to be encumbered by December 31, 2024 to a new deadline of February 28, 2025 - **Motion** — passed (0-0): amend the list of budget amendments on pages 3-6 of the Work Session packet to add the following budget amendments that were approved after the packet was prepared: Budget Journals 151991-92 and 151993-94 in Grants and Special Programs to budget interest earned in Justice Assistance grants and provide funds for equipment for the Division of Police. Budget Journal 152005 to transfer $9,771 from the Tenant Relocation Fund to the Affordable Housing and Homelessness Fund for winter warming food contract. Budget Journal 152003 to transfer $145,690 from a grant to the Affordable Housing and Homelessness Fund and General Fund. Budget Journals 152008-09 in Aging and Disability Services to provide $5,400 for Senior Center Supplies. Budget Journal 152006-07 to provide $150,061 for Affordable Housing and Homelessness Fund for winter warming food contract. Motion passed without dissent - **Motion** — passed (0-0): add the presentations for the Lexington Catholic Girls Cross Country Day and the Jessie Clark Middle School Football Day to the December 3 Work Session agenda - **Motion** — passed (0-0): take a 10-minute recess - **Motion** — passed (0-0): return from recess - **Motion** — passed (0-0): approve the November 19, 2024, Work Session Summary - **Motion** — passed (0-0): approve Budget Amendments - **Motion** — passed (0-0): approve New Business - **Motion** — passed (0-0): approve Communications from the Mayor - Appointments - **Motion** — passed (0-0): approve Communications from the Mayor - Procurements - **Motion** — passed (0-0): approve Neighborhood Development Funds - **Motion** — passed (0-0): approve Council Capital Projects - **Motion** — passed (0-0): adjourn at 6:45 p.m --- ## Full transcript Music Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Welcome everybody. today is december 3rd 2024 and i'll call to order the lexington vayette urban county council work session and i'd like to just take a point of personal privilege to introduce some special people who are with us council members you received an email yesterday about the new industrial park, the regional industrial park that we've been working on. And Council Member James Brown will be walking it on the docket. So I want to introduce our partners today who are here. First, Madison County Judge Executive Reagan Taylor. And Reagan has with him Madison County Magistrate Tom Botkin. We also have Scott County Judge Executive Joe Pat Covington, and we have Berea Mayor Bruce Fraley, and we are really happy that you are all here. We have been partners for quite a while now in regional efforts, and it's very exciting what's going on. So thank you for coming. With that, the first thing we have on our docket is public comment for issues on the agenda. And we actually have a number of people who wish to speak. so the way this works is i will state your name and when i do you'll come to the podium up here and for the record you need to restate your name and also state your council district and then you'll have three minutes it looks like there may be one person two people yielding time to others. And so we'll just kind of get that out of the way right now. I see Andy Mead is here, and you're yielding time to Walt Gaffield. Is that correct? You just changed it? Just a winner. Okay. Oh, okay. They just changed it. And then is Catherine Perkins here? all right thank you very much so is Jessica here okay so you'll have nine minutes when your name comes thank you all right first is Gail Leitner and you'll be followed by Loney Burns Gail Welcome. Good afternoon. My name is Gail Leitner. I live in the 10th district. And you can pull the mic down a little bit if you need to. Is that better? Okay, my name is Gail Leitner. I live in the 10th District. I'm speaking today representing Hillandale Neighborhood Association Board and the Stonewall Community Association Board. I'm president of the Hillandale Neighborhood Association. Kim Justice is the president of Stonewall Community Association Board of Directors. Let me first express how grateful I am that you saw fit to make alterations in the proposed short-term rental ZOTA. Fayette County Neighborhood Council appreciates your consideration of their suggestions to make the ZOTA work better and to respect the needs of all Fayette County residents. I'll be brief. Speaking for both the Hillandale Neighborhood Association and Stonewall Community Association boards, I will tell you that these two nonprofit entities have been part of the considerations of the STR ZOTA. These two entities agree with and support the request made to revise the ZOTA. Thank you. Thank you. Next is Loney Burns, followed by Blanca Dennis. Welcome. Hi, I'm Loney Burns. I'm in the 6th District with a wonderful councilwoman that has helped us out quite a bit in some issues and really glad to be able to speak today just as a common person, no one of power, just a citizen. I'm here to talk about the short-term rentals. Our neighborhood has rules that are set, and some of the things that they've been talking about was that they need to contact maybe the HOA's and see if there's rules about it before granting permits that's one of the things they want to know our homeowners inspected and are the homeowners for these in the state a lot of them do this and they're all across the country concerned about who does inspections on the short-term rentals to ensure safety security and against criminal use somebody's living in California and they've got a home that they're renting out to somebody short-term or not how do they know they're not there on intentionally bad reasons also a neighborhood kind of equals to me that people are living near each other. Not party central, although your neighbors can party and have a block party and things. I'm not against that. But most of these aren't monitored. And then things happen. And then our neighborhood isn't who we live with, it's who we live by. Also, people moving into the neighborhoods or considering a neighborhood, they're not thinking they're next to a hotel. They're thinking that they're going to be moving into a neighborhood that is a neighborhood that walks their dogs, talks to each other, and helps neighbors out. So I know there are a lot of things that may be in this short-term rental situation, and like I said, I don't know all the documentation, but these are things that we would hope that would be considered and that this would not be rushed into because there are a lot of children in neighborhoods, and you don't know who are in these short-term rentals. So we're just kind of wondering, Who is the check and balance on these? And how will the neighborhoods and the people living in those neighborhoods be protected? But better yet, how our whole community could be protected if they're there under other means than just having a night or a weekend someplace else? Thank you for listening. Thank you. Next is Blanca Dennis followed by Lynn Flynn. And if you all will go ahead and queue up, it will move us a little quicker along. Hello. Welcome. Thank you for all being here. Sorry, I'm a little nervous. I have a short rental and I just want to say that please consider what we going through right now. The city spent a lot of money inviting tourists to come to our city and the visitors, they're not here to make parties. They're here to spend money and visit our city. So when the city said we offer true hospitality that includes those short rental with the kitchen and all the good stuff for the visitors. So we offer the tourists a good comfort place for them to spend the time with. and please consider that 500 feet, you know, don't do the 600. And if we wanna have those rules, it should be to everybody. And the visitors, believe me, they're not here to make parties. They're here to do business here, to visit our city. Most of our, my host, I host the visitor, the visitors that come, they come for the horse park, the keen land, they're here for business. They're not here to make parties or travel. We strictly said no parties. And so please consider that. Thank you. Thank you. Next is Lynn Flynn, followed by Walter Gaffield, followed by Tom Goodell. If y'all will go ahead and queue up. Welcome. Good afternoon. I'm Lynn Flynn, and i live in council district 10. i'm representing the piccadome neighborhood association here this afternoon we're very concerned about short-term rentals and their impact on our neighborhood as well as on housing availability and costs citywide at last count we identified 23 short-term rentals in the neighborhood which represents a density of about 2.5 percent so several of those are unlicensed we appreciate a number of the revisions that the council planning staff and Planning Commission have suggested in the STR ordinances particularly the addition of specific distance and density limitations and reduction of the maximum Occupants excuse me. So thank you for that to further improve the ordinance We support the changes that the Fayette County Neighborhood Council and Kenwick core team have recommended The draft ordinance as it stands today includes a number of exceptions to those distance and density limitations and as I just said, our neighborhood supports those limitations without exceptions. I want to focus particularly on one exception. Subsection M2 offers relief from the distance and density requirements if there's a significant environmental feature or minor arterial or higher classification road that separates the proposed STR from other STRs in the buffer area. According to the Kentucky Department of Transportation, Clay's Mill Road is a minor arterial. and it passes right through our neighborhood for about half a mile from Rosemont and Lane Allen to Harrodsburg Roads. There are houses that are part of our neighborhood on both sides of this stretch of Clay's Mill. There are also three existing STRs on this stretch of Clay's Mill, as well as several on the side streets there. The people who live on both sides of Clay's Mill and the side streets are our neighbors. They walk their kids to school, socialize with friends, and even attend P&A neighborhood association meetings, regardless of which side of Clay's Mill they live on. Short-term rentals on both sides of Clay's Mill and the side streets that branch off it affect people who live on both sides of the street. As an example, I cannot understand why you would approve a short-term rental directly across Clay's Mill when you won't do it anywhere else in the neighborhood. What's the difference? This exception could easily create a problematic cluster of short-term rentals on either side of Clay's Mill, as well as increased traffic in an area where we already have some hazardous issues going on when schools start and stop. It could also result in a density greater than the 2% referenced in the ordinance because STRs anywhere across Clay's Mill wouldn't be considered in the density calculation. I'm sure we're not the only neighborhood that would experience this adverse effect, so I I would really ask you to withdraw this provision for additional study and also to adopt the other recommendations made by the Fayette County Neighborhood Council and the Kenwick Corps team. I really appreciate the opportunity to speak to you. Thank you. Thank you. Next is Walter Gaffield followed by Tom Goodell followed by Nick Nicholson. I'm Walt Gaffield. I am in the 10th District. I'm representing the Neighborhood Council and the Harrods Hill Board of Directors and Neighborhood. Mayor Gorton, Vice Mayor Wu, Council members, thank you for letting us talk today. I really appreciate the Council and the Planning Commission adding subsection K, which requires a 600-foot distance between STRs, and also L, which requires 2% of dwelling units. STRs cannot exceed that. We're not opposed to STRs, but we don't want them clustering, and that will be a big help. It's primarily what we wanted. However, we request changes in K and L. In K, the distance should be measured from the proposed STR use under review to any and all STRs, not only those granted a conditional use permit or allowed by grandfathering. The by-right uses have no distance requirement and no hearing for that matter, but the conditional uses should observe the 600-foot distance from all STRs, not just conditional uses. In L, the 2% maximum concentration of dwelling units should count all dwelling units regardless of the zone they're in. The exceptions in K&L only increase the number of unhosted STRs in neighborhoods. Subsection M is problematic. M1 would provide relief from distance and concentration provisions in K&L if adjacent to the B1 neighborhood business or the P1 professional office zones. And they're all over the place. I'm sure all of your districts have all of those uses. It specifies if adjacent to a neighborhood business or professional office zone, that means touching it according to staff the boa may approve a new unhosted str in the adjacent residential zone the professional office and neighborhood business zones exist everywhere which i've just said and i have several questions how many dwelling units in fayette county are on the property line next to b1 or p1 zone you should know that do you know where they are Why do applicants for conditional use permits need this relief? I don't understand that. Why in the middle of a housing crisis would we want to convert more residences that can be used for residences into short-term rentals? We have not solved the housing crisis, and it's not going to happen anytime soon. Thank you. Thank you. Next is Tom Goodell, followed by Nick Nicholson, followed by Daniel Rogers. Welcome. Madam Mayor, members of the council, I appreciate this opportunity. I'm Tom Goodell. I live in District 2, and I've been a resident of Lexington since 2004 and a property owner in Masterson Station since 2011. I'm here to speak on behalf of my neighbors on Trailside Drive and the surrounding streets, and we urge you to do the following five things. One, take swift action to adopt the STR ZODA that has been amended by staff and the Planning Commission. It's not perfect, but it addresses many significant concerns that have been expressed by my neighbors, some of which you've heard already this afternoon. Because this language was not in effect last month, we now have two STRs back-to-back on Trailside Drive and Piedmont Park. So I urge you to move forward with this. Secondly, adopt the amendments to the ZOTA proposed by the Fayette County Neighborhood Council to help protect some of Lexington's most historic neighborhoods. Three, I would ask you to clarify for the Board of Adjustment the role of public comment in this process. I have heard them say on numerous occasions that they are constrained by the ordinance to not essentially listen to the comments that we have made, and I think that needs to change. Number four, consider a moratorium on applications for STRs to allow us some time in the city government to study the impact of the STRs we already have on current neighborhoods. And finally, I would ask you to remember that STRs have been defined by the Kentucky Supreme Court in Hensley v. Gadd as a commercial use of property, allowing the continued erosion of Lexington zoning ordinances in the name of windfall profits for out-of-state LLCs does not serve the people who elected you. Thank you. Our next speaker is Nick Nicholson, followed by Daniel Rogers, followed by Dee Headley. Welcome. Good afternoon, Nick Nicholson here on behalf of Subtext Acquisitions to simply reiterate our request to have a public hearing on the zone change request for the properties that are on South Limestone in between Prahl and Mount Mullen. As you all are aware, we have kind of revised the development in a significant manner, and we think that a full public hearing to allow the neighborhood and to allow you all to fully evaluate our request is certainly, would be very much appreciated. And I'm happy to answer any questions. On a side note, I do want to say and commend this body and our neighboring elected officials for moving so efficiently and with intention on pivoting into the regional industrial park. It is vital for this region's economic development future. So thank you all. Thank you. Next is Daniel Rogers, followed by Dee Headley, followed by Jessica Winters. Welcome. Hello. My name is Daniel Rogers, 2nd District. I'm here today because I have a company that specializes in furnished accommodations tailored to people who come here to work primarily. and my concern with the density buffer is I do definitely think housing affordability is a problem but I think this is going to cause the opposite effect of what is intended here at less than 1% of housing stock currently short-term rentals could not affect in a meaningful way the housing affordability problem, but it will almost certainly affect the people who are coming here to travel here to work. People you don't think about, people who are service, people who come here and are technicians for our elevators, help keeping us safe. People who come here and provide water infrastructure for major events. Lots of these people come here for less than a month, and even the ones that are here for longer, they're going to be affected by this because you're going to cause a lot of operators to drop out, sit on the sidelines, and the market prices are going to skyrocket. And that's what we've seen in a lot of places that have instituted these strict, strict bands. Like New York, hotel prices are for the roof. And I just, we need to consider that currently we have less as a percentage of housing stock than Louisville does that has these stricter bands. And yet they've proposed a two-step density buffer that wasn't discussed at the last planning committee. They wanted to more mirror Louisville by going 500 to 600 feet. But there's a second step at the 1,000 feet, which really there's no sense for that because even if you're trying to prevent oversaturation, the first step does that. And it just doesn't make sense at this point where Lexington is in our trajectory to be implementing that strict of a ban, we haven't even seen what the regulations themselves, the effect of that. But the most important thing, I think, that could come out of this that's beneficial, if we look at the recommendations to the Board of Adjustment, the biggest problem for the most informed, responsible operators that's causing them not to be the ones investing here is there's too much ambiguity. No one knows if they can get approved for a conditional use permit when they make a purchase. It will benefit both sides if the conditional use permits can be made transferable. If we can recommend in this to make them transferable, and that will cause more informed investors to be the ones purchasing, and those will be the people that are more responsible. It will also make the neighborhood more stable. You'll know what short-term rentals are short-term rentals, and it won't constantly be changing upon a cell. There's also one thing I'll mention quickly, the whole hosted duty is problematic because duplexes, triplexes, multifamily apartments, all those are hosted and would be, could be be considered, I forget what the duty is, but you know. Thank you very much. Dee Headley followed by Jessica Winters followed by Andy Mead. No, Andy, you gave your time up and Janet, followed by Mike Brower. Hello, Mayor and Council. My name is Deval Headley, 3rd District. here on the putting this subtext thing on the docket for the council it seems like we're going about this all wrong we're going about it backwards it's always the neighborhood and the community people that actually pay taxes and vote that are the last to know I think we need to figure out just table this for now go back to the drawing board before we do a major CN revote all the stuff's laid out in the sheet that I gave you I think the points are very concise you know if we're going to make these decisions we need to involve the actual citizens that actually have to live here first and then go backwards instead of sort of doing it the other way around which is what putting on the docket for the next council would seem to do I'd love to have public comment but we need to fix a lot of this stuff for we ever get through planning and zoning which it did not pass or get through council which they're trying to to do quickly now. If we're doing a major development here, we need to do it correctly. Thank you for your time, and everything's in the sheet that I gave each one of you. Thank you. Next is Jessica Winters, and you have Andy Meads, three minutes, and Janet Cabanus, three minutes. Welcome. Thank you. Good afternoon, council. I handed out letters for you all. I'm here today, my name is Jessica Winters, I'm here today representing the Fayette County Neighborhood Council, and I've submitted a position statement that outlines all of my comments today, along with some suggested language from the Neighborhood Council. And I'm just here to highlight the legal basis for their proposed revisions to the short-term rental ZOTA that's been forwarded to you by the Planning Commission. So as you know, over the past year and a half, Lexington's undertaken a comprehensive overhaul of the short-term rentals, pursuant to a regulatory scheme that allows STRs in particular zones and under certain conditions as a conditional use. And as a general matter, under our zoning ordinance, the Board of Adjustment is tasked with considering applications seeking conditional uses. As a result, the BOA has been faced with considering the applications of hundreds of property owners seeking approval of STRs in residential neighborhoods as conditional uses under our current zoning ordinances for STRs. I've represented neighborhood interests before the BOA