# Council Work Session - August 19, 2025 > Auto-transcribed civic record · Council · August 19, 2025 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/6521 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/6521?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2025-08-19 - **Body**: Council - **Last revised**: February 14, 2026 - **Length**: 30,806 words - **Speakers**: Mayor, Ayor > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed by OpenAI Whisper-1, with speaker labels folded in from Granicus closed-captioning. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude Sonnet. Speaker labels and 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 met on August 19, 2025, at 3:00 PM in the Council Chamber in Lexington, Kentucky, with Mayor Linda Gorton presiding. The meeting covered 2 agenda items, the most significant of which was a set of Solar Zoning Ordinance Amendments, which was approved by the Council. The meeting also included a public comment period focused on issues on the agenda. Over the course of the meeting, the Council heard 5 public comments and conducted 6 motions and votes. ## Attendance All 14 council members were present at the August 19, 2025 Council meeting. No members were absent or late. **Present:** Wu, Brown, Ellinger II, Morton, Lynch, LeGris, Curtis, Sheehan, Hale, Beasley, Baxter, Sevigny, Reynolds, and Boone. ## Votes and Decisions **Move New Business to Top of Agenda** [timestamp: 0:03:56] Motioned by Wu, seconded by Morton. Passed by voice vote. **Approve New Business** [timestamp: 0:10:54] Motioned by Ellinger, seconded by Reynolds. Passed by voice vote. **Amendment: 1% Cap on Agricultural Land (Solar Zoning Ordinance)** [timestamp: 2:22:02] Motioned by Hale, seconded by Sheehan. Passed 9–5 by roll call vote. - **Ayes (9):** Wu, Brown, Ellinger II, Morton, Lynch, Curtis, Sheehan, Reynolds, Boone - **Nays (5):** Baxter, Savigny, Hale, Beasley, LeGris **Amendment: Vegetative Cover Requirements (Solar Zoning Ordinance)** [timestamp: 2:36:22] Motioned by Curtis, seconded by Morton. Passed 8–6 by roll call vote. - **Ayes (8):** Wu, Brown, Ellinger II, Morton, Lynch, Curtis, Sheehan, Reynolds - **Nays (6):** Baxter, Savigny, Hale, Beasley, LeGris, Boone **Amendment: Small-Scale Solar as Conditional Use in Residential Zones (Solar Zoning Ordinance)** [timestamp: 3:01:27] Motioned by Savigny. Passed 9–5 by roll call vote. - **Ayes (9):** Wu, Brown, Ellinger II, Morton, Lynch, Curtis, Sheehan, Reynolds, Boone - **Nays (5):** Baxter, Savigny, Hale, Beasley, LeGris **Final Vote: Solar Zoning Ordinance as Amended** [timestamp: 3:34:57] Passed unanimously 14–0 by roll call vote. - **Ayes (14):** Wu, Brown, Ellinger II, Morton, Lynch, Curtis, Sheehan, Reynolds, Boone, Baxter, Savigny, Hale, Beasley, LeGris - **Nays:** None The meeting's most significant action was the adoption of the amended solar zoning ordinance, which incorporated three amendments debated at length during the session. While individual amendments drew divided votes — with Baxter, Savigny, Hale, Beasley, and LeGris consistently voting against the agricultural land cap and residential conditional use amendments — the full Council voted unanimously in favor of the final ordinance as amended. ## Public Comment Five members of the public addressed the Council during the comment period, all speaking to proposed solar zoning amendments. [timestamp: 11:57] - **Lane Boldman** spoke in support of the solar zoning amendments, emphasizing the importance of agrivoltaics and the broader need for clean energy. [timestamp: 11:57] - **Judith Humble** also expressed support, specifically backing the amendment that would allow solar development on 2% of agricultural land. She cited climate change impacts on farming as a key reason for her position. [timestamp: 15:47] - **Robert James** took an opposing view, arguing against industrial-scale solar development in rural areas. He advocated instead for siting solar installations on existing buildings and brownfields rather than agricultural land. [timestamp: 19:02] - **Aaron Michael** similarly opposed placing solar on farmland, and called for urban solar initiatives focused on rooftops and parking lots as preferable alternatives. [timestamp: 21:06] - **Matt Partymiller** offered a critical perspective on the proposed amendment itself, arguing that as written it would discourage solar development. He emphasized the health and environmental benefits of expanding solar energy. [timestamp: 24:15] The comments reflected a divide between speakers who supported the amendments as a path toward clean energy and those who opposed rural or agricultural land as an appropriate location for large-scale solar, with several opponents pointing to existing developed sites as better alternatives. ## Contested Items - **Solar Zoning Ordinance Amendments:** The council was divided over proposed amendments to the solar zoning ordinance, with disagreements centering on issues of land use and environmental protections. The item produced multiple split votes, reflecting differing opinions among council members on how to balance solar energy development with other land use and environmental considerations. No further detail on the specific vote tallies, the positions of individual council members, or the final outcome of the amendments is available in the provided record. ## Public Comment - Issues on Agenda [timestamp: 11:26] The Council heard public comments related to items on the agenda, with discussion focused on the proposed solar zoning amendments. Five members of the public addressed the Council on this topic: Lane Boldman, Judith Humble, Robert James, Aaron Michael, and Matt Partymiller. Speakers offered a range of perspectives, with comments both in support of and in opposition to the proposed changes. The public comment period was informational in nature, and no action was taken as a result of the testimony provided. ## Solar Zoning Ordinance Amendments [timestamp: 2:22:02] The Council took up a series of amendments to the solar zoning ordinance, with discussion centered on two primary issues: caps on agricultural land use for solar development and vegetative cover requirements. Key speakers during the discussion included Savigny, Sheehan, Curtis, and Hale. The Council debated the specifics of the proposed amendments, including how much agricultural land could be devoted to solar installations and what standards would govern vegetative cover on solar sites. The ordinance amendments were ultimately **approved** by the Council. *Note: Additional detail on individual amendment provisions, vote tallies, and the specific arguments raised by each speaker was not available in the source data for this meeting.* --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (0-0): place on the docket for the August 28, 2025 Council Meeting, a resolution establishing the Forest Avenue Residential Parking Permit Program - **Motion** — passed (0-0): approve the August 12, 2025 Work Session Summary - **Motion** — passed (0-0): approve New Business - **Motion** — passed (0-0): approve Council Capital Projects - **Motion** — passed (0-0): place on the August 28, 2025 Council Meeting docket for first reading, an ordinance for Solar Energy Systems (ZOTA-24-00003), as amended at the July 1, 2025 General Government and Planning Committee Meeting - **Motion** — passed (0-0): amend the ZOTA, Sec. 31-6 to add: (f) Ground Cover within the Agricultural Zones: Ground Mounted Solar Energy Systems within the Agricultural Zones shall utilize vegetative ground cover underneath the panels, and the project area must contain a minimum of eighty-five percent (85%) vegetative coverage; and, (g) No more than 2% of land outside the Urban Services area can be used for Conditionally Permitted or Exempt Ground Mounted SES’s, as amended - **Motion** — passed (31-6): amend the ZOTA, Sec. 31-6 (g) to read: No more than 1% of the total land in Fayette County can be used for Large Scale Ground Mounted Solar Energy Systems in the agricultural areas - **Motion** — passed (31-6): amend the ZOTA, Sec. 31-6 (h) to add: For any Large Scale SES located in an A-R or A-U zone, there shall be a vegetative cover requirement and applicant shall provide to the Directors of the Divisions of Planning, Building Inspection, and Environmental Services, and the Directors' authorized agents of the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government, a Land Management Plan which shall be reviewed and updated, if appropriate, every five (5) years at the same time as the review of the Decommissioning Plan. A Land Management Plan shall include: baseline soil conditions, periodic evaluation of soil conditions, pasture and other ground cover composition, fertilization, pest control, livestock utilization, soil compaction minimization for staging areas, the decompaction and restoration of all temporary roads and installation staging areas, fencing and access control. The Land Management Plan shall also include a description of the measures that will be taken to minimize erosion and sedimentation, and to promptly stabilize and revegetate any disturbed areas with native vegetation - **Motion** — passed (0-0): amend the ZOTA, Sec. 31-4, to change both, small scale and intermediate scale, to accessory use in the A-R, A-B, A-N, and A-U zones, as amended - **Motion** — passed (0-0): amend the ZOTA, Sec. 31-4, to change the intermediate scale to conditional use in the A-R, A-B, A-N, and A-U zones - **Motion** — passed (0-0): amend the ZOTA, Sec. 31-4, to change the language for Ground Mounted Small Scale in Residential Zones, from small scale accessory use to conditional use permit - **Motion** — passed (0-0): amend the ZOTA to add Section 31-7. Conditional Use Permit Application Requirements, as presented at the July 1, 2025 General Government and Planning Committee Meeting and as displayed on the screen, as amended - **Motion** — passed (31-7): amend the ZOTA, Section 31-7(a)(10) to read: For Conditional Use Permits for SES within an Agricultural zone, the Board shall consider the impact of the proposal on the existing soils and topography, as well as the compatibility of the proposed SES with agricultural use of the land. Developments should work with the existing topography, with grading, compaction, and tree removal minimized to extent possible. When grading is approved, topsoil shall be retained on-site and re-established as a part of the decommissioning plan - **Motion** — passed (31-7): amend the ZOTA, Section 31-7(a) to add: (12) For Conditional Use Permits for large scale SES, the Board of Adjustment shall acknowledge the impact of the proposal and benefits it may have on the community, including any Community Benefits Plan (CBP) in place. (i.) The applicant may enter into a Community Benefits Plan with the city or one or more community-based organizations within Lexington-Fayette Urban County. (ii.) The amount suggested for the CBP is $750/megawatt sold, annually, for 15 years. (iii.) The Community Benefits Plan shall prioritize alleviating energy costs to low-income households - **Motion** — passed (0-0): amend the ZOTA, Sec. 31-4 to read: A: Accessory Use. Within the urban zones, Ground mounted SES may only qualify as accessory if the total area of the system is less than fifty (50) percent of the floor area of the principal structures on the lot. Within the Agricultural Zones, accessory Ground Mounted SES shall only be allowed if the total area of the system is less than fifty (50) percent of the area of the property - **Motion** — passed (0-0): place Community Benefits Agreements in the Budget, Finance, and Economic Development Committee - **Motion** — passed (0-0): place Article VI. of the Code of Ordinances related to contractors in the Budget, Finance, and Economic Development Committee for a comprehensive review of all sections, and a report back to Council of any recommendations, amendments, updates, or any other actions deemed necessary - **Motion** — passed (0-0): adjourn at 6:43 p.m --- ## Full transcript Music Music Music Music Music Music Music Music Music Music Music Music Music Music Music Music Music Music Hello everyone. Welcome. I'd like to go ahead and call to order the Lexington-Fayette-Urban County Council Work Session of August 19, 2025. And per the fire marshal, we cannot have anyone standing. So if you do not have a seat, we've set up with the TV out in the mezzanine and we'll get started when you're all moved out. Thank you. Thank you very much. And we'll, if you're moving out and you're signed up to speak, we'll give time for you to get back in to speak. At this time, I'd like to call on Vice Mayor Wu who has a motion. Thank you, Mayor. In light of the number of public commenters that we have and in consideration of our staff, I move to move new business to the top of the agenda. So moved. Second. Council Member Morton seconded. Is there any discussion? All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? All right. So we will start. That passes and we will start with new business and then we'll go to public comment for issues on the agenda. And so do I hear a motion to approve new business? Second. Council Member Ellinger, Council Member Reynolds seconded. If you have questions about new business, please log in. Council Member Reynolds. Thank you, Mayor. I have a question on item 7 for Commissioner Ford or Director Conrad, please. Item 7? I'm sorry, C. Item C for page 7. Thank you. Is this Director Conrad or Commissioner Ford? Director. Hi, Director. Thank you so much. Could you just explain the need for this 25 acres and what it will be used for? Yes. Thank you, Council Member. This is the lease for Meadowbrook Golf Course. So Meadowbrook Golf Course does about 18,000 to 20,000 rounds a year. It has our highest league play of any of our golf courses. Very important to municipal golf here in Lexington for that starting player on a par 3 golf course. So it's expanding its footprint. This is just renewal of the lease. Just renewal of the lease. Okay. Thank you very much. You're welcome. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Brown. Thank you, Mayor. I have a question about item F. And it's in regards to Windburn Extension Project. I know school just started. I started getting text messages about folks that have stumbled upon our Windburn Challenge. And I just won't shoot us. I just want somebody to speak to where we're at in the process, what's next, and what to expect. Right. So we had two outstanding right-of-way purchases or right-of-way agreements we were working on. This is one of them. This still has another step where we have to go to the Department of Interior and get approval for the land swap portion of this. And then we're still working with our other right-of-way negotiations on the other end of the project. So once we get those settled and some minor design and other minor right-of-way purchases handled that will address some drainage issues that we became aware of, then we'll be able to move to construction. Unfortunately, because those right-of-way timelines are difficult to nail down, I can't give you a set start on construction. But if we can get Department of Interior approval fairly quickly and the other heavier lift from a right-of-way standpoint done next spring, summer, then hopefully we can put this out of construction next fall for spring of the following year construction. Okay. Well, that's good news. So the drainage issues that you've discovered, is it going to change design at all, or are we still good with design? A little, but it doesn't change the corridor's design. It's just we have to add a detention basin to prevent. The Green Acres neighborhood downstream now sees existing flooding, and we don't want to make that worse with our project. So we're adding a detention basin to the project to prevent just from creating worsening problems that are existing. Okay. Well, that's good news. I know we're hearing a lot about it. I know Councilmember Morton and Councilmember Lynch are with that new Kroger's opening, folks. Folks want to get to it. So thanks for the update. Yep. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you. Councilmember Morton. Thank you. I'll follow right on up. But Councilmember Brown kind of already asked the synopsis of what I want, so I just want to give some kind words. The importance of securing another entrance and exit for this Windburn neighborhood cannot be overstated. A one-way-in, one-way-out neighborhood community is, quite frankly, a death trap, literally. That creates safety risk for the residents and for all around. For first responders, leading to possibly issues with first responders getting to the neighborhood. And there's actually been a precedent in history in Windburn where there was an emergency in the back of Windburn, an accident in the front of Windburn took place, and then the firefighters and folks could not get to the back. That is a huge safety concern. We should not have any neighborhoods that are one-way-in, one-way-out. But I know that Mr. Burton, Director Burton, Councilmember Brown have been tirelessly working on this for years in the making. I'm so glad to see this actually coming to fruition. So I just want to give a major thank you to you and your work and to continue to work through this. Thank you to the administration, and thank you to Councilmember Brown for continuing to push this forward. And I look forward to hearing some great news and updates in the future. And just while I'm at it, I guess I would love to talk with you about possibly coming out to the Windburn and kind of just giving them an update of where we are and just kind of a timeline. Absolutely. We've actually talked with Commissioner Ford about scheduling an upcoming meeting for that neighborhood as well. Since now we're that much closer to construction. So we'll keep in the loop on that and obviously include everyone. That is amazing. Actually, if you want to step ahead of me, because I was just at the Windburn Neighborhood Association last night and I emphasized to them that I was going to reach out to both your department to get you to come possibly next month and then to reach out to Parks and get them to come the following month so that they can just be in the loop and know what's coming and stay informed. That's it. But I appreciate all your work on it. Thank you. Yep. Thanks. Thank you, Councilmember Savigne. Thank you, Mayor. I've just got a question on the park sign, item number E, item letter E. As you're coming up here, my question was, this is kind of an additional thing. Was this part of the original contract to replace the sign? And did we use all of our own funds on this or was this an ARPA project? Councilmember, this was actually the sign project was initiated by Councilmember Legree's office and was a council capital transfer to us to work on this artistic signage for the park. So we had these as adults, as we often do, but wanted to ensure we had all the infrastructure in place, everything else that was needed. So it will be an artistic sign, I think, very appropriate for this new downtown park. Okay. So it came from Councilmember Legree's capital funds. Super. Thank you so much. Yes. All right. Thank you. Does anyone else have a question about new business? All right. All those in favor of approving, say aye. Aye. Is anyone opposed? All right. That motion passes. Thank you. Next is public comment for issues on the agenda. We have a lot of people signed up, and I estimate this will be a little bit over an hour and a half of public comment. So here's how the rules go. When I call your name, you'll go to that podium, and you'll need to restate your name and say your council district for the record. And then you'll have three minutes. And unfortunately, I have to be the enforcer. So when I go through this, I'll name the person and a couple more people after them so we can kind of move it along. So first up on public comment is Lane Boldman, who will be followed by Judith Humble and Robert James. So, Lane, welcome. One more thing before we start your time. The council rules don't allow clapping, cheering, anything that makes noise. So if you want to do that, that's fine. Thank you. Welcome. Hi. Thank you all for the time. My name is Lane Boldman. I live at 114 Woodford Drive in Cardinal Valley, which is District 11. Hi, Jennifer. I wish to comment on the zoning amendments for ground mount and large-scale solar in rural areas. I work for an environmental nonprofit. I'm here on my own behalf in this case, but we're often asked to assist with providing information on solar and renewables policy. We're also asked a lot of questions about land conservation and land use. So this is an area that I have taken a lot of time on studying. And in each case, the situations are unique. So we usually don't take a hard position one way or the other. We look at each in a case-by-case basis. I've been involved in projects such as Lexington Solarize Initiative. I've purchased my own solar panels for my modest home in Cardinal Valley in order to be a responsible citizen addressing the city's climate goals and to stabilize my energy bills. Since the start of that program, several of my neighbors have added solar panels to their homes as an affordable option. So I do believe in both land conservation and large and small-scale solar. But unlike early large-scale solar projects such as the utility-scale one owned by Eastern Kentucky Power Cooperative in Winchester, which most people have seen, that is not the way that a lot of solar development happens now. And it has been one of the biggest challenges when I talk to people to get them to understand that the industry has progressed significantly, and the way you do it now is with agrifoltaics, pollinator plantings, have agriculture integrated into solar panels, and this works. So it shouldn't be an either-or choice if you have a company that is well-versed in this, understands how to plan for it, and is working with the community. So I'm aware of the amendments that are proposed by Dave Sevigny and Liz Sheehan to support some adjustments. I'm familiar with the company. I've talked to many of the large-scale solar companies in the state. The current company that's involved in this, Silicon Ranch, seems to be very well-versed in agrifoltaics. So I'm very glad that they are a company that understands those principles. And these are principles that the organization I work for has put into a guidebook for citizens so they can make informed decisions as to whether a situation is right for their community. So due to the demand for clean energy and the logistics of large-scale solar, there's a lot of demand in certain areas. The parcel that you all are concerned about is one that's going to be popular because it has grid access. I would much prefer seeing an independent company looking at that parcel. Thank you for your time. Thank you very much. I failed to mention the timer will buzz at you when your time is up. All right. Thank you. If it wasn't clear, though, I'm in favor of the amendments. Okay. Next is Judith Humble. And then if Robert James will be ready, followed by Aaron Michael or Mikkel. I apologize. Welcome. Good afternoon, Mayor Gorton, Vice Mayor Wu, and council members. My name is Judith Humble. I live at 144 Lincoln Avenue, and I'm in the 5th District. Can you speak up a little louder? Yes, and I am chair of the Bluegrass Climate Action Team. I'm speaking on their behalf today. We support the amendment to the solar energy system ZOTA that would allow development of ground-mounted solar on 2% of agricultural land. And while we are stewards of our agricultural land and we value it highly, we think some balance is needed at this time in our history. These are our reasons for supporting the amendment. The first of all is the well-being of our farmers. The fact is that climate change is no longer an abstract future development for this group. They are already being strongly affected by the presence of climate change, and they are finding that it makes it difficult, more difficult, to handle everything, including livestock and growing crops. They are having to make adaptations, and their rates of success are decreasing. I'm going to hold up this magazine, which I read. I've been reading for the last four years. This is called Mid-America Farmer Grower. I read this for my husband, who's an extension professor in agriculture at the University of Kentucky. This is a trade magazine for farmers, and for the last four years, every issue has included articles about how farmers can cope with the altered weather patterns that climate change is bringing. In Kentucky, that's increased precipitation, higher temperatures, and drought. I've talked to one local farmer who had to replant the same field three times this spring because of the amount of rain that we got, and I don't know how anybody does that and keeps their morale up. So there's some real hardships involved. And farming over in the future is expected to get more expensive, more challenging, less successful, and ultimately this affects not just them, but it's our food supply. The second reason is that climate change, if left unchecked, will affect soil quality. This very land that we value for its excellent soil will be less fertile, less productive, and the amount of rainfall we're getting will cause erosion, and that's a very real problem for people who are in farming and also people raising horses. And finally, in order to prevent further climate change, we need to move rapidly to renewable energy. We are not doing that at this time. There are numerous barriers. This amendment would allow the Silicon Ranch project to go forward. This is a regenerative form of agriculture, solar, which protects the land and leaves it viable for future use. And this is an opportunity for our community to have a pilot project, which would not only be useful in the present day but could evaluate, help us assess how we might go forward with renewable energy. So we ask the council to support this amendment, and thank you for this opportunity to speak. Thank you. Next is Robert James, followed by Aaron Michael, followed by Matt Partymiller. Welcome. Thank you, Mayor, Council. My name is Robert James. I live on James Lane in the 12th District, and I'm a sixth-generation full-time farmer here in Lexington. I'm also president of the Fayette County Farm Bureau, which represents over 570 members in Fayette County engaged in farming and in other agricultural fields. We support the Planning Commission and the General Government and Planning Committee's proposed zoning ordinance text amendment that would prohibit industrial-scale solar development in the rural service area. Farm Bureau supports and encourages adding solar panels to existing buildings and brownfields. Farmers often use solar energy in this way by adding arrays to our barn tops. However, we do not believe that it has a place in the rural service area, which has defined Lexington's global brand identity since 1958. We farm in the inner bluegrass region of the state with some of the most fertile and productive soils in the country. The infrastructure needed to support these ground-mounted solar energy systems will permanently alter and destroy the productive soils beneath them. The Planning Commission and its staff found industrial-scale solar development to be incompatible with the character of the rural service area, precisely because, at this scale, it is an industrial use. Companies that locate to Lexington's industrial areas inside the urban service boundary could be incentivized to include ground-mounted solar in their site plans or even place arrays on their rooftops. Should ground-based solar be allowed in the rural service area, it would be the last crop that the prime soil beneath it would grow. It would be a de facto expansion of the urban service boundary, and it is not in agreement with the comprehensive plan or the rural land management plan. We urge the Council to adopt the recommendations of the Planning Commission and the General Government and Planning Committee. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Next up is Aaron Michael. I apologize if I mispronounced your name. Followed by Matt Partey-Miller, followed by Jane Shropshire. Welcome. Thank you. You got it right. It's Aaron Michael. Okay. My name is Aaron Michael. I'm an employee of Fade Alliance, and I'm also a resident of District 10. Today my comments represent myself as a resident and not Fade Alliance. So me and my family live in the Southland neighborhood. We live close enough to Nicholasville Road that you can hear the motorcycles drag race after 9 p.m. If you've been to District 10 at night, you know that. Even though our lot size is only a quarter acre, we've worked really hard to turn our yard into its own little ecosystem. Our backyard has four garden beds, five chickens, a pollinator garden, and a milkweed patch to support monarch butterfly reproduction. Our front yard is actually a certified wildlife habitat designated by the National Wildlife Federation. And that means we've established a water source, natural plants, ground cover, food, and shelter for animals. I tell you all of that about my life because I want to emphasize how much I care about the environment and how much I care about preserving the natural world. And from the conversations I've had with my wife, much like you're having today, we've thought about how we lower our carbon footprint. I can tell you that we would not entertain the idea of covering our garden and our certified wildlife habitat without first exploring a rooftop option. Choosing to cover up our natural world first to us does not make any sense. Lexington's agricultural zones are the backyard gardens of our urban core. Just like my home garden in District 10, our rural lands support life, provide us with clean air, and bring character to our community. I want to see our city aggressively invest in solar energy initiatives, but I don't believe opening up our farmland for industrial-scale solar development should be our first choice. We should first explore every option possible for solar installations on rooftops, parking lots, brownfields, floodplains, and LFUCG-owned property. I fully support the policies previously approved by the Planning Commission, the Planning Staff, and the General Government and Planning Committee, because those policies support investment in creative urban solar initiatives. Just as deeply as I care about our environment and preserving the natural world, I'm just as deeply opposed to policies that open up our farmland to private energy companies for development, especially companies whose majority shareholder is Big Oil. Today, as you listen to a roomful of people who all care about the environment, please consider this. You can say no to bad policy, policy that puts our rural lands at risk, and still say yes to solar. Saying no to industrial solar on agricultural land does not mean you don't care about the environment. It just means that, like me, you don't want to cover up our gardens first. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Thank you. Next is Matt Partymiller, followed by Jane Shropshire, followed by Lee Carolan. Welcome. Good afternoon. Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to speak. My name is Matt Partymiller. I'm a member of District 7. I'm also the president of the Kentucky Solar Industries Association. I'm a member of the state's EPIC Committee, which is an advisory group to the Public Service Commission appointed by the governor. And I also operate Solar Energy Solutions, a business located off Nandino Boulevard. We employ 80 people full time, and we have a couple dozen residents of Fayette County. As someone who's made a living as a solar installer for the past 20 years, I'm disappointed in the proposed solar zoning amendment. Specifically, I'm disappointed for two reasons. Solar supports health and the environment. As proposed, the amendment discourages both. To elaborate, a 2021 Harvard Chan Center study indicated PM2.5 reductions between 2008 and 2017 reduced premature deaths in the U.S. by 75,000 people a year. Solar, as the grid's cheapest form of new energy, is a critical part of the transition that occurred over that decade towards cleaner fuels. I'm proud to be part of an industry working to make the world a healthier place. I would also like to be proud that Fayette County supports making the world a healthier place. Promoting solar unequivocally does that, and the benefits aren't just save lives. Cleaner air means a better quality of life, less asthma, less cardiovascular disease, fewer hospital admissions, and less money spent on health care are all benefits of promoting solar. In addition, the International Energy Agency, the IEA, continues to tell us how vital solar power is for the well-being of our environment. Their recent global energy review tells us demand for energy is rising due to higher temperatures, and with that higher demand has come increased CO2 emissions now at their highest levels ever. NOAA tells us 2024 was the hottest year on record. The world I want to leave for my children is not one of environmental catastrophe, yet when we impede progress towards renewable energy, we hasten that chance. To be clear, the two large-scale solar arrays proposed in Fayette County are not alone saviors of our health or environment. They're not even what is in question in this zoning amendment. What stands before this body is an amendment that outlaws ground-mounted solar of all sizes outside the urban service boundary. For two decades, I've had the pleasure of installing solar in Fayette County, including a number of systems that would no longer be possible after this ban. I would strongly encourage this body not to forbid Fayette Countians from installing solar on their own property, for their own homes or their own businesses to use when they so choose. As someone that's dedicated the last 20 years of my life to supporting community health and the environment, I'd encourage Council to do the same and support Councilmember Zvigny and Sheehan's reasoned amendments to promote solar and revise the proposed ordinance. Today is about this body making a decision on whether or not Fayette County is sincere in its goals to reach net zero by 2050. Reaching that goal will require significant action toward embracing renewables. Thank you. Thank you very much. Next is Jane Shropshire, followed by Lee Carolin, followed by Jim Mansfield. Welcome. Thank you. Good afternoon, Mayor and Council. I'm Jane Shropshire from District 12, a constituent of Councilmember Boone's. I'm here representing our family cattle farm today, which has been operating for many generations on Royster Road. My husband Jim couldn't be here because he's busy doing what a farmer does in the month of August, weaning calves, checking mineral feeders and water tanks, and mowing pastures. Our herd is Black Angus, and the genetics stretch back to Jim's father, who first introduced Angus to our farm in the 1920s or 30s. The calves not retained for the herd eventually enter the food chain. I'm here because we stand in support of the General Government and Planning Committee's vote to accept recommendations made by planning staff and the Planning Commission. We oppose the amendments brought before you today, which were already voted down by the GGP. We support renewable energy and agree that it's essential to our future. We also believe in the importance of retaining prime farmland for ag purposes. Is it easier for a company like Shell Oil to mount its array on farmland? Of course, just as it's easier for developers to build on farmland rather than areas designated for commerce and housing. Yet would you not agree that we have zoning for a reason, that we put great energy into maintaining and updating a comprehensive plan regularly for a reason? Forgive me for feeling that this, forgive me for feeling that allowing an industrial use, even solar, is an end run around the comprehensive plan and the urban service boundary. I don't know the total acreage of non-residential parking areas in Fayette County, but I do wonder how the cost of constructing solar canopies on these lots may compare to the cost of land acquisition and subsequent construction on farmland. If Shell Oil and Silicon Ranch need 800 acres, how much would it cost to construct such canopies on similar acreage that is already paved over? We appreciate council members Sheehan and Savigny for their enthusiasm for their project and agree that broader implementation of solar is necessary. Yet adding photogenic sheep to a solar farm will not negate any disturbance to topsoil and long-term effects on fertile farmland. We might even call it a wolf in sheep's clothing. Thank you all for your public service and your willingness to address thorny issues thoughtfully. We hope you'll vote to preserve our farmland and then work to identify the myriad of ways in which solar can be implemented in appropriate areas in Fayette County. Thank you. Thank you. Next is Leigh Carolin, followed by Jim Mansfield, followed by Sebastian Garoli. Welcome. Thank you all. I appreciate your time. I'm Leigh Carolin. I'm a resident in the 12th District, and I live in the Blackford Oaks neighborhood, 1826 Rachel's Run. I have been a part of this community for over 20 years, and I care deeply about the environment. I am an environmental professional. I know that we need farmlands. We need all types of energy. However, I believe if we don't vote to extend this amendment for this area of rural Fayette County, which has already begun to grow into 10-acre estates and most of it the northeastern and the far northeastern part of Fayette County, that we will lose the chance for us to have controlled solar and controlled growth overall. I see that the solar energy can provide positive impacts to our communities and our farmlands. The two farms that are being proposed for zoning changes, I know because I've driven by them for 20 years, most of the time it's been fallow and or it's been used just for a sod farm, which is a sod farm considered agricultural. In my mind, I don't believe NRCS believes that is agricultural. At least with solar energy, these farms will have a purpose in supporting our community by providing much needed energy and the potential for local produce, food sources. If you've seen what Turkey Creek has provided, you can see that this can also occur in our county. If we don't amend the zoning to accommodate the viable option of this solar energy, it leaves the door open for expansion of the county landfill, which I know people will say, no, that's not going to happen, but I believe it will, and or for solar farms operated by public utilities with minimal regulations. These farmers are trying to sell their properties. Has anybody offered to purchase these properties? All right, I don't know myself either, I'm just asking. To promote environmental stewardship of these lands and to achieve our city's emissions goals, please vote yes for this amendment. I appreciate your time and consideration, and you guys do an awesome job. I come here a lot. Thank you. Thank you. Next is Jim Mansfield, followed by Sebastian Giroli, followed by Will Kaufman. Welcome. Good afternoon. My name is Jim Mansfield. I live in Versailles, Kentucky. I'm here representing the sheep industry. I'm not affiliated with a solar company or a solar developer. I'm past president of the Kentucky Sheep and Wool Producers Association, and I'm the Kentucky representative to the American Sheep Industry, our national association. I've raised sheep for 20 years. The last 16 years we've sold fresh lamb every week to Whole Foods markets. Grazing solar sites could possibly be a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for the sheep industry to reduce costs and expand their production. Seventy percent of the lamb sold in the United States is imported, so that's a challenge for us. When sheep are on a solar site, they're rotated. The grazing is managed so that the height of the grass doesn't get very low. That's bad for the sheep, bad for the soul. But what they are doing is they're grazing, they're fertilizing the land, and then it's rested, so over time that land gets improved, not hurt. Improved. Sheep are perfect. Cows are too big. Goats eat the wires. The sheep industry is sponsoring solar grazing schools for farmers and young people around the country. I've been to two of them, one in Georgia and one in North Carolina. There's going to be one in Kentucky this year. Young people are getting involved in solar grazing. Daniel Bell in Garrett County is a friend of mine. He's grazing 300 acres. That added to his sheep operation, and he's been able to bring his son in on the farming. The Carruthers is a young family from Ohio that moved to Franklin, Kentucky, to graze solar, both in Kentucky and in Tennessee. They were not farmers, but they are now. In 40 years, this site could be decommissioned, and the farmland is still there. Improved. Housing development is permanent forever. Real burning fossil fuels is a problem. Thank you so much. Thank you. Sebastian Giroli, Will Kaufman, and Brian Babbage, welcome. Good afternoon, members of the council and mayor. Thank you for being here today. My name is Sebastian. I'm a lifelong Lexington resident. I currently live in District 5, and I'm here to speak on the utility solar zoning amendment. I don't have any experience with solar. I've never seen a solar farm. I've never installed a solar panel. I've never lived off of solar power, but I still hear about it a lot. I hear how solar panels' cost has plummeted in my lifetime. I hear how solar panels can be thin and flexible. I hear how they can last for decades. I hear how they can invert markets, bringing energy costs to zero for hours at a time. But all I see of solar panels in my day-to-day life is those silly signs that tell me to slow down. I don't watch the news. I don't enjoy social media. I skip every ad I see, but this issue still somehow reached me. And I was and I am really surprised to hear that in Fayette County, one cannot turn their extra field into a bit of sun-powered money. And I don't really understand why we aren't allowed to invest money in capital equipment, which could potentially lower our energy costs, bring taxable revenue to the community, provide power for our neighbors, all while doing so in an environmentally conscious manner, which preserves the land, leaves it better off, and doesn't destroy the farmland, all with community input. It really beats me. By loosening restrictions on 2 percent of our land, we open the door to lead innovation for the future of farming, which, as everyone's established here, is a pretty time-honored tradition here in Kentucky. And it seems like a pretty good bet to me. The proposed ZOTA amendment is not about solar or farming. It's more about the right to innovate and experiment with the land that we have. In 1958, I recently learned that we were the first county in the nation to create a green belt, which was a critical tool in the fight to protect the future of our land. But now here in 2025, times have changed, but the choice remains the same. Do we plan for the future or do we live for the rules of the past? Brands that don't innovate usually die. So I'm only 24. I think about the future a lot. I have a feeling that you all do, too. And I asked the council to vote yes today, August 19th, 2025. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Next is Will Kaufman, followed by Brian Babbage, followed by Henry Jackson. And, Will, you can push the button on the right corner and put the whole podium down. Okay. It's fancy. And I have a handheld mic. Welcome. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Council. My name is Will Kaufman. I grew up in the 5th District. I live in the 12th District now. I'm also a partner at Bullhorn, which is a branding agency. Brand has been ‑‑ and I'm here to comment about the solar issue. Our brand has been brought up twice in interesting ways, and that's kind of here what I want to talk about very briefly. Getting to live now in the 12th District and experience the rural part of our city has been a really rewarding experience for my family and me. Our brand, our city's brand, is our green space, and I think it is very important to consider, while evolution in energy sources is very important, I think the way we do it is very important, too. I believe that preserving our green space is crucial to our city's brand. I believe that changing that brand is permanent and something we can't go back to. So thank you for the time. Thank you very much. Next is Brian Babbage, followed by Henry Jackson, followed by Marcy Deaton. Welcome, Henry, and then ‑‑ or Brian. And then you'll ‑‑ if you'll put the podium back up, please. I think I might be in the wrong issue there. It's any public comment for any issue on the agenda. Okay, gotcha. And do you mind to raise the podium, please? Thank you. Yeah, no problem. Welcome. So, yeah, I'm Brian Babbage. I'm in the 3rd District, I think, and here to talk about a residential parking permit request. So I just kind of want to put this issue out there, and I think there's some other folks to do that, but the application for this parking permit has been pretty severely manipulated. We've emailed you guys kind of the evidence here, but there was a Facebook message group in this neighborhood group asking neighbors to park in the area designated for the study to make it look like my business, which is the Camel Club, was using neighborhood parking when we were not. We have evidence of this. They say, you know, can each residence who live on Sayre go park on Forest? We can't do it. We need you to do it to make it look like they're doing it if you're tracking along. Now, so obviously if you're happening to ask people to fraudulently park somewhere to manipulate the study, that means my business isn't causing the problem. That's just definitionally true. So if my business was, you wouldn't need to ask your neighbors to go park in front of my business to make it look like I'm doing something. So I think you just really need to kind of consider that, and also just that this one move is kind of definitive of the three and a half years that we've kind of had to go through. So I just want to bring that to your attention. I know we'll do a couple more hearings, I think, on this. I've got thousands of documents. I can tell you who parked where. We had to actually police it because Lex Park is not detectives. So we'll share as much of that as you see fit in the future meetings, but just wanted to put that on your radar. And you've got at least the first Facebook messages, and there's plenty more that I can send. So thanks for your time. Thank you very much. I know this is an issue that in just a minute, Council Member Legree will be adding to the docket for next time. Next is Henry Jackson, followed by Marcy Deaton, followed by Chartorne Renfro. Welcome. Good afternoon, Mayor, members of Council. My name is Henry Jackson. I live in District 7. I'm a longtime supporter of the Fayette Alliance, but I favor a more strategic USB growth plan than currently adopted. And as I described in a May 25th Herald-Leader op-ed, and I've given the clerk a copy to give each of you. That said, I urge you to adopt, at the very least give further study, to the proposed Sheehan-Savickney amendments of the proposed solar ZOTA, and for three reasons. First, to adopt the proposed ZOTA as is, fails to balance the competing needs of ag preservation and the climate emergency. In this case, some accommodation of clean energy is a fair and reasonable first step in reaching the city's comp plan goal, being carbon neutral by the year 2050. Know, too, that ground-mounted solar projects, whether large or small, do not destroy farmland if built properly. And the proposed amendments provide terms to ensure that farmland protection is given underneath those solar arrays and previously discussed. Second, as a leading ag county in the state, this ZOTA, as proposed, would set an unfortunate precedent for the other 119 counties in Kentucky to point to here as an example of what to do, depending on your point of view, what not to do. Lastly, adoption of these proposed amendments would finally acknowledge the risk of climate change as a clear and present danger that requires meaningful action. Indeed, every government decision, from here on out, should ask one question. How does this decision affect our ability to cope with the climate crisis? Adoption of these proposed ZOTA amendments would be an excellent start. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you. Next, we have Marcy Deaton, followed by Shartorn Renfro, and then Stacy Rose. Hi, I'm Marcy Deaton. I'm in the third district. I live on Forest Avenue next to the Camel Club. Despite what Brian Babbage said, the first study we did not even pass. I don't know what happened. We didn't pass. We had the study redone by LexPark later with no influence, no Facebook, no anything, and they recommended that we get the residential parking, and I will tell you why. In the simplest terms, where I live, the Camel's employees, members, and guests take up all the spots on Forest Avenue, leaving nothing for the homeowners. The block, according to LexPark, has ten spaces. I can count about nine, but the way they measure it, there's ten. There are many evenings and weekends that I can count 14 cars, all Camel members and Camel employees, and I don't know who all, and they are bumper to bumper. They block our driveways. They are right next to your driveways where you can't even pull out. Forest is basically one lane when there's cars on both sides, so we desperately need this. Another thing, they have their own lot behind their house, and they have two off-site lots that they have arrangements with. Those will be half empty or even empty, and they're all parked on our streets. I don't understand that, but I think it's just simply more convenient for them to park on our streets, in front of our homes, instead of in the lots that they have arrangements for. They have enough lot for all of their members and employees and guests, but they're not using them. They're using our street. And I have one neighbor who could not make it, and she sent me a note, and I think this is pretty poignant. She says, if I can't make it, I would love for someone to emphasize that my driveway is frequently blocked by cars, and I can't get out. The non-emergency police take two to three hours to show up. I had to take an Uber to the airport last week because somebody was blocking my car, and I couldn't get a hold of anybody at the Camel. People also liberally park on the sidewalk, which is not safe, and in the illegal parking zones. There are three illegal spots on our street, and they park there, too. We believe a permit would help this, and in addition, of course, there's the fact that our street is always full, and that was her text to me. So it has been a problem, I will sum up, since the beginning of their construction. We kept asking, why do you have 15 construction trucks parked on our street when you have these off-site lots? Don't know. And they're still parking there, and they're there all the time. If I pull my car out from in front of my house, it's not two minutes or three sometimes that another car, a Camel member, guest, or employee, pulls up in front of my house. That's the nature of our street. Thank you very much. Next is Chartorne Renfro, followed by Stacey Rose, followed by Linda Froelich. Welcome. Welcome, Mayor. Excuse my attire here. I was called by my wife while I was out and about today to come speak. She knows I'm a passionate solar advocate. We had solar at our house on Portland Drive from 1978 through 1999, and my coworkers and friends got sick of me talking about my free heat. So I'm passionate about solar. But I want us to be, as with this issue, really good about protecting everybody's issue on this. But I want solar energy, and I know the climate change is very real, and if we don't do something pretty soon. But solar energy for us when we had it was wonderful. When we moved to our 11th district house, we now live in a forest, so solar energy is not really viable there. But if we could get it, we would have it. So please just be very conscious when you all make your decision on this. Thank you all very much. Thank you. Thank you. Next is Stacey Rose, followed by Linda Froelich, and then Margaret Graves. Welcome. Thank you, Mayor and Council Members. My name is Stacey Rose, and I live in Council District 3. I live across Forest Avenue and adjacent to the Camel Club. There are two parking spaces in front of my property, and since the Camel Club opened, they're almost always taken during the day, in the evenings, and on weekends. If I want any visitors or workers to be able to park there, or if I need to park on the street for any reason, then I must park my vehicles in those spots late the previous night after the club patrons have gone home, and then move them when my guests arrive. A residential permit parking district from my block would be a very welcome relief for me. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Next, Linda Froelich, followed by Margaret Graves, and then Jeremy Jenkins. Welcome. Thank you. My name is Linda Froelich. I live in the 10th District, and I ride my bike, which I hope excuses my getup. First off, I'm here to speak in favor of the solar ZOTA as amended by Council Members Sheehan and Sevigny, and I want to thank you for going through all that work. I can't say I like every part of it, but I'm pleased to see the Council additions of required ground cover and the maximum of 2% of farmland outside the urban service area to be used for solar installations. Two percent of farmland, that's approximately 2,500 acres, which would be about four solar installations as currently under discussion. The part that I don't like is that these amendments somehow dropped the screening provision to screen the solar farms from residential areas. I assume that that is an oversight. At least I hope it is. We're not actually deciding between large-scale solar on farmland on the one hand and solar over parking and other structures in the city. On the other hand, we can't be making that decision. We need both because we will simply not be able to produce enough energy with solar installations only within our urban space. So the issue that we're discussing today is making sure that we have a secure and a sustainable energy future that remains under our control, and that ZOTA, with the proposed amendments, will do so. I like looking at our bucolic landscape as much as anyone else. I think I will like looking at the sheep that are proposed by Silicon Ranch. I'll probably find solar farms with ground cover much less attractive. Regardless, the land is preserved, the soil remains undisturbed for decades, and when the facility is decommissioned, that land will still be there to be farmed. When energy is created, agricultural land is preserved, our energy needs can be met for a while. We're all adults in this room. We all know that for the sake of our families, of our friends, of our business, we sometimes make decisions that we don't personally like, decisions that might make our own lives a bit harder. We make those decisions because they're what's best for the family, for our friends, for our business. Well, now it's a time to make such a decision for the good of our community, all of Lexington. You may not personally like it, but you know it's what's needed. You know it's what needs to be done. So, council members, do it. Just vote for it. Thank you. Thank you. Next is Margaret Graves, followed by Jeremy Jenkins, and then Helen Alexander. Welcome. Good afternoon, Mayor and council members. Thank you for your service and for the opportunity to speak to you. I'm speaking to you today on behalf of the Bluegrass Land- Excuse me. I'm so sorry. You have to state your name and council district for the record. Margaret Graves, and I live in the 6th District. I am speaking today on behalf of the Bluegrass Land Conservancy, a non-profit regional land trust established in 1995 and is a community-supported non-profit working to conserve irreplaceable farmland in the Bluegrass region. We currently hold conservation easements in 19 counties, conserving over 35,000 acres of land on more than 174 farms across the Bluegrass region. These conserved lands include more than 29,000 acres of prime farmland and soils of statewide importance. In Fayette County, we hold 18 donated conservation easements, conserving over 3,000 acres of protected farmland. The proposed text amendment would permit utility-scale industrial solar facilities to be constructed in the rural service area of Fayette County in agricultural zones, including the AR Zone. The intent of the AR Zone, as stated in the zoning ordinance, is to preserve the rural character of the agricultural service area by promoting agriculture and related uses, but by discouraging all forms of urban development except for a limited amount of conditional uses. We oppose the proposed text amendment because it would allow utility-scale industrial solar facilities to be constructed countywide in the AR Zone as a conditional use, setting a dangerous countywide precedent that would impact farms throughout the rural service area. Allowing industrial-scale solar facilities in the AR Zone would hamper ongoing efforts by the Bluegrass Land Conservancy and the Fayette County Rural Land Management Board to conserve Fayette County farmland. The specific site for which the proposed ZOTA was written consists of prime farmland and farmland of statewide importance. 97.7% of the proposed site is prime farmland. The soils of Fayette County are a finite resource. We can't afford to waste them. They should not be allowed to be used for an industrial use. We urge you to reject the proposed amendments and conserve the agricultural landscape of Fayette County. It's important to our economy. It's important to our future. And it's why people come to Fayette County. They don't come to see sheep. They come to see farms and horses and cattle. Thank you. Thank you. Next, we have Jeremy Jenkins, then Helen Alexander, and then Lonnie Calvert. Welcome. Thank you, Mayor and Councilmembers. My name is Jeremy Jenkins. My office is located in the 3rd District. I'm the business manager of Laborers Local 189. We've been serving Central Kentucky since 1933, representing hundreds of skilled laborers who build and maintain the infrastructure this community depends on. I'm here today in support of the Zoning Ordinance Tax Amendment. It's a step toward making sure renewable energy projects in Fayette County are done the right way, benefiting our economy, respecting our farmland, and creating real opportunities for local workers. I know you heard arguments for and against this amendment, so I'd like to just address a couple of issues. It has been stated that the proposed project will just create temporary jobs. This is simply not the case. If you think about this building we're in, at one time there were hundreds of laborers, operators, and electricians working here. They were moving dirt, pouring concrete, pulling wires, and setting steel. It was a mix of men, women, journeymen, and most likely apprentices of all skill levels. Not only were they building this office, but they were gaining valuable knowledge of the construction process, which can be carried over to other construction sites, such as our roads, bridges, hospitals, universities, and hopefully solar fields. People hear temporary jobs and think they don't matter, but that's how careers in this trade are built. Also, the plan for this site doesn't mean taking farmland out of use. It means keeping the land productive by pairing energy generation with ongoing agricultural work. Livestock will continue to graze the property, managing vegetation naturally, and keeping the soil healthy, while the panels above produce clean power. It's a practical way to make the land work twice as hard without losing what makes this county special. I understand there are concerns about using prime farmland for projects like this. That's why strong zoning rules matter. This amendment gives us a clear framework so projects are located responsibly with commitments to restore the land when they are done. This is a chance for Fayette County to lead on clean energy, create local jobs, and have smart development. I ask you to support the ZOTA. Make sure this project benefits our community the right way. Thank you. Thank you. Next is Helen Alexander, followed by Lonnie Calvert, and then Sam Brow. Welcome. Hello, Mayor, Council. My name is Helen Alexander. I have a horse farm in Fayette County. I'm in District 12. I'm here today to ask you to follow the recommendations of the Planning Commission, which in September 24 voted to prohibit industrial solar installations in the agricultural areas, instead recommending rooftops, commercial and industrial areas, et cetera, as sites to consider within the built environment of the city. There will be less infrastructure required for electricity generated to access the power grid. And just maybe we will know whether the county is actually the one using the power generated, which is another unanswered question. Fayette County is a special place in the state, with ag areas bordering a vibrant city center, suggesting that taking 2% of agricultural land for solar is just a small amount of land becomes moot when it's only the beginning of changes in zoning that will forever change this rural landscape. Instead of green fields surrounding the city, we will have brown fields. Our rich agricultural economy, which produces over $2 billion annually and supports over 16,000 jobs, will be forever impacted by these changes. Our community has said over and over again that they value the open spaces in our county. Stewarding this important resource requires us to consider many options in how to make Fayette County a special place for all citizens. I hope you will reject this proposal to allow solar in the rural zone and consider more options for the urban area. Thank you. Thank you. Next is Lonnie Calvert, followed by Sam Brow, followed by Tom Posken. Welcome. Thank you for having me, Mayor and Council. Lonnie Calvert, 2631 Wilhite Drive, Lexington, Council District 3. I support this project and the ZOTA, and I ask that you consider my reasons for the support of this project. Here are the following reasons. One, economic impact. Possibly bring more than $80 million in local investment and generate