in connection with STR conditional use applications, and I've watched hours and hours of video in which the BOA has deliberated these applications. In so doing, I've recognized that the BOA members have generally struggled with the question of how much discretion they can rightfully exercise in ruling on the applications. BOA members have struggled to be fair to the applicants, but in so doing, have applied formulaic approach based on what the neighborhood council and I believe to be an improper interpretation of our zoning ordinance that ignores the BOA statutory duty to consider each conditional STR application on its own merits with the determination of adverse influence guiding its decision-making specifically many BOA members believe they are only allowed to consider the four factors that are currently set out in 13-3G. With this limited view of BOA discretionary authority, key evidence relating to the adverse influence determination, such as neighborhood safety, regulatory compliance, parking, and neighborhood complaints regarding noise or nuisance issues has been ignored or outright excluded by the BOA. The BOA has essentially adopted a process for consideration of STR conditional use applications that considers only the 13-3 factors to the exclusion of other evidence and facts that bear directly on the issue of adverse impact. Because the BOA has applied and interpreted the portions of our ordinance directly addressing STRs as superseding their overall duty to consider adverse influence, the Neighborhood Council proposes that this duty be made more explicitly clear in the language of the revisions to the STR regulations. The neighborhood council proposes as follows and in your letter our proposed changes are reflected in the green type We are proposing that 3-13 G be clarified with two proposed revisions to 3-13 G and 1 and 3 specifically the phrases demonstrated compliance record and Cited as a nuisance being expounded upon and brought in to better serve their purpose so for instance 3-13 G1 we would have it read the demonstrated compliance record of the applicant should be considered if they own or operate other rental properties and STRs in Lexington and we propose adding the board may consider evidence of compliance with all state and local codes The chair may admit all pertinent evidence for the board's consideration Including but not limited to the sworn testimony of those present letters and documents submitted for the record reports of the professional staff and city records of complaint investigation notice of violation and citation with regard to section 3 our proposed revision states whether other strs in the general vicinity have any history of nuisance or non-compliance including those operated by the applicant and such evidence as described in g1 may it be admitted and considered for the other licensees and operators of the STRs in the vicinity. Essentially, the proposed revisions to 13-3G are necessary to ensure that our ordinance is clear regarding the ability of our Board of Adjustment to consider various types of evidence bearing on the adverse influence determination, not just the specifically enumerated items set out in that section. And the reason it's important to consider not only citations, but also complaints and violations of rules that do not lead to official citations is because complaints are the types of usually involve the types of problems that directly adversely influence the neighbors of short-term rentals and many complaints do not culminate in official citations which in fact are actually pretty rare to obtain the board and analyzing an application is not revoking a permit but rather is choosing whether or not to award one judging the location and conditions and whether they are right for the use or whether it is likely to provide an adverse influence. The property owner in this circumstance, when they're seeking a conditional use permit, has no protective property interest in being awarded a conditional use or in being permitted to operate a commercial use in a residential neighborhood. And I cite the counsel to the Hensley v. Gagg case that's already been mentioned previously today, which does establish that short-term rentals are commercial uses. The Board and in Kentucky statute and in its bylaws for the Board has a broad scope and authority to review all pertinent information in making its decision on conditional uses. The Board is empowered to review a wide range of evidence in granting or denying a conditional use permit, and we believe the proposed revisions to the STR regulations should make that clear. They routinely take sworn testimony from witnesses, applicant, and objector, may consider photographs, anecdotes, pleas, complaints, and rebuttals, they need to understand that they are authorized to consider all of that evidence and ruling on whether an STR should be granted as a conditional use. They also hear a report from their staff, which includes records and technical advice from all associated divisions. They question and cross-examine and deliberate among themselves. All the information admitted by the chair presiding constitutes evidence on which they may base their decision and all interested persons according to the BOA bylaws are to be given a reasonable time to be heard It should also be recognized that under article dash 7-6a of the zoning ordinance where the zoning ordinance establishes conditions for conditional use these conditions are only the minimum requirements for the use The phrase adverse influence is not defined in our zoning ordinance in the absence of a definition the phrase should be interpreted to advance the stated purpose of Lexington's comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance and The stated purpose of our ordinance is to implement the comprehensive plan and to promote the public health safety Morals and general welfare of our city to require buffering between non-compatible land uses and to protect preserve and promote the aesthetic Appeal character and value of the surrounding neighborhoods. That's the purpose of our zoning ordinance Adverse influence, if a proposed use has an adverse influence, with that in mind, it should be denied by the BOA, and the BOA needs to understand and be given clear authority in the ZODA that they have the ability to consider this type of evidence. Article 1-4 of our Zoning Ordinance states that in interpreting the Zoning Ordinance, the provisions in the ordinance shall be held to the minimum or maximum requirements adopted for the promotion of health, safety, morals, comfort, prosperity, and general welfare. Stating that the BOA can only consider official citations does not encompass the full range of complaints and problems caused by STRs that affect the general welfare of a neighborhood. The BOA's analysis should begin with a consideration of the fact that the governing zoning ordinance specifically states that its purpose is to protect and preserve neighborhoods and to promote public safety and that at the bare minimum in order to grant a requested conditional use the BOA must find that the proposed use will not adversely influence the surrounding neighborhood in these regards we believe that the neighborhood council's proposed revisions to 13-3G or 3-13G will make it clear and will assess the assist the BOA and its consideration of facts relevant to its adverse influence decision in connection with short-term rentals we urge you to consider these proposed revisions and to make it clear to the BOA that they retain a broad discretionary authority to consider a wide range of information and evidence and ruling on the adverse influence determination thank you thank you next is Mike Brower and then Catherine Perkins Jessica, you wanted Walt to have your time. Walt Gaffield. Okay, where's Janet Cabanets? Do you want to speak or do you want to give your time to Walt? You can have three more minutes. Well, why don't you work on that? And we'll go to Mike Brower, and we'll go to Danny Albertson, and then Mitch Corti. Thank you, Mayor and Council. You have the opportunity to speak. I'm Mike Brower. I live in the 3rd District and am the Vice President of the Southern Heights Neighborhood Association. And our concerns have been addressed very well by other speakers, so I won't go over that again, just to say that our board supports the Fayette County Neighborhood Council's recommendations. And thank you. Thank you. Next is Danny Albertson, and followed by Mitch Kort, and then Pace Cook Emmons. Welcome. Hi, I'm Danny Albertson. I have properties in District 11, 1, and 5. The first thing I want to speak of is the ability to potentially transfer a license, Allowing a transfer of a short-term license is beneficial for a number of reasons. One, it's beneficial to the community that the short-term rental is located in. It gives them a consistent space that they know is the short-term rental. If that property were to sell, then they wouldn't have to search the neighborhood for the next short-term rental. It allows the host, the property manager, to get to know the community and to work with them on if there's a problem within the guest staying. You can get protocols in place to take care of that so there's not a moving target. It's fair to the short-term rental operators as well, as we've heavily invested in these properties, built them as small businesses, which we assumed potentially could be sold as a small business. From a legal perspective, a Hawaiian district court found that local ordinances which banned most short-term rentals violated the takings clause because hosts had purchased property and made important financial decisions relying on the use of the property as a short-term rental. Number three, it decreases the headaches within the government for having to continually monitor and evaluate whether a property is eligible for a short-term rental. For example, if a property with short-term license sells and five other people within the density want to have their short-term license, how are we going to make that decision? Who gets it? There's going to be a lot of contention with that, and if we allow that short-term rental license to transfer, you take a lot of that headache away. I've been advised that the density buffers that have been put in place in other communities are under some legal challenges. Santa Fe, New Mexico, Grapevine, Texas, Milford, Ohio, Clark County, Nevada, all these are currently having legal challenges and I think that may be something that happens with Lexington if we aren't careful with how we've chosen to do it. as a short-term rental operator and a confessed short-term rental user, which I bet everyone, most people on the council has probably used a short-term rental. We are not there to make the communities worse. I'm not there when I go visit a community to make it worse or have a party. I think consistency, and I've reached out to individuals in the neighborhoods saying, I want to form a coalition as a host in neighborhoods so we're no longer just against each other if we really this isn't going away so we need to work together so if we can do that it would be better for everybody thank you very much next is Mitch Court Pace Cook Emmons and Dylan Mears welcome hi Mitch Gordy I'm with subtext to sort of reiterate what Nick had already talked about with our mixed-use project on limestone. Obviously we presented to the Planning Commission a few weeks back and since then we've made significant changes to the project that we feel really address some of the major concerns that they had related to affecting areas further into the neighborhood or impacting those residents further into the neighborhood, reducing density, increasing the public benefit with retail in that area, and also providing some much needed housing in an area that really needs it to prevent any further sprawl into those neighborhoods. So I think we've made some really great changes. We feel like it's a great project. It's in line with the comp plan. It was specifically called out in the comp plan. And we just hope that we get the opportunity to present that full project to council. And we're here for any questions. Thank you. Pace Cook-Emmons and then Dylan Mears followed by Rolanda Woolfolk. Welcome. Thank you, Mayor Gordon, Vice Mayor Wu, and Council Members. We appreciate this opportunity. I'm Pace Cook-Emmons, and I live in the 3rd District. I have lived on Edgemore Drive for nine years, and I'm from Lexington, and so I've got friends who live all over here as well. I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this, and while I support the revisions to the ZODA on short-term rentals as recommended by the Planning Commission, I also endorse the suggestions from the Fayette County Neighborhood Council and that Kenwick 14 group. In our neighborhood and in many older Lexington neighborhoods, streets are narrow and there's limited or little on-street parking. In fact, just recently, the Lexington Fire Chief changed Tahoma Road to one side of the park street only because of emergency vehicle access. Having so many people in STRs increases traffic. People are coming and going more and they need more parking spaces. And it also puts additional pedestrians and cyclists and people walking dogs and pushing strollers at risk because a lot of our neighborhoods don't have sidewalks. And clogging other streets for emergency access, which we have in Southern Heights, is also a risk. In my experience, long-term and short-term rental owners don't engage engage as much with the neighborhood, and that can help erode the character of a neighborhood and its sense of cohesion. So I hope that the BOA will be required in evaluating density, not just to consider those conditional use STRs, but also the total, including the by rights STRs in the community. A lot of these disturbances at STRs often happen outside business hours because they're noise or nuisance. and so they don't get a typical zoning or enforcement citation so I think it's really important as I think Jessica mentioned that the BOA consider all of those reports of disturbance litter parking violations etc in terms of evaluating compliance not just those official citations also and I have used SCRs and in many of the communities there are guidelines about the acceptable use. For example, in Phoenix, you can't have manufacturing, you can't be making candles while you're renting the STR, you can't be conducting business. So I think considering limitations on acceptable use would be something to consider. Finally, of course, I'm concerned as many are about affordable housing, particularly in regard to the impact of STR on specific neighborhoods. I hope the BOA will exercise its full authority to approve, and I believe it's going to take language, as Jessica mentioned, to make this very clear, that consider all of those variables and all of the dimensions of the adverse impact. Also, there's been a question posed to me about the enforcement. I believe if you call the line, your name goes to the property owner. I don't want to be arguing with my neighbor about their STR. Thank you so much. Next is Dylan Mears followed by Rolanda Woolfolk followed by Teresa Forbes Lopez. Welcome. Lay down. Lay down. Sorry, it takes 10 years to lay down. Will you state your name and council district? Yes. Hi, I'm Dylan Mears. I am in District 3. I am here to talk about why Subtext LLC's revision to their previous plan is not enough. Specifically, they're really highlighting how they're only going to be knocking down non-owner-occupied houses and saying, well, you guys are fine, your houses won't be affected, so don't worry about it. First, I want to talk about property taxes. I'm not someone who calculates property taxes, but I can tell you that they're going to go up if this goes in. Second, this is an historical neighborhood. I know that one of the staff members tried to call that into question a few meetings ago. They were called out for being wrong. It's still a historical neighborhood. It's the oldest black neighborhood in Lexington, Kentucky, and it's incredibly important to the history of Lexington. And simply tearing it down to put up another quasi-dorm building for UK is absolutely abhorrent. Next I want to talk about how this is a deeply harassed community. Not a week goes by where a lot of these owners don't get a new letter in the mail offering them money to buy their houses. These people want to live here. People have lived here for seven decades and people are still trying to take their houses from them for dirt cheap. They're not moving, and this is only going to increase the harassment because this is setting a precedent. This neighborhood is deeply harassed. It has been targeted, and it has been called underdeveloped and things like this. Sorry if you think that underdevelopment looks like a thriving community who loves and takes care of each other. That's absolutely inhuman to say so. Next, I want to talk about traffic. Traffic is awful. I don't know if you've ever tried to go on South Limestone while everybody's coming to and from work, but it's impossible to move anywhere. I'm disabled, and it's faster for me to walk home than take the bus. That's an issue. Next, parking. Parking is a huge issue. This place is only giving 45 percent of beds parking spots this neighborhood has already been fighting to have people stop parking in their driveways and their front lawns for years without any help from the city only providing 45 percent of the beds parking lots is only going to make that worse i just want to close out by saying that this is a thriving neighborhood that deserves respect and has not been getting it for centuries at this point. Do better. Next is Rolanda Woolfolk, followed by Teresa Forbes Lopez, followed by Patty Dross. Welcome. Rolanda Woolfolk, District 2. I'm in agreement with Prawl Town not to have subtext public hearing. We have been bait and switch for a long, long time in the black community, starting with Charlotte Court, East End, Asmendale, Davis Bottoms. We hear all the time that this is going to be good for you, and then the next thing you know we can't even come back to the neighborhood in which we know. doesn't look the same we're not a part of it we're not meant to be a part of it and never been a part of the plan once we're moved out gentrification is what it is you say it is not gonna affect you because it's homeowners is not and everybody else is renters renters have a say to we move there for a reason one because if it's your income too because it's our home and it's a place where we can afford to live affordable housing is two different things to the city it doesn't mean when it fits our income affordable housing now is more than above someone's income we have to look at what we're doing we have to understand we understand that the city wants to use the smart growth America to use to grow but let's be smart about our growth let's look at it like a fair alliance agreed smart growth is more important let's look at it see how we're gonna do it properly and where if that is equal and it affects everybody probably it's getting old it's getting tiresome stress is is a factor in this may not seem like nothing to you all but it is thank you next is teresa forbes lopez followed by patty dross and our final speaker will be steve dennis welcome welcome hello to everyone my name is teresa lopez and i'm in district three today i stand before you merely as a voice in the crowd but as a representative of community that has been resilient since its establishment in 1868. A community that has fought long and hard to preserve its identity, its integrity, and its very existence. We are here today to address a pressing issue to call attention to questions in fabric of our neighborhood and challenges and the core value that we hold dear. I have listened, I have read the plans presented the core values of this plan and I'll ponder deeply about the motivation behind it. I must ask why is it that a community that has withstood the test of time still embroiled in why it is a community that has to withstand the test of being a battle with the neighborhood has to be battled to keep its neighborhood. It is a question that weighs heavily on my heart and on the heart of many who calls this place home. There are many reasons behind our opposition, reasons that are complex and deeply rooted in our shared history. However, it would not be fitting to devolve all those because you know where we stand. What I want to highlight is the troubling tree we see emerging. Why is it the applicant so determined to claim ownership of this land? Why are their stakeholders playing what seems to be an unfair game. The offer on the table is 1.5 million dollars in mark for affordable housing or the creation of 15 units, but let us not be fooled. We know that this money will not be utilized in our community. It will be redirected, misallocated, perhaps even lost to the whims of another area, completely overlooking the original intent. This is not just a matter of funds, it's a matter of trust. It is a matter of ensuring that the promises made are promises kept. Furthermore, I found it deeply unsettling that as part of this proposal the applicants suggest a small donation to remodel Lou Johnson's Park. While on the surface this may sound noble, I urge you to look closely. It is a distraction, a feeble attempt to win favor while neglecting the core issues at hand. Pro town was not a part of the plan. We cannot all allow ourselves to be swayed by the superficial gesture. Our neighborhood deserves more than a patch on the job in the exchange for land. We must stand firm against the proposition, demand accountability. We cannot be married bystanders, watching as our community is sold piece by piece. Our fight is not just about land, it's about preserving the