an estimated $8 million in additional tax revenue over 40 years without direct taxpayer expense. Two, increased energy demand. With data centers, AI, and increased temperatures, with the decline in the coal industry, the demand for more energy will only increase. We must meet this demand to add more energy to the grid, or we all, everybody in this room, everybody in this country, will be paying much more for energy and risking blackouts. I ask you to take note of Texas, what Texas has been going through with their grid and their infrastructure, to consider that, because I think you're going to see that in the next 10 years. You're going to see more situations if we don't do something about the need for more energy on the grid. And then when I talk about AI data centers, I believe I'm going to reference, I think it was the Courier-Journal, that there's two proposed projects that are in front of the PSC at Louisville Gas and Electric. And these two combined cycle projects will take approximately, just to put this in perspective, 80% of what all residential customers in Louisville use with LG&E, just for the data center and AI projects alone in the city of Louisville. And they're popping up all across the country and all across the state of Kentucky. And then last but not least, career opportunities, workforce development. These are not temporary jobs. This would be a temporary project, just as any other project you see in downtown Fayette County. It's a permanent career path. And once these workers are finished with this project, they will then have the transferable skills learned on this project and go on to other projects, helping to build a stronger community and infrastructure. Thank you for your time. Thank you. Sam Brown, Tom Posken, then Phillip Woolery. Welcome. Thank you. My name is Sam Brown. I live in Clark County on the Clark-Fayette County line. Good afternoon, Mayor and Councilmembers. Again, my name is Sam Brown, and I live about five miles from Haley Road. First, I want to thank you guys for the work that you guys are doing to balance growth, sustainability, and responsibility in protecting what makes Lexington special. I'm not here to make your job harder. I'm here as a neighbor, a father, and someone who deeply cares about the future we're shaping together. I grew up down Old Harrisburg Road in Jessamine County, so I kind of grew up in Lexington and live in Lexington's backyard. I've seen a lot of shopping centers and subdivisions. I actually met my wife down here at Euclid on Euclid Avenue at Grader's when we were 17. We spent many nights and days driving out Old Richmond Road over to Athens, across Winchester Road and down Harris Pike looking for farms and dreaming of one day having a place like that. These farms held together by four-board plank fences like stitches in quilted landscape and these roads that connect us to our history. They can light a fire and bring you peace at any moment. It's time. They're what makes Lexington the city that it is. Lexington is our home. Fayette County farmland is our backyard. It's where families gather, children grow up exploring, neighbors share meals, and generations have built their memories. This farmland is not empty space waiting to be used. It's living, breathing soil that sustains our industries. Industrial solar panels and our identity as horse capital of the world. Once it's covered in solar panels, that backyard is gone forever. You cannot replace the prime soil with, you cannot replace, sorry. So while we balance the scale on growth and development, let's really ask ourselves, is it worth it? Is it what we need? No politics, no personal or corporate agendas, but is this really what Fayette County needs right now? There is not a single solar, industrial solar field in the United States older than 25 years old, and we do not know what these sites will look like and what kind of mess they might leave behind. I want to be clear. I'm not against renewable energy. If the mission is truly a cleaner future, then let's invest in solar where it makes sense, on rooftops, parking lots, and already developed land. I just want to leave a quick picture real quick, and it's from the year 2045. Currently we are driving into Lexington. My two-year-old son is looking out the window, pointing at the horses, at the cattle. At this point, year 2045, now those roads are lined with solar panels. Thank you. So let's responsibly develop. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Next is Tom Posken, followed by Philip Woolery, and then Blake Spurgeon. Welcome. Oh, I'm on the clock. Oh, my God. This is like fantasy football. Okay. I'm Tom Posken. I'm in the Fifth District. What you may know about me, I'm the Director of Investments for Meridian Wealth Management. What you may not know about me, which I'm going to share to you, is I grew up on a family farm in Illinois. My daughter had the grand champion lamb at the Kentucky State Fair twice. I know sheep. I was a high school ag teacher. I have my master's degree in animal science before I went to Northwestern and got an MBA. So I have a little bit of a background in the things we're talking about today. I am opposed to industrial solar on our agricultural land. Under whatever vein we call it agriculture, it's not in my hymnal. I am for solar. Don't get me wrong. On the other hand, I am also opposed to the 2% Zoda change. That feels to me like we're putting perfume on a suppository. It may be trying to make something smell better, but I still don't want to know where it's going. So this isn't going to work for me. For this city, as we sit here today, we can join a whole lot of communities across the United States who are learning how to make money off of their power. They can own their own solar. They can own their own wind. Greensburg, Kansas, was destroyed by a tornado, and after the end of the tornado, they came back and their city decided that they would go to solar and wind. In their city, in their rebuilding, in homes, and in the community, they now sell two-thirds of their surplus energy to the power grid in Kansas. Wouldn't it be nice if this city council, rather than doing a Silicon Ranch power purchase agreement with East Kentucky Power, where 98% of their clients live outside of Fayette County, it is wonderfully generous of you of supporting that 98%. We are the two that live here. This is what we get. We can do better than this. I can own my power. We can own our power. We can turn this whole decision upside down, and we can generate our own income inside of Lexington to pay for our power. And we've got a smart enough group sitting here staring at me like I'm crazy. Because you're not crazy, we can do it. A lot of communities across the U.S. are. The other thing I'm going to tell you quickly is, sheep farming is hard. You make about $10 a head off a ewe on a pasture if you're just commercial sheep production. That's what I'm looking at if I look at the USDA numbers, if I look at Iowa State University, and I talk to my old buddy Rich back at the U of I. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. And the last thing, we only sold 3,407 sheep at the Bluegrass Stockyards last year, and they're not taking any more sheep right now. Thank you. Next is Phillip Woolery, then Blake Spurgeon, and then welcome. Hi. Thanks for having me. I'm Phillip Woolery. I live in District 10. I'm a former Energy Star builder here in Fayette County and surrounding counties, and I'm currently an energy auditor. I'm speaking on my own behalf today, and I'm here to support the solar amendments proposed by Councilmember Sheehan and Savini. I've done nearly 1,000 energy audits. I've helped hundreds of families, businesses, and nonprofits save money on their energy bills. In my work, we just facilitated our 100th solar project across Eastern Kentucky, and all of those saved money from day one. But most people, right, don't have easy access to solar, and they need it. Average energy bills are really high, especially in Kentucky. Energy burdens are extremely high. And Kentucky utilities costs, or the costs that we pay, have increased nearly 50% since 2012. At the same time, Kentucky utilities and LG&E are proposing to spend almost $10 billion over the next four years. Currently, $3.7 billion a project is in front of the PSC right now, and those projects are going to raise our bills even further. And data centers are driving those proposals, and they're making our problems worse. And so we need access to solar to lower our bills. Many of us can't get it because we don't have perfect rooftops. We have shade where we don't own a home. And this really boils down to fairness and freedom. It's about fairness to folks that don't have that perfect rooftop access. Solar on parking lots is great. Most of us don't own parking lots. We don't own parking lots, but we all deserve access to solar. And it's about freedom. It's about freedom to harvest the sun, and most often while staying agriculturally productive. In fact, according to a 2024 USDA study, about 0.5% of the current 900 million acres used for farmland in 2020 was impacted by renewable energy. Most of that land stayed in agricultural production after the development of solar or wind projects, according to the study. Clean energy and agriculture are not mutually exclusive. But it's my understanding that the only spot that's suitable for industrial-scale solar in the county is out there by the other proposed EKPC project. And what happened there, right? They have the control to install the project without our input. If we don't put boundaries about how we think large-scale solar should be done, we'll lose our agency and the utility will do it for us. Thank you very much. Thank you for supporting those solar amendments. Thank you. Now, I want to just take a second and ask if Jared Sexton is present. Yes, I am. And did you give your three minutes to Brittany Rothmeier? Yes, I did. All right. Now, is Ethan Wallace here? And did you give your three minutes to Brittany Rothmeier? Yes. Okay. So next will be Blake Spurgeon and then Brittany Rothmeier, who will have nine minutes. and then field lad. Welcome. Thank you so much council. My name is Blake Spurgeon. I'm with Silicon Ranch Corporation. Our site is located in District 12 and I'm here to talk about parking today. Just kidding. So at Silicon Ranch, our motto is to make solar do more and that is exactly what we propose to do here in Fayette County. We have a site in Gaird County where that motto has been held true. As you can see by these pictures here, our site in Gaird County promotes soil health, promotes agriculture. As you heard Jim mention earlier we actually partner with a local farmer there in Gaird County named Daniel Bell. Daniel didn't have access to a family farm. He didn't have access to capital that he could purchase land from. So instead he had a flock of sheep that he saw an opportunity to work with us. So Daniel does not pay Silicon Ranch a dime. We work with Daniel to graze our site. We pay him to do that and then he in turn can go around and sell his land to Whole Foods to whoever he would like. That's what we want to do here in Fayette County. As you can see here, this is an agricultural entity. This is an agribusiness. Fayette County has the opportunity to be a leader in how solar is developed across the state of Kentucky. This is something that we've been having conversations with you all here in the county for four years at this point. We met with you all in 2021 and started this conversation. Since then, in the past year and a half, we've sponsored multiple local events and attended multiple local events and met with residents, had conversations about their concerns. We attended and spoke at former Council Member Plowman's community meeting where concerned residents of District 12 came out and met with us and EKPC and others to learn more about solar development. We hosted our own community meeting at Mirror Twin Brewing last fall where more residents came and learned about what we're doing. We've had half a dozen site tours at the Turkey Creek site, bringing people from Fayette County to see solar firsthand, what it looks like and what it can be like here in Fayette County. This doesn't count the hundreds of online engagements we've had with people via social media, answering their questions, getting connected. It's safe to say this is a conversation that's been happening for a long time here in Fayette County. As you can tell, there's many different thoughts and opinions on it, but this is a chance for Fayette County to lead the way. This is a chance for Fayette County to be a leader in solar development in Kentucky and in the Southeast. Today, I ask the Council to approve Council Member Sheehan and Savigny's amendments today so we can move forward with this project but also other projects down the line here in Fayette County. Thank you. Thank you. Next is Brittany Rothmeyer, who will have nine minutes, followed by Field Ladd and then Frank Butler. Welcome. Thank you, Blake. That was good comic relief, I feel like, for today. Brittany Rothmeyer on behalf of Fayette Alliance, and I'm in the third district, and I'm not here to talk about parking. Fayette Alliance believes in solar energy, and we believe in protecting our environment, and I think all of these people that are here and outside all feel the same. And the good news is that today, we're not talking about whether or not to support solar. We're talking about how and where to prioritize solar. We're talking about countywide policy and not whether Silicon Ranch is a good company. While they started this process, we all know that it's not good policy to change a countywide zoning ordinance to accommodate one specific company. That company could close like 100 other private solar developers over the last year, and then we're just left with bad policy. This policy that we're talking about today will apply across the board, across the thousands of acres of farmland that people in this community rely on, and to any private out-of-state solar developer who has the resources to push this issue like Silicon Ranch does. And if a policy is passed that allows large-scale solar in our ag zones by private developers, the council won't be deciding which private company can operate on our farmland. The Volunteer Board of Adjustment will. And if that happens, I believe that out-of-state national solar organizations will be spending resources right here in Lexington on phone banking and lobbying and national advocacy organizers, just like Silicon Ranch has on this issue, like all the calls that I've received over the past two weeks. People outside of Lexington are spending a lot of money and working to shape our local policy. FedAlliance has always worked locally to promote sustainability initiatives and responsible development. Every year through Grow Smart Academy, we educate hundreds and hundreds of Lexingtonians on sustainability and transportation, highlighting smart renewable energy efforts, statewide solar projects on mine sites, public transit, imagine Nicholsville Road. We're a three-week partner. We support expanded funding for parks. We're active on the Bike Pet Advisory Committee, and I could go on and on. We're committed to reducing our carbon footprint by putting solar on our local landfill, on every parking lot, rooftop, school, government building, and airport in this community. But we're opposed to policies that allow industrial-scale solar facilities by private developers on our ag land. We know that there are so many opportunities in our built environment to do this right, to make a huge impact and directly offset our biggest energy consumers, which specifically are businesses, cars, and homes, in ways that directly benefit Lexington. Businesses and homes are already doing it, and nearby cities, Cincinnati, Evansville, Indiana, have shown us how we can do it on parking lots, how we can do it on schools, and we can do it on buildings, but they require leadership to make them happen. We've seen no public effort to look at any other place for larger-scale solar than farmland, which has been surprising, and demonstrates a little bit that this effort and conversation is really just based on Silicon Ranch's proposal more than anything else. We know that public utilities are not subject to our local planning and zoning rules, and they can continue to cite industrial-scale developments on our farmland, despite local objections and despite local policies. If a cap on farmland acres covered by solar was put into place, public utilities are not subject to it. The state has already approved a 400-acre solar development in Lexington on our farmland by East Kentucky Power, despite that only 2% of their customers are located in Fayette County. In addition to that 400-acre solar development that is moving forward right now, cities are also considering solar on another 400 acres on the Haley Pike landfill, which alternatively is a great use of a brownfield in the rural area that can't be used for anything else. We're excited to see it come to fruition. Together, these two projects right now will be 800 acres of large-scale solar in Lexington and Fayette County, the size of nearly 200 Costco's the size of the one in Hamburg. Why create policies which open up more and more land to this use by private companies? Knowing that the energy is not going to come to Lexington and won't offset our own emissions. Reaching net zero by 2050 is a goal in our comprehensive plan and there's so many ways we have to work towards it. Large-scale solar on farmland is the one way with the most negative impacts and which would throw the rest of our goals of our comprehensive plan out the window in the process. The most responsible thing for our environment is to take the time and effort to figure out how to do these projects in our urban areas. I've seen a lot of information about why Silicon Ranch's project is good for Lexington, but it's important to note that Silicon Ranch's projects may well be great in other counties like Garrard County, which doesn't have planning and zoning policies like we do, or other locations in the state without the agricultural economy that Fayette County specifically relies on. I've seen info about economic impact that the project will create, but little about how the revenue projected is over the course of 30 years. I've seen info about agrivoltaics, but there's been no public discussion of what this would look like here or how it would be regulated. There's been no discussion about how little ability there is to enforce zoning regulations on an energy company related to soil quality or topsoil removal that other cities have faced these issues and had to take these issues all the way to the Environmental Protection Agency to get them resolved. There's been no discussion of the fact that Silicon Ranch has never decommissioned a solar project and can't attest to what the land will be when they're done with it. And I've seen nothing about the fact that the energy generated by their project does not project to lower the cost of Lexingtonians' utility bills, offset our own carbon footprint, because that energy doesn't stay here. And yet, UK calculated that for every 10% decline in Lexington's production agriculture, there will be an additional decrease of $19 million in output every year to our local economy. We've got a lot at stake, and that's different from other communities that may be evaluating these types of policies. Other cities and states have spent time putting detailed policies on solar, learning about best practice recommendations. That doesn't seem to have happened here. No amendments to the GGP-approved solar ordinance have been made available to the public since the July 1st meeting. I imagine that amendments will be proposed today that the public has never seen or discussed, and I hope that that lack of transparency and public involvement isn't actually the case. Council members Savigne and others put in newsletters after the July meeting that a work group was going to be formed to study these issues, and yet no more information has been provided or information about the work group has been appointed. We ask you to consider these points. The Commission and the GGP have already voted to approve policies that support solar in urban areas while preserving our finite farmland. You can say no to industrial-scale solar on farmland and still say yes to solar and yes to our environment and yes to clean energy. Saying no to solar isn't a vote against jobs. Every job in this community is important, and if that were the case, every zone change or policy that impacts construction or development would also be a vote for or against jobs. If we signal to private developers or the state that we'll permit solar development on our farmland, more will come, and if we take a firm stand against it and say why, we can support solar while also supporting Lexington. We ask you to uphold the Planning Commission and the GGP committee what they've already voted for that's in your packet today. Lexington is already getting a 400-acre solar farm by EKPC and another 400 acres on the Haley Pike landfill that's been proposed. Before we look to more farmland, please focus our solar initiatives in our urban areas. Consider the importance of the 16,000 jobs right here in Lexington that rely on productive farmland across our economy because energy generated by these private developers doesn't benefit Lexington. Consider that private development doesn't propose long-term jobs or revenue for the City of Lexington. Consider that the Bluegrass region was designated by the World Monuments Fund as one of the top most endangered landscapes in the world. Lastly, consider creating a work group that includes community leaders from organizations like Fayette County Public Schools and UK and Transy and Bluegrass Airport and others that can work together with the community and focus on how to do innovative projects that we've seen across the country. They're possible and we can learn from local efforts that are already doing it. Let's say yes to responsible solar as a community. The question has never been if we support and invest in solar as a community. The question has always been how. Thank you. Thank you very much. Council Members, we have had a glitch with our electronics and the person who signed up very first was not on the list. So I learned that she had not been called on. So I would like her to speak right now. Her name is Catherine Clement and I'm not sure what the glitch was, but we would like you to speak and apologize for you not showing up on our list. Welcome. Thank you. I was so eager. Yes, you were the first signed up apparently. My name is Cathy Clement. I live in District 5, so thank you for listening to us. I want to ask the Council to endorse a reasonable policy for ground-mounted solar, both large and small, on agricultural land. I recently saw solar supporting the agricultural economy in Michigan. Produce farms, vineyards, wineries were powering their own operations with on-site ground-mounted arrays. And a limited amount of large-scale solar can also be done in ways that do ensure farmland protection. In the near term, given numerous obstacles that I will list, large-scale solar may be our only way to reduce energy costs and power plant emissions leading to toxic air and climate change. The impacts of climate change range from damage to health, housing, infrastructure, and agriculture to rising energy and insurance costs. Low-income households are hit the hardest. For example, people in substandard housing are most affected by extreme temperatures, storms, and energy costs and have fewest resources to adapt. Food costs also rise as agriculture is affected by multiple climate threats. We can't ignore this. Our energy supply, which is one of the dirtiest in the country, is Fayette County's biggest source of greenhouse gases. Thus, we should seize this opportunity we now have from solar developers for clean energy. This is especially so given federal, state, and utility company roadblocks to both large-scale and especially rooftop solar. We cannot say yes to rooftop solar because too many headwinds are against us. Those roadblocks include federal and state support for coal and gas over renewables, upcoming elimination of tax credits for large-scale and rooftop solar, long-standing state and utility company policies that restrict community and rooftop solar. For example, we would prohibit third-party ownership of solar installations and have multiple limits on net metering, the mechanisms that gives people credit for energy fed to the grid. The upshot of these policies is that rooftop solar has only been economical on single-family homes and very small businesses and not economical on schools, churches, non-profits, and multifamily housing. And to make matters worse, as we speak, KU is asking the PSC to further weaken net metering. That, together with the end of the tax credits, will be the nail in the coffin for even single-family rooftop solar until major policy changes happen. So we should welcome this proposal for our solar development that we can build now on AgZone land with farmland protections. This is a bird in the hand. And with the proposed 2% limit, which will largely be taken up by the projects already identified, worries about extensive use of our farmland are unwarranted. Thank you very much. Next up is Field Lab, followed by Frank Butler. Welcome. Field Lab, District 5, and I would like to say, unfortunately, I'm here to talk about parking. I just want to say I want everyone in our neighborhood to have parking. We've gone above and beyond. We've secured a ton of parking off-street, but I just want the Council to understand the spirit in which this has been navigated, and this is for an entire three-year project. The ruse is the, I mean, I'm sure you've all had plenty of emails, but this is how this started, and this is Belcourt Neighborhood Facebook message from Megan Winfield, the lady who had to take the Uber. It says, we've had a lot of posts about Camel Club opening this week, so I wanted to provide an update on the parking situation. This is before we ever opened, okay? The first block of Forest Main up to the corner of Sayre will have a parking study with LexPark starting April 13th, which will last two weeks. They will check the block 24-7 and need to observe 70% of our spots occupied by non-resident vehicles at each hour they check, again, before we ever opened. A resident is someone who lives on the block of Forest. There are five houses. They have our specific license plate. This means we need as many cars parking in that specific block that do not belong to us for those two weeks, including overnight. If you are willing to park there, this is, again, before we ever opened up, bringing people from the neighborhood to park. If you're willing to park there, day, overnight, a few hours, it would be greatly appreciated. During those two weeks, we will likely see some of us parking down Forest and around the corner on Sayre to keep our cars out of the study. If we can meet the threshold, the council approves that this block will go for our neighborhood and will go block by block. Just first of all, I want you to understand the spirit. The entire thing was a ruse from the get-go. Also, as a member of the Church of the Good Shepherd, the fact that they want to go block by block out of spite for our business, which I do feel for you guys. I'm sure you've had plenty of incidents in which finding parking was very hard for you. The very person who wrote this owns West 6 Brewery. I'm sure some of the people over there would love to have residential parking only. For me, I'm happy for you guys to have a place to park. We apologize for any inconvenience there, but maybe we could just do this in a better-spirited way. Maybe you include the multifamily apartment building right across the street. They were left out of this conversation, as were we, a business, and we have 110 Forest Avenue. The spirit of this, as much as I would like to think it's all about my nice neighbors being able to park, was crooked from the get-go. I think that the council needs to be informed of that when making their decision. Thank you. Next is Frank Butler, followed by Dave Cooper. Welcome. My name is Frank Butler. I live on 116 Forest Avenue in the 3rd District. Unfortunately, I'm here to talk about parking. I promise you you've heard enough about parking, so I'm going to make this real brief. All during this process, we were promised multiple times by the people that developed Camel Club that we didn't have to worry about parking on Forest Avenue. They had a plan, and they're not going to either park their employees or their members on Forest Avenue. That, in fact, is not what has happened. They've been there since day one, including the construction phases. All I'm asking you all to do is consider the impact on the neighborhood. Restricting the parking will not in any way affect the operation of their facility, and I would respectfully ask that you support the recommendations of LexPark. By the way, I was not part of, and that anybody I'm aware of, of a conspiracy to bring cars in to park there. Mine gets parked out there every once in a while if there's space to do it. So I thank you for your consideration. Thank you. Next is Dave Cooper, followed by Cassandra Lyons, followed by Trish Smith. Welcome. Thank you, Mayor. Thanks, Council, for the opportunity to speak on the solar issue. I live in District 1. You've heard a lot of good comments today from both sides of this equation. There's a lot of reasonable arguments on both sides. I would just endorse the amendments proposed by Councilmember Sheehan and Savigny as a reasonable compromise to moving forward on this. Thank you. Thank you. Cassandra Lyons and then Trish Smith. Welcome. Thank you. My name is Cassandra Lyons, and I live in Council District 5. I'm here to speak in support of allowing ground-mounted solar in the agricultural areas because ground-mounted solar, as you've heard other people say in more technical ways than I'm going to, that it doesn't stop that land from being used for agriculture as well at the same time. It doesn't have to be paved over. It doesn't have to be gravel under the solar panels. It can be plants underneath the solar panels, and you can even have animals grazing there. So it can be used for agriculture at the same time while it's being used for solar as well as after it's decommissioned. It doesn't permanently stop. Someone earlier said that solar panels are the last crop that land will ever grow. That's categorically false. The land can be used for agriculture both during and after it's being used for solar. Also, ground-mounted solar in agricultural areas doesn't mean that we're not going to have solar above parking lots and things inside the city as well. We need both. Climate change is an emergency, and we can't afford to have just a little bit of our energy come from solar. We need to have as much of our energy coming from solar as possible because we have to get our use of fossil fuels down if we want to have a chance of farming anything. Thank you. Thank you. Next is Trish Smith. Welcome. Hi. I'm Trish Smith. I'm in District 3. I'm also here to talk about parking. I'm