spirit of our neighborhood and ensuring the future generations can enjoy the the same sense of belonging that we cherish. I urge each one of you to reflect on what our community means to us. Let us unite, keep the recommendation of the Zone and Planning Committee, and not allow the public hearing to this proposal and not out fear, but out the love of our homes. We are not just defending buildings and streets, we're defending our legacy, history, future, and we can ensure that our community remains a place where everyone feels safe, valued, heard. let us stand together is important to fight for our community and we are here thank you thank you next is patty dross followed by steve dennis welcome thank you mayor vice mayor and council my name is patty drows i live in district six and i want to make a few comments about the short-term rental zota the joyland neighborhood association board that i represent fully supports the fayette county neighborhood council comments we support mandatory distance and density requirements we do not support exceptions to density and distance the importance of having restrictions on what amounts to hotel rooms in the middle of neighborhoods cannot be overstated the joyland neighborhood association board has worked hard to foster community spirit and community safety our efforts will dissolve by having hotel guests instead of permanent owners and long-term renters that we can relate to additionally joyland is an affordable housing neighborhood taking away affordable housing stock is contrary to the current lexington goal of increasing affordable housing i hope you will consider these comments in your decision. Thank you. Thank you very much. Next is Steve Dennis. Welcome. Thank you for having me. I'm Steve Dennis and I'm from District 4. And I attended the last meeting that brought this one when it was November 14th and it was brought up the 500 to 600. And the thing that struck me odd about that was where are we getting these numbers from as adults I'm I'm asking for you the engineers of the city to know what these numbers mean how are we arriving at them when the fort to the the the November 14th meeting was happening nobody knew even how they got the 500 it was brought up well that's because we've always used 500 as our site map let's go to 600 why are we going to 600. Well, Louisville did it. Anytime you make a decision that affects me, I want to know exactly the metric and the logic. Is that too much to ask? I want to know how you arrived at this. I kind of expect it. I would like you to go forward and have a plan to know what these numbers mean and how they affect us. I happen to be an operator at Airbnb. I'm not in a very saturated area. I'm out in Masterson Station. I happen to live in District 4. I live next to people that are operating Airbnbs. I've never had a problem. I've never had to call the police. I've never had parking issues. In Meyer and B&B, our neighbors actually introduce themselves to our guests and say, hi, welcome to the neighborhood. I know this because my children have stayed there and they've related this to me. I didn't even know about this. And I want to remind you, if you go to visit LACS, this seems to be something that is trying to promote tourism. The main statement is there's always room for one more. It seems like our city is really at odds with itself. Do we want more visitors or do we not? That's the question. And what's the right number? Nobody knows that. Nobody's taking the time to figure out, well, what is the magic number? Is it 500? Is it 600? Is it 1,000? Is it any? And I'm just asking you, if we want to be a tourist destination, which obviously we do, why don't we come up with a calculus for how many tourists we want? $1.6 billion was brought into us. We love that, but we don't want strangers roaming our neighborhoods. That's the other complaint. Well, they're not strangers. They're here on business. They're nurses. The parties, I've never had a problem with that. Running an Airbnb for three years, never had a problem. Never been reported. Never gotten on a hotline. Thank you. Thank you very much. One last time, Janet Cabanis, do you wish to have your turn to speak? You don't have to. It's just... I've spoken before and... Okay. No. So if you're going to speak, you need to be at the mic. Okay. Okay. Thank you very much. Just wanted to give you your chance. All right. Thank you to all of those who came to speak and appreciate you very much. Our next item on the agenda is our docket approval. Motion approved. Thank you. And I'll call on Council Member James Brown. Thank you, Mayor. I move to place on the docket for Tuesday, December 3rd, 2024 Council meeting under resolutions first reading a resolution approving the economic development partnership with Madison County, Scott County, and the City of Berea authorizing and directing the mayor on behalf of the urban county government to execute an interlocal cooperation agreement, membership agreement, and other necessary and related documents forming the Central Kentucky Business Park authority and authorizing payment in the amount of two million one hundred and twenty five thousand dollars to the authority for the purpose of carrying out the duties and powers of the authority as limited by the aforementioned agreements and relevant state law all contingent upon approval of the authorities creation and execution of all necessary agreements by all parties to the interlocal cooperative cooperation cooperation agreement so move Thank you. Council Member Gray seconds. Are there questions? Council Member Ellinger. Thank you, Mayor. Kevin, could you come to the mic? I know you sent the email out, but just kind of give us a rundown of how things change. I think there is a more expense for us now going forward than there was, but if you could just go through all it. And I want to thank you all for sitting through the first hour here and your participation in this interlocal agreement. So, you know, the last time I was here, I told you how strong this partnership is, and I think it shows when, you know, you hit the bump in the road and you quickly find the alternate solution to provide jobs for the region. It is essentially the same agreement. So it's no more money for us. It's still 2.125. And the agreement, I think the easiest way to explain it is, you know, instead of the host community community being Georgetown the host communities Berea instead of the site of the project being Scott County the the site of the projects Madison County so that that's essentially this site is 300 total acres with about a hundred and eighty what we call developable acres and it's already located in the confines of property owned by the Berea Industrial Authority so it's zoned and Mayor Fraley's had the engineers out to take a look at it the site is good it's ready so it is a developable site that already has industry right around it thank you and what's the timeframe well the board will form after completion of passage by all the parties which will be hopefully this week they will meet it has to get started because because the Congressman Barr money he was able to get through the congressional process has to get started as well. So hopefully, I don't speak for everybody, but hopefully you'll hear a good report sometime after the first of the year on what the plan is moving forward. Thank you, thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Council Member Worley. Thank you, Mayor. And I just wanted to speak first to my support of this project, and I've been supportive since the very beginning in all of the various different workings. and even though this project wouldn't be located in Fayette County, understanding that Fayette County's participation would be vital to making it work and that the region as a whole works better when we work together. And likewise, Judge Covington, I want to thank you and your court for the leadership that you put forward here, even though this ultimately did not end up in your county, to still, like us here in Fayette County, be supportive and know that this is a value to all of us. And then as a Madison County native, Mayor Fraley, Mag. Bachin, Judge Taylor, thank you all for all your work and for stepping up and making this happen. I'm very, very proud, and I think this is going to be great for all of us. Jobs are what it's all about in this line of work, so great job. Thank you. Thank you. Does anyone else wish to speak to the motion? Council Member Sevigny. Thank you, Mayor. Just a quick one. Since we approved something previously, does that, do we have a formal like rescind of that? And then this gets, I don't know if it's included in the motion. The way the law department crafted what you approved previously, since it was not approved by all the parties, it essentially died. And so this is a completely new process. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you. Other questions? All right, all those in favor of the motion, please say aye. Aye. Is anyone opposed? All right, that motion passes. Thank you for being here, our friends from Madison and Scott. All right, now we have Council Member Sevigny. And you don't have to stay for the rest of the meeting. This may get long. Appreciate your support. Thank you, Mayor. I plan to make four motions that I previously shared in an email with colleagues for a few small changes to the STR ordinance. And if seconded, I'd like to speak on each one of the changes. The first one, I move that in section 13-G, number one, we strike the words after the comma if they operate other SDRs in Lexington, so that number one would read the demonstrated compliance record of the applicant, period. So moved. Is there a second? Second. I'll second it. Thank you. Okay. We have a second by Council Member Gray. Is there discussion? Council Member James Brown. Thank you, Mayor. Council Member Savigny, can you repeat your motion and give a rationale for it? So my motion is in 313G, number one, which currently says the demonstrated compliance record of the applicant, and comma if they operate other STRs in Lexington, to strike after the comma if they operate, strike that if they operate other STRs, so that number one just says the demonstrated compliance record of the applicant. And my rationale is the applicant's overall compliance record with LFUCG ordinances should be considered. Mayor, I got a question for staff on how that would be executed if that's something. So I guess I would ask Director Duncan or anybody else in planning that wants to step to and speak to what that looks like in actuality. So, Director, how do you see this, if we made this change, how would that work on a case-by-case basis or application basis? Certainly, Council Member Brown, invite law to help me interpret this, but I believe the way councilmember Savigny has stated this is that it broadens the different elements that the Board of Adjustment can consider actually shall consider the way the the letter is written when reviewing applications so not only compliance with their short-term rentals but any other business operation or anything else like that that they would have in Fayette County in whose responsibility is it to to gather this information and provide it to the board it's staff's responsibility and is that's kind of how i'm reading it so it and so does the staff have the ability to to do that we continue to build that council member ground for instance we're working with police right now to to find a better way for them when they when they investigate a short-term rental complaint to ensure that that gets included in the in the information about short-term rentals so it's something we continue to build but uh to the extent that we could know everything that the applicant has done in Fayette County I don't know that we'd have to work on that okay well that kind of gives me some indication of how that could go forward I guess my next question would be for Wes and the revenue department in the software if if that's going to be a component of providing this information as well or is this just strictly the planning department trying to figure out how to cultivate this information and share it with the board we've worked to make sure that planning and building inspection several other divisions who are involved in the short-term rental process have access to the software and whenever there are applications to the Board of Adjustment we share information with planning whenever those addresses are provided okay thank you so I guess I'll speak to I plan to support this because I think it could be helpful to the board but my concern is that there's a if there's a lack of information for instance if there's a blank in an application I wouldn't want that to be just a general not approval stamp from staff just because they weren't able to find this information because I think it's something that we're continuing to work to build capacity to provide to the Board of Adjustments as they make decisions but I do see the value in it I just don't want it to be a instant negative decision maker just because it's left blank because there may be some information not provided so so thank Thank you, Vice Mayor Wu. Thank you, Mayor. Director Duncan, to that same point, if this amendment goes through, then we're considering, so we would be considering a first-time applicant who doesn't have other STRs already operating, right? Yes, we would, if taking out the STR, we would be looking at other operations or other complaints or other citations that they have in the community. Can you give me an example of what that other compliance record or that wider compliance record could entail? Well, any number of zoning violations, for instance. If they're doing something that's a violation of the other parts of the zoning ordinance, for instance, they're operating a residential unit with more than, a rental unit long term with more than four unrelated people living there, and that's had to have been investigated by building inspection or zoning enforcement. It could be traffic violations such as parking a vehicle in the front yard. It could be other criminal kind of activity as well. So I think it opens up the full spectrum of what Fayette County would regulate. Okay. So without this amendment as written currently, are we also looking at all those other elements of the applicant? The focus is on how they're operating short-term rentals, other short-term rentals in the community. If I'm hearing you correctly, without this amendment, we would not be considering whether or not somebody has a parking violation or somebody has a long-term rental like other parts of their record. We would only be looking at other previous compliance or complaints with their other previous STRs. Our focus would be how they're operating other short-term rentals in Lexington, yes. I guess my concern is the word focus, because focus to me feels a little bit more wobbly. It doesn't say yes or no. It doesn't say we're only looking at STR compliance, or we're looking at all compliance, their entire compliance record as a person in Fayette County. That doesn't keep a neighbor from, of course, saying something on the record at a Board of Adjustment hearing about other types of issues that the operator has done in their neighborhood. But as far as the investigation goes in the research we're focused on short-term rental operators and what they're doing elsewhere in Fayette County Okay, I'm not sure councilmember Sevigny if If I want a little more clarity in the language of it, but it's also right now in the interpretation of the original In the original language and not in yours Okay, thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Does anyone else have a question? Councilmember Lynch. Thank you, Mayor. My question is for Councilmember Sevigny. I get the spirit in what you're proposing, but it also feels like a slippery slope. Like, I don't know if I've, I guess a code enforcement violation could be on the table if that property owner had a code enforcement violation 50 years ago. Like, there's no time frame limiting that. So anything, is that, am I interpreting that right? So anything that this property owner that has a short-term rental, any violation, any history, if they filed bankruptcy, is all of that on the table for the Board of Adjustment to consider with your proposed amendment? The Board of Adjustment could consider anything that that applicant, anything that they've done that they're kind of not in compliance with. if they haven't filed their tax return, if they have been fined, like if they have other rental properties that have been habitual issues, they can bring it up at least in the report, and it will help people make a decision whether we actually want visitors to come visit this person's property. So all residential-related or business-related, or all of the above? I just like trying to clarify that. It's basically it's it's anything that relates to that business that's making the application so if it's an owner or if it's the business. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember. Councilmember Legree. Yes Mayor thank you. To follow up on the previous line of questioning Councilmember Savigny I'm just wondering about kind of the scope here. So if someone applies for a short-term rental with the amendment that you proposed, then what I'm understanding is that that person, that operator, or in relation to the property at hand or any other business or property connected to them could be kind of under scrutiny beyond the scope of short-term rental operations, operations but into kind of like a what sounds like a bit of an unknown space who would be responsible for determining the parameters of that dossier of information and then gathering that up in order to present it to the BOA how would that work I think it would work pretty similar to like it I've I've been reading the the current reports that come out and so they're basically they're going through different things about short-term rentals. They could easily go to this particular landlord has six pieces of property that they've been habitual offenders of XYZ ordinance. Okay? So it's just strictly a matter of that can be considered. Okay? And I left it broad Not enough so that if there are issues with a particular applicant, they can at least be flushed out. Otherwise, they may not be flushed out. Would the planning staff gather that information or who would gather that information? Currently the planning staff is gathering that information and the folks at revenue are actually providing information as well. Are they gathering that information in relation to short-term rental operation, or are they gathering that information across kind of a plethora of spaces? I'm trying to ask a practical question in terms of the people who are gathering the information to present to the Board of Adjustment, our staff, all of the spaces in which they should seek out information. And I'm hoping to, I understand the spirit of what you're trying to do, and I appreciate that. I'm just trying to understand the practicality in terms of their preparation, what that would look like for them, and if we need to be more specific or not in order to guide their process. So I guess those are my kind of lingering questions. I appreciate the dialogue. Thank you. Councilmember Baxter. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Councilman Svigni, for bringing up this amendment. I do have some concerns myself. I guess what we have continued to hear from the BOA is needing them feeling like they need more direction and things being more black and white. And this, to me, feels very open-ended, and it may end up clouding the waters a bit more. Do you feel differently? Do you feel like this would allow them to have better direction, or do you agree that it may cloud the? I just believe that there's information out there that may not pertain to a short-term rental. That is strictly this, a business owner that wants to open a short-term rental. It's like if they're a perpetual issue with ordinance and ordinance following, then it should be considered. whether they should get the privilege of running a short-term rental as a business in a residential zone. That's strictly it. Okay. I appreciate that answer. I do feel like, I still feel like it's very loose and open-ended, and I would, I guess, lean on the planning staff on whether or not they feel like they have the information they would need to make a qualified recommendation to the BOA. it just like where do you stop you know councilmember lynch was like you know at what ordinances do we stop at do we stop at law you know there's a million things that could go into it so without specific direction i feel like we're just like grasping at straws a bit so um i don't know if anybody wants to respond to that would would anyone like to respond tracy they're all looking at each other like who wants to take a stab tracy wade thank you tracy good afternoon so currently the information we give the Board of Adjustment is only related to their short-term rental application, not any other violation they might have received as a business or or an individual. And so we ask for specific divisions for that information. Revenue, whether they have a license or have been notified by the Granica system that there is no license. We talked to code enforcement so that could be some nuisance issues we talked to the police and then we also talked to building inspection to see if there's other zoning there's zoning violations related to the short-term rental but it's all information related to their particular application for that use and so it is within some parameters to open it up I think could create a lot of work for the staff in terms of tracking down different compliance issues that may or may not exist and would certainly increase our communication with other divisions in terms of searching for that information when we have two or three applications it really isn't a heavy load but this month we had 20 so that becomes a lot more for not just our division but the divisions we're asking for that data from yeah okay well I do understand your thought behind this council members Vigni I won't be able to support it just because I think it's too open-ended and I feel like our staff would need tighter parameters to be able to do their job thank you is there anyone who hasn't spoken who has a question councilmember Ellinger I think you mayor Wes could you come down here when we do business license do we do we do this with anybody else have we regulated this yeah that we check back through with special fees license or just a general business license both with a general business license we don't go and confirm compliance with any other divisions other than just advising them that they need to make sure they're properly zoned and in a building inspection the the different business licenses under the special fees ordinance have a variety of different requirements that we would that we verify based on those individual yeah I think like my colleagues this is slippery slope and I think if you want to circumvent this you could just file a new LLC and start as a new LLC and then that would have there would be no other things you look up at that point would you if it's a new business entity then we would look at that individual business entity and its compliance that would be it I think so that's how you start Bennett thank you anyone else who hasn't spoken councilmember Foley thank you mayor councilmember Savicki does something major happen between the time we spent all of those long hours going line by line to come up with our past recommendations to now is something major happen to change what we should do no I uh thank you for that question councilmember fogel i just i took the time to actually read what we were going to be approving and i i read it and and kind of said well here's what i think is a loophole and i'm trying to close some loopholes that's basically it okay thank you i don't know who this question would go to will this open up um some cases for discrimination from other entities because of the short term rental, will it spill over to property owners? Who we know there are some that are on the investigation right now, they should never be able to rent to anyone because of their behaviors. Will that open up a can of worms? Who did that go to, Wes? Does that go to you? Law? Somebody help me. I'm just common thinker. Brittany, can you, I think that's maybe legal. Brittany. i think the best answer that i can give to that would be that you're looking at actual compliance we're not necessarily talking about just notices of violation you would actually want to see citations which as you know individuals have a right to appeal so we're looking at an established record that would be the basis for denial so we're not discriminating against anyone so i hope that answers your question okay thank you we know that our police department is hard at work i heard something say something about the police would if they were calling and and all these complaints so um i'm really i'm nervous about this one um just common thinker okay thank you thank you all right vice mayor woo thank you mayor um my concern with this amendment and this This is coming from somebody who believes in reasonable regulation for short-term rentals and to make sure that we have good operators. This idea of looking at this very wide scope of compliance with LFUCG feels a little bit too wide-ranging to me. I would have a better comfort level in supporting this amendment if it only applied to housing and sort of landlord issues because to me it makes sense that if this person has had complaints against them as a landlord or compliance issues with code enforcement in terms of not upkeeping their house or upkeeping their yard, those would be the kind of considerations that make sense for somebody who wants to operate another housing-based business. So I don't know if Commissioner Barberry wants to come down and maybe help me word this a little bit I let me come on down if he wants to come down and he just I would like to yeah if you can kind of help me think about the language of it here's my intent for I would like to make an amendment to councilmember Civigni's amendment i would like to make a mint an amendment in the in the framing of a compliance record as it relates to property ownership being a landlord property related compliance record so that if somebody has a speeding ticket if somebody has some other record if it's tax related if they have a yoga business and they have a an issue with that thing that those are not things that apply those are not things that are looked at and considered by the board of adjustment when it comes to it well at this point i've kind of lost track of what the original motion was but um which is why i'm with miss smith going over the actual original motion language it looks like you if you want to do that you would want to add some additional language to what has been proposed to you all it would be something like the demonstrated compliance record as it relates to home ownership or property ownership and that to me would encompass being a private property owner homeowner i suspect that property ownership will cover the home ownership part so you could you could limit it to if that's your concern i think you could probably cover it by saying as it relates to the property ownership record of the applicant so it would still be to demonstrate a compliance record of the applicant as it relates to property ownership can i as i have not formally made this motion yet councilmember civigny would you be up for withdrawing this motion and working on these items in committee to give it a little bit more time, especially because there are multiple items here? And if the answer is no, that's fine, then I'm going to make this motion to your motion. No, I don't think we would put this in committee because I think we're at the point where we're ready to make some decisions on it. i'm i just have four edits that i'm trying to get done because to be honest with you there wasn't a lot of time to get these done so um so yeah okay um do you have do you have some language crap sure it would be the demos i believe the original motion as it stands is the demonstrated compliance record of the applicant period correct period so you would want to add additional language to that so you would now say the demonstrated compliance record of the applicant as it relates to property ownership okay so moved council member she in seconds now we'll have discussion on this amendment is there any council member reynolds thank you mayor um i from what i understand we're already looking at a lot um i hate to do this tracy but could i have you repeat the list that you just said of of tracy wade of what we um what we're already looking at sure we contact the division of police to ask if there's any parties and so forth happening at the property we ask code enforcement if they have violations, building inspection in terms of land use, and then also revenue. So four divisions. Okay. I think I'm going to stick with the original wording, and I won't be able to support this amendment for now. Thank you. Anyone else wish to speak to the amendment? All right. All those in favor of Vice Mayor Wu's amendment, please say aye. Aye. Let's do a, can you do an electronic vote, please? All in favor of the amendment. That fails. It's tie vote. Now, we have the main motion on the floor. Is there any further discussion to the main motion? Council Member Worley. Thank you, Mayor. I support the reasoning behind the amendment. I think it makes sense to know as much about these units as we can and about these operators as we can. I don't intend to support the amendment, though, because I think this is going to be too much of a burden on our staff and a little bit too wide opening of the files. against applicants. I believe, and I think actually your second amendment speaks to this, that that sort of information, non-compliance with city codes, to the extent that it's egregious enough that our staff likely already knows about it or has been told by other departments about it, can be part of the evidence presented in a conditional use permit application. KRS 100 allows for the board to take into account any information that it sees fitting, and so that could certainly be provided to them. And to the extent that there's a concern that the board doesn't understand that they can do that, I think Council Member Civigni's second amendment that I believe he's going to propose may address that. Because I think in a conditional use permit, the board can take into account any such relevant information as it sees fit and then can impose conditions that it sees fit. So I think the board has this in its purview. Without us saying it, I'm just worried. This is why I supported the vice mayor's amendment because it at least narrowed it a little bit. I don't disagree with the sense of this. It's just the scope of it is a bit much for me to put on the staff. All right, thank you. Who else would like to speak to the motion? Anyone? All right, all those in favor of the motion, please say aye. Aye. Let's go ahead and do, on whatever all this is, let's do the electronic. with this issue. Please vote. We have one. All right. That motion fails. 4 to 10. That's fine. I'm going to pick an easy one now. I move under 3-13L to change the language, to insert the word unhosted in front of short-term rentals and scratch the regulated as a conditional use. So it will read the number of unhosted short-term rentals shall not exceed 2% of the dwelling units within 1,000 feet in residential zones. So moved. Second. Council Member Grace seconds that. And if I can speak to it, I'll just speak to it. Okay, and then we'll have... Yeah, the unhosted short-term rentals are grandfathered, and they do not have conditional use permits. They're considered non-conforming uses. The way this is written, they could technically, they could disregard technically the people that have been grandfathered in and not include those in the count for 2%, and I don't think that that's the intent. Okay, now let's have some discussion of the motion. Is there discussion? Just, I mean, a clarification. So, I mean, a short-term rental is a short-term rental, which would include both hosted and unhosted in the calculation, correct? And just because something was grandfathered in before these regulations, it's still a short-term rental. The hosted short-term rentals do not need a conditional use. They are considered an accessory use. But unhosted that got grandfathered in did not go through a conditional use process. They were just allowed. So they don't have technically a conditional use permit. So you would want to consider all unhosted. Any other questions? Council Member Ellinger. Thank you. I'm still trying to go over exactly what you're going to do again, if you would, please. And this is actually why I think this should go back in committee. I don't think this is the way you should do legislation at this point. There's a lot of changes that we're trying to make here. And this is, we're hearing it from both sides that are for and against. And I think what we want to do is what's best for the community. And I think the way that we're going about this process right now is probably not the right process because we have a lot of these. And we're getting back from the Planning Commission. We got this at 11.10 yesterday, and we're trying to make these changes. And they're pretty dramatic changes that we're trying to do. And to do best for the community, I think this needs to be in committee and not try to piecemeal these things through here, in my opinion. And I will be making that motion later. So if you would, please tell me what you're trying to do now. This was an easy one. So the 3-13L will read, the number of unhosted short-term rentals shall not exceed 2% of the dwelling units within 1,000 foot in residential zones. And the rationale is because we are, with the words regulated as conditional use in there, everything that was pre-approved as a grandfather did not go through the conditional use process so you want to include those so that's why you're just going to say unhosted period okay and that includes both the people that went as unhosted conditionally and unhosted as grandfathered it has nothing to do with the hosted it has nothing to do with the hosted they're not included in the 2%. And the way it originally read, they were not included in the 2%. Other questions? Comments? To the motion on the floor. All right. All those in favor of the motion on the floor, Please log in. Those opposed, log in. Just say yes. I realize. Oh, Council Member Brown has left. That motion passes 13-0. Thank you, Mayor. My next one is another easy one. There is a series of commas that are missing. section 8.5 d 15 825 e 15 23 a dash 5 d all have the same grammar issue unhosted short-term rentals comma there should be a comma in between that and hosted short-term rentals for more than 10 occupants as regulated under section 313 when you read it the way it's written it could it looks like both unhosted and hosted short-term rentals of just under 10 people are what they're concerned about, and it's really all unhosted. And when I've talked to staff, they agreed that a comma should be in all those locations. So moved. Council Member Legree seconds. Now let's have discussion of the motion on the floor. Is there any discussion? Councilmember James Brown. Thank you, Mayor. I just want to confirm with law that these grammatical corrections are. Are we just making grammatical errors with these, adding these commas in? Somebody from the law department. And Councilmember Sevigny, did you talk to someone in law about this is something that we need to do? I shared this with Tracy Wade, and I asked her, like, what does this mean? and does it mean this and she said yes we probably should put a comma in there okay is your plan sorry what was your question is whether or not just grammatical there's no meeting change that I can see in the request it does require a motion to make this change it's not something that you just I'm happy with supporting the motion but I just want to make sure it's purely grammar that we're fixing I think it's purely grammar and probably be fixed without a motion, but that's fine. We'll do by motion. All right, thank you. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you. Any other questions about this motion? All those in favor, please log in. All those opposed, please log in. All right, that motion passes. Thank you, Mayor. I have one more. Section 13G, I would add a number 5 if that happens to be the next number. The Chair may admit all pertinent evidence for the Board's consideration, including but not limited to the sworn testimony of those present, letters and documents submitted for the record, and reports from the LFUC staff. So moved. Second. All right. all right and if you want me to speak to the rationale without this being explicitly stated the boa could assume that they can only follow the staff's recommendations on those items up above without reviewing any subjective responses from the neighborhood the applicant or staff all right is we have an attorney at the podium point out that you're looking to add that may language under g which starts out that the board shall take into consideration so that's going to cause some confusion, I think, for the board. You could make that a separate section if you would, but that's going to be a textual conflict. I would be happy to do that. All right. Council Member Worley. Thank you. With the exception that I had the same critique, that it was putting a May item under a shell clause, and it should be its own lettered clause, which however you want to do that, restate your motion or whatever's fine with me. I do support this because I think if the board is finding confused that it cannot take full account of everything that's presented for them, that the state law does give them that authority to start with. If they believe we have superseded state law, which we don't have the authority to do anyway, but if there's some area of confusion there to actually tell the board they can take into consideration what's presented for them, then I think that that's a good clarification. Thank you. And I would be happy with a friendly amendment to change it to its own item. Would you like to state your motion? Restate your motion? I've got to find the right spot. Sorry. Were there other questions? Do you have anything? No. You want to help me? That's Member Worley. You want to help me? Yeah, Worley. Brittany is the drafter here. Would you prefer to add this just as the next lettered provision or to provision at the end? I think it suits better just to be a new H and then renumber them all. Okay, I'd make a friendly amendment to instead of adding a subsection five to section G to add a new section G as stated exactly as council members of Vigni stated his language so moved it's what I meant new age we have a few seconds all right is there any discussion of the amendment all those in favor say aye aye is anyone opposed all right that passes now we have the amended motion So we're back to the amended motion. Back to the motion. Any further discussion? All right. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Is anyone opposed? All right. That motion passes. I thank you for giving me the time to do these. I appreciate it. Thank you. Now, we are still on the docket, and next up to speak to the docket is Council Member Legree. Thank you, Mayor. Colleagues, this is within the same vein as Councilmember Civigni's, which pertains to PLN ZOTA 24-00007, Amendment to Update Short-Term Rental Regulations. I want to call your attention back to Section 313, which is labeled General Regulations for short-term rentals or STRs. Item G. Item G states, just so you can find your spot, for short-term rentals regulated as conditional uses, the Board of Adjustments shall take into consideration. Under that heading, there's a statement that says, quote, it's the current number two. It says, quote, Whether the property being considered is located in close proximity to the downtown core or other mixed user entertainment uses. I'd like to move to remove the language that states whether the property being considered is located in close proximity to the downtown core or other mixed user entertainment uses. I would be glad to provide a rationale, but I just wanted to make the motion. Second. Okay, Councilmember Reynolds seconds. Go ahead. Okay, thank you, Mayor. The current framing, which I stated above, creates a situation within which neighborhoods proximate to the downtown core or proximate to other mixed-use or entertainment uses are potentially more susceptible to conditional approval for unhosted short-term rentals. This is not an equitable situation in terms of potential STR saturation and could negatively impact these neighborhoods. I move to make this removal so that these neighborhoods are given equal consideration when it comes to unhosted conditional use STR decisions and are not rendered more vulnerable to unhosted short-term rental saturation. Motion. Council Member Reynolds. Thank you, Council Member Legree, for bringing this forward. I know it's something that we discussed as we both represent downtown communities. we have several neighborhoods that are very concerned about this language because they are neighborhoods even if they are near entertainment districts and popular areas downtown and so we just want all neighborhoods to be represented in the same way and considered in the same way when it comes to short-term rentals so I just want to thank you once again for bringing this forward and ask my colleagues to support this motion is there any other discussion of the motion yes councilmember plurman can you use your mic please councilmember degree when it says close proximity is there any distance I mean is that just subjective my understanding with my discussions with planning staff is that it is subjective yes okay I didn't know if there was anything that existed that close proximity would and when I'm thinking of downtown and I can see I think you were looking at a couple areas but then you can get you can go towards Nicholasville Road and you've got some down on now what that distance would be and who would make that decision do I exactly that's why I've moved to remove it because it makes the neighborhoods approximate to the downtown more susceptible and so just keep it open just totally take that out yeah I would completely remove it and so then therefore all of the parameters that apply to all the rest of our neighborhoods also apply to areas delineated as such okay thank you thank you mayor okay you're welcome other questions councilmember Fogle thank you mayor thank you councilmember will agree for bringing this forward and thank you for setting the precedents for sober living houses that's going to come before this council in 2025 and so hopefully the same consideration will be made when folks come down about that I to first district is definitely right downtown so I thank you for bringing this forward and I will support it. Other questions or comments on the motion? All right, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Is anyone opposed? All right, that motion passes. Thank you. Council Member Reynolds. Thank you, Mayor. I have two motions, two walk-ons. I move to place on the docket for the December 3rd, 2024 council meeting a resolution authorizing the mayor to execute an agreement with Commonwealth of Kentucky