so sorry. I am currently serving as the president of the Belcourt Neighborhood Association and the Clayville Econominiums. In that role, I was present at the meeting with LexPARC to discuss the parking study. I helped disseminate the information about the parking study to the neighborhood. Nothing covert. Nothing conspiracy here. We have a Facebook group with over 300 members. We were not sharing secret information with the neighborhood. The parking study, as far as I'm concerned, was conducted as we were advised to conduct the parking study. That said, we're talking about 10 parking spaces in a one-block area of our neighborhood that's impacted by a local business. We have had many discussions with the business. We've had many discussions with you guys about the need to alleviate some impact on the residents closest to that business. As on the boards of these various associations, I hear the complaints. We have elderly residents who can't get to medical appointments because someone is, you know, their car's just a little bit over the driveway and they can't get out and they miss medical appointments. They contact the business. No one comes to move the car. Again, we had someone who had to take an Uber to an airport because, again, the car is parked. Residents coming in and out of the condominium association, if there's an event at the business, they're parked in tight and it makes it dangerous and difficult to get in and out of the parking. They have three parking lots. They have on-site parking and two off-site parking lots. They've assured us through this whole process parking will not be an issue. I urge you to support giving these residents these ten parking spots so that they can deliver groceries, have repairmen come to their house, have guests visit them, and live a comfortable life. Thank you. Thank you very much. That concludes the list of people who have signed up to speak, as far as we can tell. And I want to thank each and every one of you for coming and for speaking. We appreciate it. At this time, there is no docket or rezonings, but I know that Council Member LaGrie has a motion. Council Member LaGrie. Thank you, Mayor. This is for the August 28, 2025 council meeting. I'm just a little early. I moved a place on the docket for the August 28, 2025 council meeting, a resolution establishing the Forest Avenue residential parking permit program, the details of which I have here. And we will be glad to circulate. Is there a second? Second. Council Member Curtis seconds. Is there discussion? All right. All those in favor, please say aye. Did you want to speak, Council Member Boone? I'll be refusing myself for conflict of interest. Okay. Thank you. Is anyone opposed? Okay. We have one recusal. All right. That motion passes. And I would like to suggest a five-minute break for council. Would that be good? And then we'll come back in five minutes. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Curtis, are there any questions? All those in favor of approving, say aye. Anyone opposed? All right. That motion passes. And there are no budget amendments. There are no FYI budget amendments, adjustments. There are no communications from the Mayor in either appointments, donations, or procurements. And that brings us to continuing business and presentations. First is Council Capital Project. Council Member Ellinger moved. Council Member Curtis seconded. Are there any questions? All right. All those in favor, say aye. Is anyone opposed? All right. That motion passes. Now it is time for the Budget, Finance, and Economic Development Report from Council Member Brown. Thank you, Mayor. The Budget, Finance, and Economic Development Committee, June 24, 2025, summary of motions report out. The meeting began at 1.01 p.m. The first item on the agenda was approval of the March 18, 2025, committee summary. The committee unanimously approved the March 18, 2025, committee summary. The next item on the agenda was the monthly financial update. Commissioner Hensley and Director Holbrook and Luker presented the monthly financials for May 2025. Revenue collections in May were higher than expected following a slower than anticipated April through May. Through May, revenue collections are 1.4 percent above budget. Personnel is running within 4 percent of budget. Operating savings will be less than reported due to open purchase orders that will be paid out in the next fiscal year. No action was taken on this item. The next item was digital accessibility. Troy Black, Administrative Specialist, presented on digital accessibility. It was determined that a local digital accessibility plan that incorporates community voices, identifies services and gaps, informs policy, and guides access to resources which is needed for Lexington. The Lexington Digital Accessibility Workgroup was created with the mission of a thriving Lexington where every resident, regardless of age, background, or location, has access to affordable broadband, reliable devices, and the skills to navigate the digital world. Next steps include deploying a local survey and hosting a digital accessibility expo on June 28, 2025. The local survey will gather community feedback, help organize outreach efforts, and shape the digital accessibility roadmap. No action was taken on this item. The next item was technology ecosystem development. Joe Simkins, Senior Economist for Techonomy Partners, presented recommendations on the tech-driven workforce and economic development opportunities for Lexington-Fayette County. Techonomy Partners outlined key roles, skills, education, and trends in each of the five opportunity areas for Lexington-Fayette County's workforce development to align with forward-looking market trends. Techonomy recommends four strategies for growing Lexington-Fayette County's tech and tech-enabled workforce to support economic development. Each of the four recommended strategies is accompanied with a series of actions for growing Lexington-Fayette County's tech and tech-enabled workforce. There are a total of 16 actions to achieve the four recommended strategies at an estimated cost of $630,000 and new funding to encourage tech-based economic and workforce development. No action was taken on this item. Then the next item was the review of committee referrals. Finally, parks referendum and policies and procedures and facility and fleet maintenance plan items were removed from committee and the committee adjourned at 2.33 p.m. That concludes my report. Thank you. Thank you very much. Are there any questions for Council Member Brown about his report? All right, thank you very much. Next on the agenda is General Government and Planning Committee Report. Council Member Sheehan. Thank you, Mayor. The regular report out for this committee will be given during the September 9th work session. However, in the interest of moving forward on one action item, I'm providing a partial report out today. At the General Government and Planning Committee on July 1st, Daniel Crum, principal planner, presented at the Planning Commission's recommended zoning ordinance text amendment for solar energy systems. Council Member Sevigny, the item's co-sponsor, along with myself, then presented an amended version of the ZOTA. After a robust discussion, Council Member Ellinger moved to approve the Planning Commission's recommended solar energy system ZOTA, which was seconded by Council Member Reynolds. Vice Mayor Wu moved to amend and accept Council Member Sevigny's amended version. That motion was seconded by Lynch but failed four to six. Vice Mayor Wu moved to postpone the decision to the December 2nd DGP meeting. That motion was seconded by Baxter but failed four to six. Council Member Curtis moved to amend and include section 31-5 of Sevigny's amended version, seconded by Reynolds, and that passed unanimously. Council Member Ellinger's original motion as amended was approved eight to two. Council Member Sevigny, there's a lot of things going on in this committee meeting, Council Member Sevigny motioned to report solar energy system ZOTA as amended by the committee to the full council at the August 19th work session, seconded by Ellinger, and that passed unanimously. On behalf of the committee and pursuant to its actions at the July meeting, I move to place on the docket for the first reading at the August 28th 2025 council meeting an ordinance for solar energy systems as amended at the July 1st 2025 General Government and Planning Committee. Is there a Council Member Ellinger seconds? Now we already have people signed up to discuss whatever the motion was going to be. So first up is Council Member Sheehan. I think you're on here for the committee report or did you want to comment? I have a comment. Okay, go right ahead. Thank you and thank you to everyone who's here tonight. Last Wednesday, the Kentucky Department for Local Government held the Governor's Local Issues Conference and there the Public Services Commission, the PSC, discussed solar siting and they told a room full of local government officials that if you want a say in solar siting, then your municipality needs an ordinance. While I understand that solar proposals by utility companies go to the Public Services Commission and they are not bound by our ordinances, I believe it is best for us to have protections in place to prevent bad solar and promote good sustainable solar. So I would like to make a motion to amend this ZOTA to reintroduce the protective language that we had looked at in our proposed amendments to indicate we expect to see 85% vegetative cover in proposals to protect our land and to provide a cap of no more than 2% of the area outside of the urban services area to be committed to this use. This language we have to put on the screen and it was in the GGP packet from July. So moved. Second. Council Member Curtis seconded the amendment. And for those that don't have it in front of them, here it is. Next up is Council Member Curtis. So everybody on here, I'm going to assume you're not speaking to the amendment. And we'll hear Sam. You're not supposed to show the decommissioning section. Just scroll down through there. I can just say that the decommissioning section isn't changed. It's just the letter right in front of that section. So I didn't put the full language. It's still in the original. Now, who would like to speak to the amendment? We're just going to start over here and go down the road. Anybody else over here? Anyone over here speaking to the amendment? Joseph. Alright, we have Council Member Hale first. And then Council Member Hellingser. Council Member Hale. Is this where I make an amendment to the amendment? If you would like. Yes, so I move to make an amendment such that section 316, subsection G, reads no more than 1% of the total land of Fayette County can be used for large-scale ground-mounted solar energy systems in the agricultural area. So that will approximate to around 1,818 acres as opposed to the 2,600 acres of this amendment. Is there a second? Second. Is there a second? Second. Okay, Council Member Sheehan. Now, who would like to discuss the amendment? Council Member Baxter. Council Member Savicny. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Council Member Hale, for this amendment. I think that it is a good compromise. However, I do have a question. I feel like it's a little bit of putting the cart before the horse a little. Because I don't know, and this might be a law question, if we approve this amendment, but then we disapprove any agriculture solar, where does that leave us? Where does that leave this? Anybody? Well, I don't know. Here comes our Commissioner of Law. Welcome, Dave. You probably ought to stay close. Good afternoon. I think the amendment that's just been made, if it covers all of Fayette County, you'd still have the opportunity to put solar somewhere in Fayette County, even if you didn't move forward with agricultural changes. But I think if it's not amended, it suggests that 2% of the land outside can be conditionally used. So I don't know whether your intent is that this is all of the land, right? It's not written right up there. That was my clarification. Is it just to change the 2 to 1? Is that what your intent is? That's not written correctly, what I just read. What I read was no more than 1% of the total land of Fayette County can be used for large-scale ground-mounted solar energy systems in the agricultural area. Okay. So it applies only to the ag area. To the ag area. Does that answer the question? Well, I guess my question is that if this only applies to land outside of the urban services boundary, essentially, but currently the recommended text disallows any ground-mounted solar outside of the urban services boundary, we're doing this. I think his intent, if this passes, is to allow some percentage outside the urban services boundary. Is that correct? Yes. It's just not the same percent that was in. The currently proposed percent is 2, which is outside the urban services boundary, which is approximately 2,600 acres. What I'm proposing is only 1,818 acres. Okay. So I guess if we approve this and then we do not make any further provisions to allow solar in the ag zones, do we have to then go back and amend this to not be in there? I'm still not sure what you're asking because I think the intent is to open this up to allow it outside. We haven't got there yet, Dave. Okay. That's my question for now. The other thing I didn't understand about your motion is, are you wanting to include the conditional use? I think I got this one, if you want me to. Hang on a second. So Dave, Commissioner Barbary, isn't the motion that was in the committee that did not pass was putting solar in the rural area, correct? It would allow it, yes, as a conditional use. So did it have a percentage in it? No, it didn't pass. But that vote is over. I'm just saying, I mean. I believe, maybe I'm missing something, but I believe what was. As it stands now, with the Planning Commission approved ZOTA, solar is not allowed in any agricultural zone. Right. As it stands now and that's what we're considering. We have an amendment to allow 2%, but we don't have anything allowable currently. So I'm trying to figure out why we're amending something that doesn't exist. I think it's my turn to speak. I think it's my turn to speak. I'm 31-6 right now. I think her time is up. Let's go through the list. We have Council Member Savigny. Thank you. The reason this is being proposed is exactly the same reason that it was proposed originally. F and G were proposed originally as alterations. These have nothing to do with conditional use or anything like this. Strictly, if you recall, I said that the Commonwealth of Kentucky at the state level has considered a 1% of land usable by all entities for large-scale solar. So this would apply, this is the Public Service Commission would look at this and they would say if a utility company is applying, if they have met the 1% limit on Fayette County, we could consider not approving that. So this includes all uses, including exempt uses, which are, if you've read the ZOTA, exempt uses are public service. The Public Service Commission deals with utilities as an exempt use. All I want to do is give a clarification and I'm supportive of Council Member Hale's amendment because it follows typical language that we've seen at the state level. Thank you. Thank you. Just for clarification one more time, and Council Member Savino you can answer this or anybody that has an answer can answer it. With the amendment, this is going towards only the ag area and it's 1% of it. That would include essentially the Haley Pike proposal that's on the table and the proposal