Cabinet for Health and Family Services to maintain a quick response team. Is there a second? Council Member Baxter seconds. Are there any questions? All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Is anyone opposed? All right, that motion passes. Thank you. I move to place on the docket for the December 3rd, 2024 Council Meeting resolution. authorizing the mayor to execute and submit a grant application seeking 1 million in the federal funds from the US Department of Homeland Security under the 2024 assistance to firefighters grant program to provide any information requested in connection with this grant application and to accept this grant if awarded the acceptance of which obligates the urban county government to the expenditure of $100,000 as a local match and further authorizing the mayor to transfer unencumbered funds within the grant budget. Second. Vice Mayor Wu seconds. Are there questions? All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Is anyone opposed? All right, that motion passes. Vice Mayor Wu. Thank you, Mayor. This motion I'm about to bring for a walk-on is based on discussion in the public input subcommittee, And what it will do is bring our public comment rules from council meetings in line with our public comment rules with work sessions. So I moved to place on the docket for the December 3rd, 2024 council meeting a resolution amending section 3.1022 of appendix A, rules and procedures for the Lexington Fayette Urban County Council relating to the order of business at council meetings provide a separate opportunity for public comment for issues on the docket prior to consideration of legislative items by the Urban County Council. So moved. Second. Council Member Ellinger seconded. Is there discussion? Council Member Ellinger. Thank you, Mayor. We've been just talking about this in the subcommittee, and I think this is a great opportunity to allow the public to speak, because right now on our council meetings the public speaks at the end when the issues have already been voted on so it doesn't it's kind of a moot point at that point by the council means we have our second reading we vote and then at the end of the meeting we have um um council public comment and it's already been discussed it's already been or it's already been voted on we haven't had the discussion if they want to bring it up so i think this is a great change that has has been needed and I'm glad that we're bringing this forward, so thank you. Thank you, Council Member Worley and then Council Member James Brown. Thank you, Mayor. First, a point of clarification, when you said prior to action on legislative items, I assume then you would put that after presentations on the docket? After presentations and before any readings. Okay, because I think we'd also, we want to make sure that our various different pastors and clergy get an opportunity to go home. Yep, that's why we do it that way. after the invocation and then anybody that is being honored doesn't have to wait through public comment. So I mean you all have long known my stance on public comment that I think is unbelievably valuable in the process but at the right time and I think there are times that the business of the council there's certain timings that just don't work and I think we saw an exercise today if this very work session that items moving through the legislative process the public has ample opportunity to give public input as there was over an hour of public input that I think was very valuable and actually has influenced some of the decisions made today. Most of the time at least for me by second reading I feel like I've adequately educated myself on the issue and my constituents position on the issue and I feel like at those evening meetings you give yourselves a potential that your business is bogarted by time not by the public the public's entitled their opinion, but by the time you get to those items of business, many of your commissioners and directors have needed to go home to take care of their children. We're paying our security staff and our police over time to be here. So I think that this is, I agree with the principle of this. I just think the practical aspects of it will be difficult. That being said, like I've recently said, I won't be here next year. So take whatever time you all want. I just, I would caution that we do have generally two work sessions. The one where something's put on the docket, then it gets public reading, that first reading that night. It could get public comment at that public reading, that first reading at the end of the docket. Then you have another work session where comment could be made all before second reading. I think you all should not sell yourself short at the amount of opportunities that you do honor the public. And if you want to do more, I respect that too. But I would just caution you and applaud those of you who already give it so much time. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member James Brown. Thank you, Mayor, and thank you, Council Member Worley. You made a lot of the points that I was going to make. My concern is that once we ring this bell, we can't unring it. I think, you know, I want to applaud the work of the Public Input Subcommittee. I think the intent is right. And I see the frustration on folks' face when they come and want to speak to an issue that we're about to take action on, but they can't. They're not allowed to speak to it until the end of the meeting, and we've already voted on it. My concern is that I think there's a lot of opportunity for input along the process. I think we share and communicate that. I think we receive it, and about the time it's getting a reading, it's pretty much done anyway. So I'm concerned that it will create unrealistic expectations that it may change, even though I think the input is important. But I'd rather encourage people or our constituents to communicate with us more during the process as opposed to right before we get ready to vote. So I would – I'll probably vote against it if it comes to a vote, But I would rather this go into committee and us to continue to talk about it and figure out a way that we can present it and maybe put some guidelines on it that will help us be more informed and receive structured feedback and engagement. So I'm supportive of the effort, but I just think that we need to be cautious about how we do it. So thank you. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you. Councilmember Legree? Mayor, yes, if I could, as the chair of the public input subcommittee, I just wanted to provide a little bit more context. This has been an important topic of discussion within our public input subcommittee over the past year or more. And as you all may recall, the subcommittee was tasked with evaluating and improving the council's public input processes to make sure that they're more accessible, transparent, and meaningful for our residents. So just so that you all know, this recommendation originates from Civic Lexus 2022 report to council, which underscored a key challenge. Residents often leave public meetings feeling frustrated when comment occurs at the end of the agenda after the vote. So their recommendation to move public comment on agenda items to the beginning of the meetings reflects a commitment to addressing that concern. And then I do want you all to know that we deliberately chose to take a measured approach in evaluating this change. And over the past year, we've gathered and we've reviewed data on public participation. And we've specifically focused on how many individuals signed up to speak on agenda items versus non-agenda items, both during work sessions and council meetings. And that analysis was shared with you all yesterday by our PIO, and that helped inform our recommendation. And in the last eight months, the exact same number have signed up to speak to work session as to formal council meetings. That was 20 people. And so we think that this adjustment achieved several goals. It helps residents have the opportunity to provide input on agenda items before decisions are made. And it also creates consistency in public comment procedures across work sessions and council meetings. And these changes reduce confusion. They help to hopefully enhance transparency and we hope also foster a more inclusive process. At our recent subcommittee meeting, we did vote to endorse this change. And I think part of the timing, and I understand these concerns, and I think they're very thoughtful. But we thought that rolling out a new structure at the start of 2025 with the incoming council provides a natural transition point to implement this change. I do encourage you all to support this motion. reflects our shared commitment I believe to making government more open more equitable and responsive to the people that we serve so thank you for your consideration okay for those Councilmember she and council member Lynch then vice mayor Thank you Mayor and Council Brown, I think you're right that our constituents should communicate with us. But also Councilmember Ellinger, you make a great point and Councilmember Worley, you made the best point. You said the folks that are here that were able to speak kind of turned the direction of some of the things that we discussed up here. And so I will support the changes. I believe that public comment should be made before any decisions is made by council that will stick. And so I do look forward to being here next year on the other side of that podium, and I need to speak before you all make a decision. We should take away the boogeyman and the conception that council is unapproachable. And this is one way that we can do that, is that we have more of the community engaged in common. Miss Theresa made a great statement today. She brought her passion, she brought the heart of a black neighborhood that could disappear like the rest of our neighborhoods. And so without hearing that comment, we wouldn't have been able, we won't be able to make a decision. And thank you for that. And thank you for all of you all that showed up. And so I will support Council Member Legree. I will support this. So thank you. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you. So we're going to Council Member Sheehan, Council Member Lynch, and then Vice Mayor Wu. Thank you, Mayor. I am a member of this subcommittee, so participated in the discussion. So I want to just echo what the other subcommittee members have said. but i i do want to speak to some personal interactions that i have had with some of my residents that have been here to speak on motions there have been multiple times where someone has been here to speak on a motion or an item on our agenda that we have to vote on that night at a second reading and they did just didn't understand that they wouldn't be able to speak beforehand and while we really are trying to do a lot to educate the public about how to engage with us and the best ways to reach us and to really encourage them to give feedback early in our legislative process i do still think that a lot of the publications and media around particular items that come to us specify when it will be voted on at a final time and so then that is what the public sees and that's when they think they should be responding so in light of that and because I know I've had residents here experience that and then not be able to speak before we actually vote on something I will be supporting this motion thank you thank you next is Councilmember Lynch. Thank you, Mayor, and thank you, Vice Mayor, for putting forth this motion. I, too, am a member of the Public Input Subcommittee, and so I just like to remind my colleagues that Civic Lex did a study about public input with local government, and in large part, this is one of the refrains that was repeated in that study, is that folks felt like they were unheard because they were not able to come to council meeting and give public input before we made So this even dates back to the Civic Lex study that happened before. Additionally, as has already been mentioned, this is an issue that has been well studied by our public input subcommittee. We didn't just decide to make this lightly. I was also on the council rules subcommittee and we talked about this issue when we were revising our council rules and decided let's let the public input subcommittee do that homework and not just throw it into our council rules revisions. So we did painstakingly study the issue to make sure that before we made any hasty decisions that there warranted the decision to make this option available to the public. Additionally, I think our neighbors may not know our email address, they may not know our phone number, but they know they can come down here and speak. And we're a sitting audience to listen. And so I think it's important that we have this option available at the top of the agenda for council meetings as well. And then lastly, consistency is important. Time and again, I hear from my neighbors that we run differently than the Board of Adjustment meetings and we run differently than the Planning Commission meetings. and our work sessions meetings are differently than our council meetings. So I think it's important to have consistency for things that we can control, and we can control what happens at our council work sessions and our council meetings. So I think making sure that we have public comment at the top of the agenda is similar to what happens in work session is very important because that will make access to local government easier if we're consistent. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you. Vice Mayor Wu. Thank you, Mayor. Council Member James Brown mentioned the idea of putting this item in committee with this subcommittee consisting of a third of the council, I would consider it well worked through our committee process. And as Councilmember Lynch said, this was not something that we just came up with yesterday. This is something that we have been discussing. In terms of talking about other opportunities that residents and constituents have to speak to us, right now the only opportunity in this public forum to speak to us on items on the agenda is at the beginning of the work session. We currently do not allow public comment during our standing committees, and we don't allow it at the top of our council meetings. So, while there are lots of different ways that our constituents can engage with us and should engage with us, whether it's at a neighborhood meeting, over email, phone calls when they see us, etc. I think this is a really vital addition to our public comment process, and it brings our two main working meetings, the work session and the council meeting, in line with each other. And I think that consistency is really important for our constituents because not everybody can always follow the nuance of, well, it's allowed here, but it's not allowed in this one. So I think this is a good move. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you. Council Member Baxter. Thank you, Mayor. And Vice Mayor, while I appreciate that a third of the council was on that subcommittee, the rest of us were not, and we knew about this yesterday. And trying to make a rash, not rash, quick decision before a new council begins is not something that I am interested in, on something that is this important to our community. I agree with Council Member James Brown that this does need to go back into committee so that we can fully flesh this out and make sure the rest of us are on board with it as well. Thank you. Council Member Reynolds. Thank you, Mayor. The reality is this has been looked at by not only the subcommittee, but by Civic Lex. And we have heard time and time again from our constituents that they want an opportunity to interact with us. And they feel like it's important to come and tell us what they think about what we're voting on. I don't think that any of us can assume that our constituents know the process and know when to engage previously to coming and telling us the day of a vote or a meeting before the vote. We wish that they did. We need to work on that education piece, but they really don't know when to engage. They don't know that we're working on something in committee. They don't know that maybe we did a presentation in committee. They don't know that we voted it out of committee. They don't know that it's in work session, and sometimes they don't hear until it's on the council docket that something is coming before us. So I think that as much as we would like them to engage in different ways, and we can keep encouraging that, to have that expectation that that's suddenly going to change, I think is unrealistic. That's why I'm going to support this. But I did have a question to Chair Legree about this. When we've talked to some council members in other cities, there's a cap on either how many people can sign up for public comment at a meeting or an amount of time that people can speak at a public meeting. The reason why I'm going to ask this is because I'm a mom and every time I come to work to an official meeting, I have no idea what time it's going to end. I don't know if I need childcare for 20 minutes or for three hours. And our staff doesn't know either. Our staff sits through these meetings and they don't know when they're going to end and when they're going to go home to their families. I'm not trying to limit public comment, and I'm trying to say, is there a realistic time frame so that we aren't here for four hours? Or do we need to have, did you talk about separate hearings for public comment? Council member Reynolds, I think your question is legitimate. I think it's connected to the points that council member James Brown made. In the past with issues like short term rentals or auxiliary dwelling units for example, we have what we sometimes call public hearings, but they're actually technically public forums. So at times we do have meetings that are completely dedicated to public comment about high profile issues. This in no way limits our ability and in fact the need to continue to do that. To your question about limitation to the number of people who can sign up to give comment on items on the front of the agenda. That is not something we formally discussed in the public input subcommittee. And I think that a challenge is we don't, I think we would have to grapple with the framing of how to approach that. Because we don't, it's all about expectation setting and people knowing what to expect when they come down here. And we don't want people to feel limited. So we haven't grappled with that question in the exact way that you're framing it, though it has been on our minds as we've been figuring out how to guide people when they come to interact with us. It just, I'm aware that other cities do things differently and that they have limitations that we don't have. And I think that's something that if we move this forward that we really need to consider is either a time frame or a number of people and they could sign up ahead of time and know if they're on the list. Just something to consider. Just so you all know, this is not the end of public input subcommittee. We are still continuing to meet, so if there's an item that people would like to bring to our attention and have us engage with and we're continuing to connect with each other and we welcome other people to join us. So I appreciate that input. Thank you. Are there any other comments about the motion? Mayor? Yes. Councilman. I would support this. I think that we know that you all have spent so much time on this and also brought in other folks like Civic Lux to take a good look at it. And also, for me, it's important on perception of our public so that we have the items that we're going to be talking about. And at the very beginning, they get an opportunity. It's kind of like placement. Your comments are very important. We will put this at the top of our agenda. So I do support this. And thank you for all your work to the committee. That's all, Mayor. Thank you. Thank you. Are there any other questions, Council Member Gray? Why, thank you. Second. The question has been called. Well, that's not debatable. Right. But yeah. Do we have to vote on it? No. No. We don't have to vote on it. All right. All those in favor of the motion, please say aye. Aye. Is anyone opposed? No. One. Okay. Okay. Okay. Do we have two no's? Let's do a digital electronic voting, please. All right. That motion passes 10 to 4. Thank you. Now, Councilmembers, we are still on the docket, and for those who've arrived for the 5 o'clock meeting, we are still on our 3 o'clock meeting. And the issue right now is we have a lot of kids in the lobby who are supposed to be honored at the 5 o'clock meeting. So what we may do is go through some business here and see if we can get through it and then have them come up. if that suits you. So we're still on the docket, and we have Council Member Worley. I don't know why I got taken off. I was next. Well, Council Member Ellinger says he was next. Do you mind? Okay. Thank you, Mayor. I have a motion to walk on. I move to place on the docket for the December 3rd, 2024, Council Member, a resolution authorizing the Mayor to execute an agreement with the Downtown Lexington Corporation, DBA, downtown Lexington Partnership to present public events on behalf of and in partnership with LFUCG including the Luminate Lexington Christmas tree lighting, the Christmas parade and the Thursday night live. So moved. Second. All right, Councilmember Reynolds second. Any questions? All those in favor say aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? All right, that motion passes. Now, Mayor, I said earlier that I was going to be making a motion about putting number eight into committee for first reading, but I will come back in my next five minutes so we can get the rest of it done so they can come up and speak, because that might take a few minutes. Okay. Council Member Worley. Thank you, Mayor. And, colleagues, if you'll indulge me a little bit, this is kind of a belt and suspenders approach to this, just because my motions are walk-ons related to council capital projects, which I know are later in our agenda, but just in the event that for some reason those don't get processed or onto the docket, I need two readings before I leave you. And so I'm going to make it in this way, and then if our staff needs to put it all in the same resolution, I have no objection to that. I move to placing the docket for the December 3rd, 2024 council meeting, Resolution authorizing and approving the transfer of council capital project funds to the Lexington Leadership Foundation in the amount of $50,000 for capital improvements in the Woodhill neighborhood, including but not limited to a bus shelter on Codale Drive, the Woodhill Community Center, and Woodhill Park. So moved. Council Member Baxter seconded. Are there any questions? All those in favor say aye. Aye. Is anyone opposed? All right, that motion passes. Thank you, Council Members and Mayor. I have one more. I move to place on the docket for the December 3rd, 2024 Council meeting. A resolution authorizing and approving the transfer of Council capital project funds to the Department of Parks and Recreation in the amount of $5,000 for capital improvements in the Cadentown neighborhood for the Sense of Place project. So moved. Second. Thank you. Vice Mayor Wu seconds. Are there any questions? All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Is anyone opposed? All right, that motion passes. Thank you, Mayor. Next is Councilmember Sheehan. Thank you, Mayor. I have one last amendment to the short-term rental zoning ordinance text amendment. Based on discussions with our planning staff and with our Board of Adjustment and hearing feedback from our community, the length of our Board of Adjustment meetings has gotten very long due to the amount of applications we have gotten for conditional use permits. permits. In fact, this year has been twice as high as the previous highest annual count of conditional use permits. Because of that, it's been an enormous burden on the staff. It is an enormous burden to have that many cases coming forward each month on our volunteer board of adjustment members and on the community who comes to speak but then has to sit through all of those cases. So in conjunction, in talking with our planning staff, I move to amend the proposed short-term rental zoning ordinance text amendment to add a new subsection 313, which I now believe will be O because we added the new H, to state the following. The board of adjustment may consider a maximum of five new conditional use applications for short-term rentals per month. So moved. Council Member Sevigny seconded. Any questions or comments? Council Member Ellinger. Thank you, Mayor. I think this one that's coming up this next week, will we have 20 on there? So yes, we certainly have had a lot, but if you're only limited to five, so that means if somebody was on that 20, then they have to wait four months then, because it would be at least five, five, five, five. So I'm not sure if that's the approach we want to take because that seems like that doesn't give them an opportunity if they want to do it. They already have to go through the process and now they have to wait another five and then how they get that five and then another five. So I don't see this as being the correct approach. I can see trying to limit it, but I'm not sure if this is what I can agree to. Okay. Any other questions or comments? Councilmember Plowman. My question is to what will that do to the process? In other words, during that time will they have to not advertise? Because, and they also are getting letters of fines? They wouldn't get fines if they're not operating. But they would have to wait to get approval. And one of the reasons this is coming up too is because the STR ZODA changes that we're also recommending for the Ag zones would require conditional use permits for all of those properties as well. So it's going to continue to add to the number. So we need to do something to make the board meetings more amenable. And I'm open to thinking about what that maximum number is. But I'm proposing five at this point. My concern, and I'm dealing with this a lot because I'm getting folks that are calling and they're being told, you need to just take it off. You can't advertise. Well, they've been doing it for years because there wasn't any jurisdiction over that. And the money lost that they're, you know, Keeneland, you look at the horse park activities, you look at things down at the river. And is that reasonable to ask these folks to just cease and desist in terms of marketing a business that has been in place for quite a while, and we were not doing anything about it then, and now we are. So that's my concern. I understand with the workload the BOA has. I totally agree on that. But then I also look out for the constituents that have been in a really tough situation for them not to have to stop. So I'm not sure what the answer, the resolve is to that. But I think that I am very sensitive to that. And I think those folks will be, too. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you. Any other comments? Council Member James Brown. Thank you, Mayor. I'll be brief. I'm in support of reducing the amount of applications they consider at a meeting. I would say I would make a motion to amend it to no more than 10. So move, as opposed to 5. So I made a motion to amend the number from 5 to 10. Okay. And Council Member Baxter, did you second that? Okay. All right. Okay, who wants to speak to this? Just raise your hand. We've got Council Member Worley, Council Member Reynolds. This is a question for the planning staff. Does the Board of Adjustment within its bylaws or rules have its own authority to do this without making it part of the ordinance? Or is this something that the chair of the board could work some sort of policy that first in, first out until we've got a full agenda? The bylaws do not address this. This is not something within their final statute. The fact that it's not addressed, though, would the chair still have the authority in setting an agenda to say we're only going to have so many items tonight, we're overburdened, and that's going to have to wait until next month, and we'll do it at a first-come, first-serve basis? Because, I mean, the reality is that happens in meetings. That could happen in a meeting anyway. Because I'm happy to assist the Board of Adjustment, and these are volunteer people. but by making it part of an ordinance that's a more difficult change should things adjust in the future and they likely will once we get through this initial wave of and so I'm just trying to figure out a way not to be so restrictive if we think this is something the Board of Adjustment had could handle on their own if they had some sort of inkling from us that we were comfortable with that or if it can only be done by ordinance. Okay, there's a lot in that question. I would say that the Board of Adjustments Authority really comes from ordinance, specifically. So determining which applications to push to another month and which to go ahead and hear that month would be a very difficult decision for the Board to make each time considering how much that it has on its plate already. So really having the direction set in ordinance would be my recommendation. But that in effect is going to happen if we put a number 10, then they're still going to have to make some determination of how they choose the 10, which likely may be a first come, first serve, but that's the same process in which I'm suggesting they could probably do on their own. It would be a first come, first serve process that would be handled on the administrative level. That's how this would work. Does that answer your question? It does, but it also tends to kind of lead to what I'm saying, that this seems like there's some administrative level policing of this that could be done without putting it in the ordinance. Well, but the ordinance would actually give them authority to do that specifically. Any, okay, Councilmember Reynolds and then is there anyone else who's going to speak? Council Member Sheehan. Thank you, Mayor. And I understand what you're saying, Council Member Sheehan, and how the BOA has been working over time because of this ordinance that we put on them and that before they didn't have to deal with this at all. At the same time, I have a question, and I don't know if it's for planning or for law. I wonder, are we allowed to have a subcommittee of the BOA that only deals with short-term rentals and nothing else? I think that would make the most sense that that's the only thing that they have to look at. I don't know if that's for Mr. Barbary or Director Duncan. Council Member Reynolds, I'll take a stab at that. But there would still need to be a majority of the board in order to make the decision about a conditional use. I don't know that they have the authority to relegate that to a committee. The planning commission has committees, but they make recommendations to the full planning commission. So you could have that, but then that would just still have a process that would have to be heard by the full board of adjustment. What about setting up a separate additional board of adjustment that just saw short term rentals? Do we have any authority to do that? Well, again, kind of speaking off the cuff, Councilman Reynolds, the Planning Commission, of course, meets every Thursday of the month. The Board of Adjustment meets one Monday a month. The Board of Adjustment could theoretically hold a second meeting in the month just to consider conditional uses or short-term rentals. However, that is not the tradition of the Board of Adjustment, and that would be a change, I think there are expectations for their service to the community. Okay, and there's no way that a separate board of adjustment, like a second one that would just deal with this could be set up? Well, a lot of this also derives from statute. And so an applicant has the expectation through statute of being heard in a timely manner through the board of adjustment. And conditional uses by statute are approved through the board of adjustment. So that would have to change in order for there to be another entity. Okay, thank you. I'm still undecided about this, even the amendment. But, yeah, thank you. Thank you. Council Member Sheehan. I will support the amendment, but I will also add that I think when we started this process with the conditional use permits, We also expected that there would be kind of a trailing off, but that is not what we've actually seen. And we have, with adding the rural zones in the ZODA that's being reviewed by the Planning Commission later this month, like that is an additional set of applications that would come in. So I don't, I don't, I think, I think this will continue to be a problem for the future. And so it's important for us to be thinking about the use of our volunteer community members for this board, but also what we're expecting from our community residents who come to speak at boards to really make it a more manageable process. Some of the board of adjustment meetings have been lasting eight hours, and that's just untenable. Thank you. So we're still on discussion of Council Member James Brown's amendment. Council Member Ellinger. Thank you, Vice Mayor. And I think this is a more reasonable approach looking at 10. That's only two months out, so I think that is more reasonable. Right now, I think there's about 730 that are right around that 730-ish. And when you go through the platform, I think if the people who aren't on there would be close to 1,100. So we still have that gap that we need to find that other 300 or so. Wes, you can come to the mic if you would. so there's still going to be more out there. I just want to say most of, probably about 90% of what's out there, we have either registered or noticed that they are noncompliant. And so most of those operators who have not gotten registered and have not gotten through the conditional use process have gotten some notification from us that they either need to cease operating and get registered or they will be fined. So I think, as you said, the trailing off should occur. hopefully in the near future, but they still are going to be coming forward. And I think the big part of it is making sure we get the people who are out there that aren't registered get them registered. So I do think that's at least go through the process or get them fined, because that causes the bad apples that make the good ones look bad. So I will support this. I think 10 is a reasonable number, and that's only – and I guess, Jim, could you come – have we had as 20 as 20, the most we've had? Have we had more than that? We've had in the low 20s, and then sometimes some get postponed to the next month, so we've had 25 or so. So I think if you can get them in within the next month, I think two months is not an unreasonable time. I think four months was. I think two months is more reasonable. Thank you. All right. Does anyone else wish to speak to the amendment? All right. All those in favor of the amendment, please log in your vote and those opposed. All right, that passes. Now we have the main motion which has been amended, and so I'll ask if there are any final comments on that motion as amended. All right, all those in favor of the amended motion, please say aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? All right, that motion passes. Thank you. We are still on the docket, and here's what we're going to do. We're going to continue the docket discussion and finish it, and then we have a lobby full of youth who are to be honored at the 5 o'clock meeting, and so I'm going to ask for a motion to remove the presentations from 5 o'clock and do them now after the docket. I'll get it in a minute, just a minute. No, we're going to finish the docket and then do the presentations and then thank you so we can get the youth on their way. Now, Council Member James Brown. Thank you, Mayor. I move to extend it. I have a motion to extend the deadline for encumbering Council capital project funds presently required to be encumbered by December 31, 2024, to a new deadline of February 28, 2025. So moved. Second. February 28th or 25th? February 28th. 28th. All right. 25th. And who seconded, Council Member Fogle? Okay. Okay. Is there any discussion? All right, all those in favor, say aye. Aye. Is anyone opposed? All right, that motion passes. Now, Council Member Reynolds. Sorry, that was from before, and I don't need to speak. I'm sorry, what? I'm done. That was from before. I don't need to speak. Okay, Council Member Ellinger. Okay, the mayor, I mentioned that I was going to make the motion to put number eight in committee, but in deference to having the Jesse Clark and Lexington Catholic Waynos, I will wait until we get into the council meeting, and before we read number eight, I will be making a motion. Thank you. Thank you very much. Call the question to Doddy. There, let's see, I think you had a budget amendment. Was that for the docket? See, I think we have one. We have one. Thank you. We do need to do the budget amendments onto the docket. Okay, Councilmember James Brown. So I make a motion to amend the list of budget amendments. So on pages three through six of the work session packet to add the following budget amendments that were approved after the packet was prepared. Budget journal 151991-92 and 151993-94 in grants and special programs to budget, interest earned in justice assistance grants to provide funds for equipment for the division of police. Budget Journal 152005 to transfer $9,771 from the tenant relocation fund to the affordable housing and homelessness fund for winter warming food contract. Budget Journal 152003 to transfer $145,690 from a grant to the affordable housing and homelessness fund and general fund. in Budget Journals 152008-09 in Agent and Disability Services to provide $5,400 for Senior Center supplies in Budget Journal 152006-07 to provide $150,061 for Affordable Housing and Homelessness Fund for Winter Warming Food Contracts. So move. Second. Council Member Plowman seconded. Any questions? All those in favor say aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? That motion passes. Now, is there anything else for the docket? All right. All those in favor of approving the docket as amended, please say aye. Aye. Is anyone opposed? All right, that docket passed. Now, I would entertain a motion to place the Lexington Catholic Girls Cross Country Day presentation and the Jesse Clark Middle School Football Day presentation onto this agenda next. Second. All right. We have a motion and a second. Any questions? Law says we can just pluck it from the other agenda. So all those in favor? Say aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? All right. That motion passes. And if someone will let Craig's letting them know. So we'll do these two presentations. And after that, we'll take a 10-minute recess break. Mercy. Thank you. All right, do we have Lexington Catholic in the house? Yes. Everybody? All right, this is a special presentation and I'd also like to ask assistant coach Wendy Mason, you're here. Yeah, yeah, I'm here. Okay, she's already here, Councilmember Sevigny's here. And this is the first of a fun presentation for champions who are with us. Come on up girls. The members of the Lexington Catholic High School Girls Cross Country Team are the 2024 KHSAA Class IIA Cross Country Champions. Congratulations. You are fine. Well, yeah. The team's 23 members were also named to the state all academic team. They are great athletes and wonderful students. So now at this time, it's my pleasure to present this proclamation, Lexington Catholic High School Girls Cross Country Team Day, to Assistant Coach Wendy Mason. And then I'll ask you if you want to say a few words. So here's how it goes. Lexington Catholic High School Girls Cross Country Team Day. Whereas the members of the Lexington Catholic High School Girls Cross Country Team demonstrated exceptional skill, dedication, and sportsmanship, finishing the 2024 season as KHSAA Class 2A Cross Country Champions. And whereas this is the team's fourth consecutive Class IIA cross country meet title, showcasing a continued excellence. And whereas the team's 2024 season accomplishments also include first place finishes at the Mason County Invitational, Hardin County Fairground Invitational, Area 6 Championships, and Regional Championships. And whereas under the guidance of head coach Bernadette Madigan Dugan and assistant coach Wendy Mason, the team has achieved remarkable success. And whereas all members of the team, all members of the team, were named to the state all academic team, demonstrating their commitment to excellence both in athletics and academics. and whereas all Lexington residents are encouraged to celebrate the achievements of these talented young athletes and their coaches, now, therefore, I, Linda Gorton, mayor of Lexington, do hereby declare December 3, 2024, Lexington Catholic High School Girls Cross Country Team Day in Lexington. Congratulations. Congratulations. You've got the prize. Would you like to say a few words? Oh, I think you said it all. Thank you. Does one of you want to say it? Thank you so much. They all say thank you very much. Now, I want to ask Coach Sevigny, Council Member Sevigny, it's been a long day. It has been long. If he was to say a couple words. I just want to, I'm so proud of the people in the 10th district and this high school, and I've learned that they could have run two meets in the amount of time that we had him sitting out there so they could have done it twice so I'm very proud of you and your patience we appreciate it thank you very much . Thank you. Now we have another fun presentation. I want to ask Coach Eric Schlarb and Council Member Baxter to join me at the podium because we have another group of champions to celebrate. And this is a little bit bigger group. Come on guys. There were actually 76 of them. Not that many came. Okay, coach says there were 76 of them, but not quite all of them came. Come on, don't be afraid. Just pack it in. Girls State. Is everybody in the chamber yet? Who are you? Who are you? No, I'm not sure whose that was, but I think I'm not. Let's get them all in. Can they come down the middle? We want them all in the middle. We want that. So you're very happy to move? Yes, ma'am. Nice to meet you. I'm really happy to honor these guys. Thank you. Sorry about that. What position did you play? I played with them. Okay, sounds good. Alright. They're still coming. How about you? Running back in my back. Oh, okay. This is our quarterback. Okay. All important positions. Are we all in? Okay, there's a piece up here for the parents. Are the parents all in? Okay, all right. We have the Jesse Clark Middle School Eagles, who won the city football championship on November 14th. The Eagles have 76 members, quite a team. Now, they're not quite all here tonight, but many of them are. And this is the fourth time that Coach Slarb has won the championship as coach of the Eagles. Now, I want to present a proclamation to you all to the Jesse Clark Middle School Eagles City Football Champions Day. And, Coach, I'll present it to you on behalf of all the players. And then if you'd like to say a few words, we'd love it. Come on up. I'm going to read it. Jesse Clark Middle School Eagles City Football Champions Day. Whereas the Jesse Clark Middle School Eagles football team won the city football championship on November 14, 2024, and whereas the team includes 76 players who have worked hard to have an amazing championship season, and whereas this coach Eric Schlarb's fourth championship as coach of the Eagles, and whereas there are many proud parents and Lexington residents celebrating the players and coaches of the Eagles championship team. Now, therefore, I, Linda Gorton, mayor of Lexington, do hereby declare December 3rd, 2024, Jesse Clark Middle School Eagles City Football Champions Day in Lexington. Congratulations. Congratulations. Can you say a word? On behalf of Jesse Clark Middle School, our football team and our parents, I would really like to thank you guys for taking time out of your day to recognize this wonderful group of young men. A lot of people think it's just middle school football. This group went through a lot of adversity, a lot of injuries. This was a very special group and their recognition is very much appreciated. Thank you very much. All right. Councilmember Baxter, would you like to say a few words? Yes, ma'am. you as a Jesse Clark Eagle football parent I am happy and proud to have the team here coach larb touched on the adversity that the players have had this year and there has been numerous injuries and you guys overcame all of that for an undefeated season and we could not be more proud of you and the way you have represented our community so coach your team your coaching staff the investment in our young men is like second to none and I am so proud to be affiliated with this organization so thank you all so much and thank you for having them down today They just keep coming like termites. I know chief didn't either chief didn't either. Yeah, I know I'm out of uniform. Yep. That's it. So you're doing this now? You're doing this now? It says security down. Okay. So you're doing this now? You're doing this now? So it's security down? Okay. Are you? I haven't seen you. I haven't seen you. Okay. One, two, three. One, two, three. Nothing, I was getting pictures. That's mine right there. I was like, that's mine right there. So that one's mine right there. Hmm? Hi. You got my purse here. She's probably gonna shake his hand. He wasn't just only Thank you. Thank you. All right, council members, council members, I'll entertain a motion to take a 10-minute recess. Thank you. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. All right, we're in recess for 10 minutes. Come back at 5 till 6. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. guitar solo Thank you. ¶¶ Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. All right, I'll entertain a motion to come off our recess. Thank you, is there a second? All right, all those in favor say aye. Aye. All right, we are back in session. And we have had a very, very patient Reverend Dekia Ellery from East 2nd Street Christian Church here with us before 5 o'clock. And I'd like a motion to take the invocation off of the council meeting and ask her to do the invocation now. Thank you. Any questions? All those in favor? Say aye. Anyone opposed? All right. Thank you very much. Welcome, Reverend Ellery. It's so good to have you. Thank you. Thank you. I appreciate you making room for this. I also just want to say thank you to Mayor Gordon and Councilman James Brown for the invitation. I need you. You need me. We're all a part of God's body. Stand with me. Agree with me. We're all a part of God's body. It is God's will that every need be supplied. You are important to me. I need you to survive. Let us pray. God of unity and community, we acknowledge that you created us in love to be your love in the world. You love us unconditionally, yet we admit that we struggle to love and accept one another and the whole of your creation without conditions. We confess, O God, that we continue to live in the privilege of who we ourselves and society has deemed us to be, even though we know that this privilege perpetually pushes those on the margins into deeper despair and further away from the resources they need to live. There are many who just want to be free to be who you have created them to be. There are many who feel like strangers and outcasts in the only land that they have ever known. There are many that continue to struggle to breathe and live in a land that they themselves and their ancestors have helped to build and establish. I'm speaking of this land, your land, O God, all of what you created for all of your creation to share and enjoy. So help us to hear the cries of those for which there continues to be no room, no justice, no access, and no place. Forgive us, God, and teach us a more excellent way. For you are love and you are light, so light our path for this work. We call on your Holy Spirit to burn away all the evils, ills, and isms that seek to divide us. Please release the power of your acceptance, justice, and peace in this room, in this city, in this state, the nation, and the world. In Christ's name I pray. Amen. Thank you so very much. All right, council members, we are now ready for approval of the summary. We're still in the work session. Approval of the summary. Could I have a motion? It's November 19th. All right. And are there any questions? All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Is anyone opposed? All right, that motion passes. And could I have a motion to approve budget amendments? So moved. Council Member Ellinger, second by Council Member Gray. Are there questions? All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Could we do that one more time? All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? All right, that motion passes. we have some adjustments for your information only. And then I'll entertain a motion to approve new business. Council Member Plumman, seconded by Vice Mayor Wu. And if you have questions, please log in. Council Member Ellinger. Thank you, Mayor. Unfortunately, I have quite a few, so I'll try to go quick with this. On C. Chief Wells. This is kind of exciting news here, it looks like. If you would just give me a 30-second update, because I only have about 30 seconds with each one of these, so we have to go quick. I'm sorry. Welcome. So thank you very much. This is going to be a really neat opportunity for a partnership. As you know, our community paramedicine program has continued to expand and do great things. So to partner with St. Joe, where they are offering a paramedic and a social worker who are going to spend part of their time seeing St. Joe-specific or CHI-specific patients, and they'll also be able to integrate and aid the team, I think is potentially a way forward that involves community partnership, potentially with other agencies as well. So it's very exciting. That's awesome. Have we done this with anybody else? Is this our first time to do it? We have an MOU with Voices of Hope, which is a similar type program. But this is going to be a lot bigger, I have to think, with St. Joe's, is it not? Well, they're starting out fairly modest with one paramedic and one social worker, but it will definitely aid our program and continue to grow, hopefully. Thank you, Chief. Thank you. On number D, Commissioner Hensley, do we normally do five-year contracts on these? Do we? Welcome. Is this to help set or keep the rate? This is actually for our banking services. The last one that we had was a five-year contract with an option to renew for another five years. So we've actually been with J.P. Morgan for almost 10 years. We did do our merchant services two years ago, so that was our credit card services and vendors, and we went out for RFP for those. But as you can imagine, changing banking services is a huge undertaking for something the size of the city. So we don't do that willy-nilly. We do like to have that relationship established for a long period of time. And so we did really consider the amount of time we would want to do that for. So we did determine that it would be another five years. If that's going well, we would like to bring that back to council for option to renew for another five after that. Thank you. Yes. And then while you're here, could you talk about number L with the sheriff's? Yes. Is that not constitutional office? We have their general term orders. You may have seen the clerk's last docket. In the last docket, we have the general term order for both the clerk and the sheriff annually. They're on a calendar year basis, and they're approved every year by this body. Thank you. Yes, sir. M and N with the Newtown Pike Extension. Director. Director Burt, welcome. Could you tell us where we're at on this? Because I know it's a long time coming. Eventually we're going to have that bridge over to Scott Street, are we not, at some point? Right. So this is the, it's technically phase three, but it's the fourth phase that we've constructed. From Main Street to Versailles, Versailles to Broadway, and then the Davis Bottoms mitigation were the first three phases. So now this will be a Scott Street connector, so it will come off of the existing roadway onto Scott Street. A bridge will pass over essentially directly next to the railroad bridge on South Broadway and then take you directly into campus. Will that bridge finally come to fruition? When? Yeah. We have to buy right away from the railroad, so. So not next year? Not soon. Not soon. Okay. Thank you. On O, Chief Wells, I think you, what's the difference between, I know what a boat is, what's brush trucks? It doesn't seem like those are compatible or they're different. I'm not sure what a brush truck is. They are different, and we're currently assessing needs to identify which route we're going to go. The boat would be less expensive. The brush trucks are essentially small. You think of like a Ford F-250 or something like that, a similar size vehicle with a small pump, and very small reservoir of water. They're four by four, and they're intended to go off-road to manage grass fires in rural areas. Great. Thank you. I only got a couple more. Okay, we dealt with the Legacy Park in number V. I think this is Charlie. Commissioner Lanter. Commissioner, this is from the $500,000 that we did for the fund balance. Yes, that's correct. This just executes the contract. So is this all going to the eviction, diversion, mediation? Is that where it's going to be? Yes, it takes the existing program, which item U is the extension of those contracts, just because they expire on December 31st, and we're going to need another couple months probably to finish that out. Basically, once those funds are gone, it's just flipped to general fund, from the federal grant funds to the general fund. So it will flip from U contract to V contract once those funds are exhausted. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. My time's up. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Gray. Thank you, Mayor. I have a question. Just need more information regarding letter E for our CIO. CIO Rogers. Welcome. You've been waiting all day for this. I figured since you've been back there and you sent us an email with the map that I should probably call you up. Could you give us more information about what's going on with this? So we committed to these grant match funds, I want to say in 2019, to encourage Spectrum Charter Communications to pursue larger funding opportunity from the State Office of Broadband Development. So they've been, this is the second of those awards that they've been granted from the state. And the intent is to cover the remainder of single family properties in Fayette County with high speed fiber optic broadband access. So is this anything related to the MetroNet at all? So MetroNet service area is mainly, it's more or less within the urban service boundary. leaving a lot of the more rural parts of the community without access to their service. So Spectrum Charter is going to kind of fill in the remaining blanks. So once the Charter Communications Spectrum finishes this, how much more do we need to those outlying rural areas to make sure they're connected with the high-speed Internet? This would cover the remainder. As far as the existing data shows, this would cover the remainder of single-family properties in the county. That's wonderful. It is. Thank you so much. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you. Council Member Plowman? Liz, you know, I was going to talk about this. I figured you would. When I came in office eight years ago, this has been the number one issue for the 12th District. This was a humongous issue, especially during COVID. when we had parents not able to have their kids go to classes online, folks having to work from home, and this just happened. We had a celebration about September, and we went to Jimtown, which obviously is one of the former Hamlets because it was one of the very first locations that was wired. So I'm going to take this. Actually, I'm going to get a better copy because I've written on it, and I'm going to get it framed and take it home and have it hung there because this was, as I said, the number one project that came out of the 12th District. It's very exciting. Yes, the wheels move slowly sometimes, but they are certainly moving in the right direction. Also, as I think I indicated in the email I shared with you guys, this has to be completed by December 2026. Yeah. So it's not the distant future either. I have some people that call every month. We've gotten to be friends. She even came to the event and got our pushers taken together. So, but thank you. And thanks to Council. I know you supported different things along the way. That's it, Mayor. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Fogel. Thank you, Mayor. I would like to return to V as in Victor. Commissioner, the funds that will go out to tenants facing potential eviction, is it for all of Lexington residents that's facing evictions? Yes, it serves all of Fayette County. They actually operate in court and without regard to where the person- So it's just not pertaining to the housing authority people? Correct. Okay, thank you. All right, any, council members of Igney? Thank you, Mayor. I think mine is item N as well. Thank you. So basically this is a change order. Like the change order is big compared to the value of the contract to me. I'm just curious, is it something that wasn't? No, so change order is probably the incorrect term for this. We're just awarding the next phase of the project. This was awarded as one large project that had four phases. We're just entering the fourth phase. So it's not really a change order. It's just the next phase. And the budget amendment, is it in our budget amendments in this go-round? Is it in there, or is there a future budget amendment that's coming for it? It should be in there, if not. All right. And where does that money come from? This is the Andy Barr's allocation funds that we were given $5 million, so this will burn the first one and a half. Okay. Thank you. Page four of the budget. Thank you. All right. Does anyone else have any questions about new business? All right. All those in favor of approving, please say aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? All right. We passed new business. Our clerks will be happy. They can get it on the docket for the 5 o'clock meeting. Now, communications from the mayor. We have appointments, and I'll enter. Move the approval. Yep. Thank you. Any questions? You receive that by email. All right, all those in favor say aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? That motion passes. There are no donations tonight. Communications from the mayor procurements, if I could have a motion. Second. Thank you, Council Member Fogle and Council Member Sheehan. Any questions about the procurements? All right, all those in favor say aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? All right, thank you. That takes us to continuing the business and presentations. We'll entertain a motion to approve neighborhood development funds. Second. Council Member Fogel, Vice Mayor Wu seconds. Are there questions? Any questions? All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Is anyone opposed? All right, that motion passes. And I'll entertain a motion for capital projects. Council Member Gray moves. Councilmember Fogle seconds. Are there questions, comments? All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Is anyone opposed? All right, that motion passes. Now it's time for the October Environmental Quality and Public Works. Councilmember Sheehan. Thank you, Mayor. I have the report out for the Environmental Quality and Public Works Committee for October 22, 2024. The meeting was called to order at 1.03 PM. The first item on the agenda was approval of the August 20th, 2024 committee summary. There were no additions or corrections and the summary was approved without dissent. Director Allen with Division of Streets and Roads provided the annual snow removal plan for 2024-2025. He reviewed the salt expense comparison between fiscal years and said 8,800 tons of salt are on hand for the winter season. The snow route optimization study was completed this year, and LFUCG went from having 16 previous zones to 11 current zones. He reviewed the changes for the 2024-2025 school year, noting that some routes have been added after consulting with Fayette County Public Schools. No action was taken on this item. Next, Deputy Director Lubeck with Division of Water Quality presented the municipal separate storm sewer system MS4 program elements. These elements include public engagement, pollution, prevention, and monitoring and reporting. He reviewed the illicit discharge detection and elimination program. And the construction site stormwater runoff control program stipulates requirements for construction site operators to implement appropriate erosion and sediment control using best management practices. He reviewed municipal operations, industrial facilities, and industrial inspections and noted there were 12,151 inspections in 2023. No action was taken on this item. And finally, Angela Pove, public information and engagement section manager, presented the community outreach update beginning with an overview of the program's purpose and structure. The mission is to inform the public about services provided by Environmental Quality and Public Works and engage the public in behaviors that benefit the community. She spoke about direct community outreach, which is aimed at building relationships with traditionally underserved communities. This is a long-term investment for us to show up, listen, and help in ways that are within our scope. No action was taken on this item. The meeting adjourned at 2.20 p.m., and that concludes my report out. Thank you. Thank you very much. Does anyone have questions for Council Member Sheehan? All right, thank you. All right, Council, it's time for Council Reports. Council Member Gray. Thank you, Mayor, and thank you, LexTV. So last council meeting, or I think it was council meeting, I put out a request. I'll let everyone know I put out a request to the residents of the 6th District to help some students during the holiday season. Because as we know, all of our students, young people don't have their basic needs met. who attend Fayette County Public Schools. Many of them are unhoused, what do you call it, homeless. And many of them are going to wake up on Christmas Day if they celebrate Christmas with nothing. And so I put out a request to the residents of the 6th District and to the residents of all of Lexington to help support some students who attend schools in the 6th District. As many know, the 6th District is highly populated with Fayette County Public Schools programs, from elementary all the way to our high schools, and there are specialized programs. And so this request is out. The link is on our Facebook page, and as well as all on the 6th District website, so how residents can support our next generation of leaders during this particular time. That is all. Thank you. Thank you very much. Councilmember Lynch. Thank you, Mayor. I'd just like to highlight some second district events. We have been very active and busy towards the end of November. First starting off with the Whitney Young Park ribbon cutting. Thank you, Mayor, Councilmember James Brown, Commissioner Ford, Director Monica Conrad, and all of the Parks and Recreation staff for coming out for our ribbon cutting for the new playground at Whitney Young Park. The kids were already there playing on the playground when we arrived, which is what we want to see. So on behalf of the St. Martins Village neighborhood, we are so excited to have new playground equipment right there in Whitney Young Park for all of my district two neighbors. Also, what occurred is we had a great tree planting at the Oakdale Apartments right there in the second district. I would like to thank Trees Lexington, who was funded from the Lexgro Trees Grant, plant 50 trees at Oakdale Apartments in the 2nd District. It was cold and rainy but we planted 50 trees that morning and we had a great turnout of volunteers to come and plant that morning. So we got a lot done in a short amount of time. So thank you to Trees Lexington. Thank you to my neighbors for coming out to volunteer to plant those trees in that apartment community. Also So we had a couple of events at our Fire Station 24. We first had a fire recruitment event that involved the Kentucky Sports Radio. This was a dream project of Lieutenant McMinima and he came to me and my legislator at LaShawn with this great idea and I was like, this sounds pretty cool. Inviting Kentucky Sports Radio to set up at Fire Station 24 to air their radio broadcast. at the same time try to recruit volunteers to join our fire department. And so it was a really great event, a lot of fun. So thank you to Chief Wells and all of our fire administration and Fire Station 24 for letting us set up shop there to host that radio show that morning and to try to recruit more individuals to be firefighters. And then lastly, we had our first District 2 Christmas tree lighting, held at Fire Station 24. Again, thank you Chief Wells for letting us come over there. Thank you to our firefighters at Fire Station 24. Special thank you to Lieutenant McFarland, who was the man with the plan, who got everything accomplished in cooperation with my legislative aide, LaShawn Barber, and the North Pole crew. Thank you to Mayor Gordon for coming out to light our Christmas tree in the second district and to do a duet with me. Singing Frosty the Snowman, and she had the great idea to invite all the kids on the stage with us. So we all sang Frosty the Snowman. It was a lot of fun. Thank you to my neighbor who came out to be the Grinch, which the kids really enjoyed. Thank you to the African American Ballet Troupe who performed as well. Lee's Town Coffee who provided delicious hot chocolate that we ran out of. The Fraternal Order of Police, we collected toys that day, which is very, very important as well. And then a last big thank you to my ledger of A. LaShawn. And she did a lot of phenomenal work to help pull off all of these things. And so I thank her dearly. And that's it. Thank you, Mayor. Right. Thank you. Council Member Worley. Thank you, Mayor. And I'd like to thank all of my colleagues for their tenacity this afternoon, their hard work, their persistence in this near three-and-a-half-hour work session. That has reinforced my decision to have not sought re-election. But in serious, I'm glad that the last couple meetings for those of us heading out, we're not just limping across the finish line. We can have a couple good debates on legislation and procedural fights. But as chair of the general government planning committee, I'm placing into the committee the item of efficiencies in our development processes and Compliance with House Bill 443, codified as KRS 100275. And a bit of context there, Director Duncan and his team have been working diligently. You know we had a consultant that gave us some input on our development processes. They have taken that, what works for us, what doesn't. They've been working hard over the past year, really longer even before the consultant to work on those processes. And then the state legislation that changed the nature of how approvals are made, has put some impositions on the government that they've been working with all of the departments. And they've really, really worked hard and done a great job. I've been working with them on that, so while I won't get to see this presentation, I think that you all in the public deserve an update of all the hard work and give them an opportunity to showcase that work that they've done. So, thank you, Mayor. Okay, thank you. Council Member Ellinger? Thank you, Mayor. Commissioner Lanter, sorry I didn't prep you this before, but we received an email about the request for proposals for the food and security services, emergency winter weather. And could you just give us an update on that? Because it's cold out there, and how are things going, and what with that RFP did we come up with? So in terms of how it's going, the program has 170 people housed right now in the two hotels, in addition to our separate programs, which helps families and seniors with disabilities, which are operated independent of that. They're now going back through and starting to try and double people up to make best use of the rooms. That's not always possible, but we're able to kind of squeeze more and more people in as best we can. In terms of the food, we ran the two RFPs for the food. We actually received four bids. but the one that was already doing the service was significantly lower than all the other bids. So we just sustained that. For security, we kind of anticipated this. We only received the one bid, and that was the vendor already doing it. So going forward, how many do we have on the list to try to get in? Well, it's hard to say because there's several hundred applications, but many of those are – well, first of all, that 300 number includes the people already housed. That's just how many we've received. um so they've processed you know something around the half of that but within that you've got duplicates you've got people who aren't eligible so until we review every application i can't really tell you how many are sitting in there who would potentially be eligible there's still quite a few people that would be eligible and can't get in because of this but we have taken some and got permanent housing for him we had our first person get permanently housed outside of the program which is great thank you thank you mayor thank you councilmember foebel hey commissioner can i follow up on that um are the with the amount of money that we've given for food is that hot meals uh the breakfast is kind of fruit in the water yeah that kind of stuff the dinners are microwavable we provide microwaves in the room so they'll be they're not delivered hot because they can't be obviously but they are a hot dinner in terms of that you microwave them lunches vary they're more of a cold lunch okay thank you um commissioner this next question is for the police department commissioner armstrong it can be for chief commissioner whoever and as you come to the podium um the question is concerning the gang activity in Lexington and the calls that has been received in our office and constituents and families. And I just want to talk about like the 65% of the budget is for public safety. I know it's not all police. Is there a plan for, I remember it seems like back in the day we had this, do we still have the gang task force? We still have gang resource officers in the police department, and I'll defer to the chief here in just a minute, we've actually had those in place since 2004, and their primary responsibility is gathering intelligence on groups, specifically those that are engaged in criminal activity, yes. So with that being said, enforcement action can only be taken when an individual commits a criminal act. So technically you can be part of a criminal street gang, but not necessarily a criminal, Therefore, they wouldn't face any type of repercussions through the court system. Intelligence is very important there. It's used quite frequently, and again, Chief, if you'd like to step in, I'd be glad to defer to you. But it's used quite frequently whenever we have homicides that may be loosely gang-related. Now, we don't actually have a lot of gang-motivated crime, but we do have some gang-related crime. I mean, there's a distinct difference there, and I'm not really sure if I have enough time to make that delineation. But the intelligence they gather help us identify individuals that have committed crimes that may be related to others. In other words, it's a criminal nexus, I think is the term that's used to show if certain people are at a neighborhood event that ends up in a crime being occurred, that we're able to use our intelligence to maybe identify who the suspect in the case may be if we're not getting information from witnesses. Do you want to add anything? Okay, and let me also say great job on Russell Cave Road. The pursuit, and you captured some folks. Well, I didn't, but the police department did a good job. Well, when I say you, I'm talking about the police department and everybody that was involved. I haven't captured anyone in 10 years. I don't think you gave chase on foot. So I wasn't included. But it is, you know, your division. So just stop that. See, I'm trying to be nice up here with the questions. And Chief Weathers, how much weight should we give to the video that went viral? I know it's true. How much weight should we give that? And do you all use some of that for, like, to arrest? And we had a murder of an activist that is going to be surely missed. The community is really sad right now with Quase and his death that occurred over in Sugar Mill in the 11th the other night. So how much weight do we give to you? As far as that video is concerned, I think the video you're referring to, if you watched it, that video was based off arrest that were made for some of the outstanding crimes. Don't know how the video came to be or the information came to be in there, but I suspect the information is accurate. It's also accurate that we took appropriate and immediate action as best we could to arrest the perpetrators. So we're going to continue to go that route, even if we find something that happened recently. Yes sir, and kudos to the police department. And in my last statement, I just want to say that our residents in the Windburn, Green Acres area would like more flat cameras. It's coming out my mouth. Wait, would you say that one more time? Don't do it, don't do it. It's on the record. I just wanted to tell you that because of that, cut it out. I need an extra three minutes please. They're messing with me. Okay, but I was voting in to serve and this is what they are telling me. They are ready to join the, add their ring cameras to the police department. We'd like for you all to come back and to instruct them exactly what to do. They are afraid. We have a lot of elderly people. For your cameras, all you have to do is go to our webpage and go to Connect Lex, and that'll take you right through on how to connect with the cameras, and also for businesses, too, if they want to connect with the FUSIS system. So let me say this, especially about the gang activity. You know, there was a time back in the 90s, I was here, I'm afraid to say, but we didn't want to admit that gang activity was here. But when the early 2000s came about, we saw it flourishing and we stepped up to it. The community stepped up to it. And any activity that's occurring like that, there's no way the police are going to be able to handle that on their own. The community has to be strong and the community has to stand up and say no. We're not going to take this. Are there risks involved? Maybe. But I can tell you for sure there's definitely risk if you don't do anything. Well, thank you, Chief. And I'll call and ask the question, the flat cameras are on their way, the increase of police is on their way. So there you have it, stop it. Don't do it. All right. Thank you. Councilmember Ellinger. Thank you, Mayor. Chief, before you go, we have the flat, but we also I think what you also with the FUSIS that we connect with the system. With businesses, right. And we put money aside for the downtown with the DLP to be able to help the businesses to offset some of those costs because there is a cost to get involved. Do we have anything for the neighborhoods right now? The neighborhoods use Connect Lex, and that's free. And so that's free. I just want to make sure that if there wasn't, but that is free? Yes, sir. Okay, perfect. Thank you. Thank you. Any more council reports? All right. We do have some very special public comments tonight. And so these are for issues not on the agenda but really special. We have, and I'll read them out so you can queue up. We have Eve Miller. We have Sean Denny. We have Ashley Dunsmore. and we have Olivia Lachine Grigsby. Welcome. I guess you really need to state your name in your council district and you'll have three minutes. Okay. Good evening, Mayor and Councilmembers. My name is Eve Miller and I live in the 3rd District. I'm honored to stand here today alongside former legislative aides to celebrate Councilmember Kathy Plowman for her eight years of service to Lexington's 12th district. Councilmember Plowman has been a shining example of leadership and commitment to the well-being of our Bluegrass. Before assuming her role of 12th district councilmember in the fall of 2016, Kathy had already built a distinguished 30-year career in our community. From her impactful role at WKYT to her tenure as president of the United Way of the Bluegrass, as well as many volunteer roles with local nonprofits, Kathy's dedication to Lexington was clear long before she took office. I had the privilege of working with Kathy starting in the summer of 2018, just after graduate school at the age of 24. Over the next four and a half years, I saw firsthand her remarkable combination of compassion, professionalism, and tireless dedication. I watched her not only advocate for the residents of the 12th district, but also engage with countless community organizations, always focused on problem solving and improving lives. From spearheading initiatives like the installation of the stand sculpture, commemorating a women's right to vote during a global pandemic, I might add, to her work in restoring the Rosenwald School in Cadentown, Kathy never shies away from addressing tough issues or taking on large scale projects that make a lasting difference. Representing the 12th district is not an easy feat and it can be difficult to capture how much work goes into that. So instead of trying to sum it up with more words, I wanted to share a few numbers that reflect the sheer amount of work involved in just the four and a half years in which I worked for her. That includes 596 phone calls to residents, 4,100 constituent email responses, Attendance at approximately 64 council committee meetings, 128 work session meetings, approximately 96 council meetings, and attendance at 160 neighborhood meetings, representing close to 40 neighborhood associations. And that's just half of your tenure. And if you know me well, you know there are many, many I'm sorry's and apologies, so many that Kathy tried to break me of the habit by charging me 25 cents every time I apologize. So with that, I have a gift. I'm repaying my debt this evening. So Kathy, thank you for all you have done for the residents of the 12th, for Lexington, and for me personally. We all need someone who believes in us, and for me, that was you. So behalf on all of us who had the privilege of working with you, thank you. Congratulations on your extraordinary eight years of service, and we know the impact of your work will continue to be felt for many years to come. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you so much. All right, next is Sean Denny. Welcome. Thank you, Mayor. Good evening, Councilmembers. As the Mayor said, my name is Sean Denny, and I live in the 10th District, but here tonight I'm here in the capacity of my former 12th District legislative aide to Councilmember Plowman. In August of 2022, I left LFUCG to work for a nonprofit. And one of my last meetings as a budget analyst happened to be with Council Member Plowman, and it was related to consent agendas and change orders. There was no way that we knew it at the time, but that meeting feels more like a trial run or an interview, maybe an audition to have been your legislative aide. Fast forward a few months and some unpredictable circumstances, and you and I sat down for coffee at Panera and we discussed the role of being legislated in the 12th district. And as soon as you called to offer me the job, I couldn't wait to say yes to work with you and to learn about the 12th district. And in typical 12th district fashion, my first week on the job in late November included the Goal 4 report and drafting moratorium language for Zotas and conditional uses in AR zones. I'm so grateful for my time as 12th district aide because it taught me so much about Lexington's rural area, the beautiful farms, the horses, the natural resources, the prime soils, and amazing people. I have different eyes when I drive through horse country now. And before I worked in your office, I didn't even know sewer ability was a word. And I honestly am still not sure that it is. Google can't seem to find that one. But as much as I love being the 12th District aide, I'm even more grateful to have gained a friend and a mentor. Council Member Pullman, you are hands down one of the strongest people I know. You are a fierce advocate for the people you represent. You work tirelessly to solve problems, to communicate with stakeholders and accomplish projects. You didn't stop for a minute on the 2045 comprehensive plan and you didn't allow personal challenges to keep you from advocating for your constituents. I don't think either of us knew what to expect or what was in store when I joined your staff, but you did it. You did it. town paving, a sense of place, urban growth advisory committee, rural broadband, we saw that today, consent agendas and change orders, tax districting cleanup, and that's just to name a few. When my daughter, Maren, was born last April, Councilmember Plowman gave her a piggy bank. That sits on the shelf in her bedroom and it has the first bit of change in it. Why? Because Councilmember Plowman believes it is important for every woman to be independent. I can't wait to share that story with Maren. Councilmember Plumman, thank you for your service as 12th district council member and the example of leadership you have set for all of us. You have finished well and I know that any retirement for Kathy Plumman will be full of good work that will benefit our community. That's great. Thank you so much. Next is Ashley Dunsmore. Hello. Hard to follow those two, but I'm Ashley Dunsmore, district 7. I'm here also as a former aide to council member kathy ploman it's an honor to be here today to celebrate the retirement and one of the last council meetings of my former boss and friend kathy ploman she has truly made a lasting impact in our community and beyond as a council member kathy has not only led with integrity and vision but has also set a high standard for dedication service and genuine care for Lexingtonians. Throughout her time on council, Kathy has worked tirelessly to address the challenges facing our community, always keeping the needs of her constituents at the forefront of every decision. From advocating for her constituents in the rural area to serving on the continuum of care board to address homelessness and serving on the board of Greenhouse 17 to support survivors of domestic violence. She has offered support in times of need and has proven time and time again what it means to be a true public servant. I was honored to be a part of her time on council and support the important work she has done to remember and celebrate Lexington's rural black hamlets. I watched her put thoughtful work into ensuring that there is a future cultural center for the community to learn about our history and those who made Lexington the city it is today. As we reflect on the many accomplishments and milestones, we also look ahead to a well-deserved retirement, knowing that the legacy Kathy leaves behind will continue to inspire those who follow in her footsteps. Your leadership has made a difference, and we are all grateful for the positive changes you've brought to our community. Congratulations on your retirement. I wish you nothing but joy, fulfillment, and the best of everything in this next chapter of your life. Thank you. Thank you so much. And finally, Olivia Lachine Grigsby. Welcome. Thank you, Mayor. My name is Olivia Lachine Grigsby. I'm a resident of the 6th District. My remarks are short because I have worked for Kathy for not a very long time, as you all know, but it's been wonderful. I began working for Councilmember Plemon earlier this fall, knowing that I would only be her legislative aide for a few months as her term came to a close. It quickly became clear that this time would fly by because she is truly a delight to work for and to be around. While she is a well-respected and effective public servant, she also brings a unique sense of humor and lightheartedness to her work. She has an infectious personality, and I think that's why so many gravitate towards her warm presence. She's had a huge impact on LFUCG, as well as on community partners and nonprofits she's worked with. Over the past couple weeks, it's been a joy to see her inbox flooded with notes of well-wishes and reflections on the last eight years. One of my favorites that came through I thought summed it up perfectly. It said, you have represented the 12th district and entire city in a balanced and professional manner with a smile and determination that all admire. Kathy, thank you for allowing me to come aboard and help you serve the constituents of the 12th. I'm so thankful that you gave me the opportunity. I have no doubt that you'll be an active member of the community while also finding time in your next chapter to enjoy the beach in Kiowa. Cheers to you and a well-deserved retirement. Oh, that's wonderful. Thank you so much, Council Member Plowman. You know, I was just going to say something. You know, I forgot my badge, so I had to walk through there. And I'm looking at, what are the four of them doing here? And finally I said, oh, I hope they don't do anything. You know, silly. But, no, that was absolutely beautiful. And, you know, having you all in my life the past eight years, actually, Zach's not here. I think he's in Louisville Law School or practicing law. But, you know, I lost all of you to better jobs. And so I know I hire good people because they all were promoted by either internally or other outside places. But, you know, you all are tremendous. I left them two pieces of advice. I used to always say to them, if you're going to Cincinnati, don't get in the car and get off at every exit. Go to Cincinnati and tell me about it. And that was my advice to them. And because you've got to let your good people go and make decisions on their own. And you all have and you did. And I truly appreciate all of your thoughts tonight and the friendships, which I know we'll keep for a long time. Thank you for being here. That was very special. Yes. Thank you all very much. Well, that brings us to the end of the work session. So I'll entertain a motion to adjourn. All in favor say aye. We are adjourned, and in ten minutes we'll resume for the five o'clock meeting. Thank you.