that we have no control over from the state. So there would be a reason to possibly put a cap on allowing solar in the agriculture area because it's coming either way, correct? Thank you. So with that being said, as many know and most of you already know, like I said, I believe in preservation. Specifically tied to my district, I believe in preservation of historically African American neighborhoods that are being pressured by growth. So that means preservation, I believe in preservation on both sides, the sentiment of it. Preservation is an important value to me. On the other hand, I also support sustainability and renewable energy and solutions that address challenges we face. I believe solar is one of those solutions that we have to acknowledge and allow in multiple forms, but it needs to be with great community engagement, with great community input. So we know that Eastern KY Cooperative is going to do a large-scale solar farm in Fayette County. We anticipate that the Haley Pike landfill will also become a large-scale solar farm. So we know that the solar energy system will be coming to Fayette County. Therefore, the question is not if we will have solar energy systems in that ag area. I guess the question is we're going to allow it for provider use, but for the state it's coming. For the landfill, there's a proposal on the table, so it's coming. It's more so of when. And what we do know is that the question is not, like I said, if the solar is coming, but when. It isn't even a question of when, it's coming. It's coming soon. So we need to decide how we want these solar energy systems to come to our county, and we need to define and decide what the cap will be for that. We want them to be done well. We want preservation of our farmland. After listening to some great community input, and I'll take a side note, this is beautiful. This is what community is. Folks from both different sides come in, giving community input, letting their leaders know how to make the best decisions. It's not one of the others. It's not one side against the other. It's let's figure out, let's work out this together and figure out the best way to move left and forward for both sides. So I want to put that in there because, as all knows, I am big on community inputs. With that being said, let's go back to this. The scope of those systems to only 1% of land outside the urban service area is setting a cap. I think when we're thinking about the definition of preservation, if we know something is coming, then we should try to put policies in place, or we should try to put things in place that can limit them or that can suggest how they move forward. So with that being said, I will be supporting Councilmember Hale's motion of the amendment at 1%. Thank you. Thank you. Commissioner, isn't this simply a motion to amend Councilmember Baxter's motion? It is. It may or may not. I mean she and I'm sorry. It is at this point. Which may or may not pass. I think I finally understand what Councilmember Baxter was asking. Yes. Okay. So I don't know that it's technically out of order to do it this way, but you would need to make additional changes if you pass this in any form in order to make it meaningful because it's inconsistent with other parts of the ordinance unless those changes are made. I've got a point of information. My point of information is tied to if we are having, if solar, if the Haley Pike is ag, if the land that the state could allow to come through no matter what is in the ag, could that acreage not count towards this 1%? Even if we decide later on in this meeting to not move forward right now with large scale, and that's to the chair, to Dave, excuse me, Commissioner Barber. Well, the Haley Pike landfill is not ag land. It can't be farmed. It's not. So we could count it. It depends on what this language means and how it's written. I believe the 1% as written is not limited to ag, is it? Or is it? Well, it's just 1% of the entire. 1% is 1% of the total. Right, yeah. So we're using the total, the totality of Fayette County. And that's how you came up with a different, yeah, instead of being half of the amount of the 2%, it's the entirety. Yeah, okay. So basically how the language, what I'm saying is if we take 1% of totality of the 181,000 acres of Fayette County, 1% of that is 1,808 acres. Right. And that number in the agricultural area. So to answer your question, if you assume that the EKU gets finalized and goes forward, and we did the Hailey Pike one under this, I think those, if they were completed, they would count towards the 1,800 acre amount. Yes. And then you'd have 1,000 or whatever left to do it on. So, yeah. Commissioner, isn't Councilmember Hale's amendment to amend Councilmember Sheehan's motion to amend? It just simply takes it from 2% to 1%. No, I think that he has replaced the language and broadened the application of the 1%. Yes. The 2% was going to be limited to ag land, I think. Yes. And the 1% is the entirety of Fayette County. Oh. Yes. It's not limited to outside of the boundary. So if we're using Fayette County, so let's look at it as a formula. If we're using Fayette County as a formula, 1% of the totality of Fayette County, and if we use this as a formula, that's only 1,818 acres in the ag area. Well, now, wait a minute. What is your motion? Because I think the question is, is the 1%, you see what's struck out. Yes, so the reason I added the ag area, because if I don't, we're going to say 1% of the total of Fayette County, and that's going to include the urban area as well. It will include that in the number, and I don't want to include the urban area in that number. So you're correct, Mayor. So you're talking about no more than 1% of land outside the urban services boundary? No. This is not very clear. I'm sorry. Okay, so let me read the motion. Okay. No more than 1% of the total land of Fayette County can be used for large-scale, ground-mounted solar system in the agricultural area. Okay, so it's in the ag area. It is, but I think his intent should not use the ag area as the formula. Ag area is around 131,000. I think he wants to run the formula, the formula to come up with the acreage off of the entirety of Fayette County and apply that number just to the ag zone, I think is what you're trying to do. Is that right? That's exactly what I'm trying to do. Thank you. Okay, and that's why it's a totally different motion. Yes. I see. Okay, well we have a list of people who want to speak to the amendment. Vice Mayor Wu is next, and then Council Member Brown. Thank you, Mayor. Council Member Baxter, was your question to this amendment answered? Because if not, I could help clarify a little bit. No, not really. Okay. So right now, as it's written, it is not correct to say that there is no solar allowed in the ag zone. From my understanding, there's integrated SES and there's rooftop solar that's allowed in the different ag zones. Okay. Right? So we're not talking about small scale. We're not talking about any ground mounted. This is large scale. Barns have solar on their roofs. So the absent amendments made today, my understanding is section 314 prohibits all ground mounted SES in the ag zone. Yes. So the inconsistency potentially, if this gets done without cleaning that up, is you'll have one section that says or implies it's okay in the ag zone, and you'll have another that says you can't do it at all in the ag zones. Does that make sense? Yeah. And I think that's what Council Member Baxter was trying to point out. So we may have an issue of just these amendments coming a little bit out of order. It would need to be cleaned up if you all voted for something. That's fair. Thank you. And I had questions for Council Member Hale, but I think I got the formula cleared up. I think the word that we need to use, I don't know if it's in the language, but the 1% of all land in Fayette County, but only as applied to the ag zone. So that way we're not restricting the amount of land that can be used inside the urban service area for solar, correct? Yes. Thank you. Council Member Brown. Thank you, Mayor. And I guess I'm going to ask Council Member Sheehan the intent of the motion, the original motion. Understanding that we haven't had a discussion about conditional use here past what we have talked about in the committee, as I stated in my statement, this is to guide the Public Services Commission on how much they might approve of large-scale solar in the exempt categories, which is not a conditional use in our agricultural zones. We haven't had that discussion beyond the committee. So my intent is to guide the PSC so that we are capped at an amount. I'm in favor of this amendment to lower what was originally proposed, but it's to cap the amount for the PSC. Well, that kind of clears up, to me, the intent of the motion and the amendment. My question is to our Department of Law. If we approve this, I know the intent is to give guidance to the PSC, but it doesn't obligate us or the Board of Adjustment to consider applications for large-scale solar in the ag if it's not something that we approve and put in the ordinance. Did that question make sense? You're going to have to ask that a different way. So I'm inclined to support this amendment just because it could give guidance to the PSC when considering applications. But by approving this change, does it in any way obligate our Board of Adjustment or Planning Commission or anything to consider any large-scale, ground-mounted applications that come forward if we don't change the ordinance to allow it? I think you would need to make additional changes in order for the latter to happen. Does that make sense? Yes, it does. Okay. All right. Well, I'm clear. Thanks, Mayor. Thank you. Council Member Elwinger. Thank you, Mayor. I think I understand now. So we've got the original motion, then we've got the amendment that was brought that was voted down 4 to 6 in the committee originally. Is that that? That's bringing that one back. And then we have amendment that Council Member Hale brought. Is that correct? Is that a question? That is a question. So we didn't get to have the discussion on individual pieces of the original proposal. So at the full council level, we are allowed to discuss amendments with the full council. So I am bringing back the original language for a piece of what was originally proposed. That's what I'm asking. So that's the original language. That's my only question. And then he's making an amendment that the 1% to use as a baseline for 1,800 acres, and of that, then it can only be in the Ag Zone. And that's what we're talking about right now is the amendment on the amendment. I'm just trying to make sure I'm following the way that we're doing. So thank you, Mayor. Thank you. Council Member Sheehan, you were back on to speak. You're okay. Who else would like to speak on the amendment to the amendment? Council Member Curtis. Thank you, Mayor. So I'm going to be supporting this amendment, and I am going to be bringing amendments later. Again, we, I believe, have an obligation, even if as no more than a values statement, to make clear that we want responsible solar in Fayette County. And even though, as has been discussed, the PSC doesn't have to necessarily listen to us, we have the opportunity to engage in conversation or ignore it. And as Council Member Morton said, some of these projects are coming, whether we like them or not. And so I'm going to be in support of this amendment, and I hope that we can continue the conversation as today's work session goes on with that in mind, that we have been explicitly asked by the PSC to craft local ordinances to guide their decision-making as they consider projects that might apply to Fayette County. So thank you, Mayor. Thank you. Who else would like to speak to the amendment on the floor? Anyone? Council Member Boone. Thank you, Mayor. I guess I understand what the point is, I suppose, but if they don't have to listen to what we put into policy, then what's the point of putting it into policy, I guess? And they're going to do what they want to do anyway. We don't allow it at this moment. We're getting there, I don't know, in an hour or two hours, whenever we get there, but I guess I don't see the point of making policy without it having any weight for the intended user, I guess. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you. Does anyone else wish to speak to the amendment? Council Member Sheehan. The Public Services Commission, all the members, and the director of the Public Services Commission at the local government conference for Kentucky said last week, on the 13th, in a panel about solar, that they would like expectations set from the community. So this is the way we can set expectations for them of what we want to see here. So that's the point of this amendment and this conversation for me. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else? Council Member Curtis. And I would also like to add to that, that while we cannot necessarily determine whether or not the Public Services Commission approves or denies a project, if a project is approved within Fayette County, we can ask specific things of the people who are developing within Fayette County. So as we consider this conversation today, I would like us to also keep that angle in mind. Thank you. Anyone else? All right. All those in favor of the motion? I think we'll do an electronic vote, please. All right. That vote, will you put it up again? Oh, there it is. It's nine yes, five nay. That passes. All right. Now, any other discussion? So the motion on the floor, where's the Commissioner? It's basically changed. Yeah. So it's amended. Does anyone else wish to speak on the amendment to the original motion? And the amendment has been amended. Just saying where we are. No one wishes to speak to the amendment? All right. All those in favor, please log in. We'll do an electronic vote. All right. That motion passes 11-3. Now, the motion on the floor has been amended by Council Member Sheehan's motion. And I think that those of you who are on the monitor signed up to discuss the original motion. Are you still there or do you want to get off? The order was changed. I had signed it a second and there was a confusion. I walked out, but we weren't going to do the shift. The order was going to speak on the amendment. So I have three people signed up. What's the proper order, do you think? Curtis? Curtis. No. Okay. Council Member Curtis, then Council Member Savigny, then Vice Mayor Wu. I'm after Council Member Curtis. Okay. I'm not sure why this got messed up. Anybody know? Savigny should be third. All right. Council Member Curtis, Vice Mayor Wu, and then Council Member Savigny. Thank you, Mayor. With the consideration that we are crafting policy with this process in mind involving the PSC and that these projects are going to exist whether or not we make a vote at any point to allow for large-scale solar, there are some that the PSC will be moving forward with. I have an amendment language, and we have it put on the screen. This would be the first of two that I'm going to bring today, which would regard Section 31.6, which is the general requirements applicable to ground-mounted solar energy systems. I sent this to you all earlier today, but I understand that we have had a busy day, and you might not have had time to look over it, so I want to make sure that we can get it on the screen for folks to see. I'm going to move to amend Section 31.6 to include an additional item, Item H, to read as follows. For any large-scale SES located in an AR or AU zone, there shall be a vegetative cover requirement. An applicant shall provide to the directors of the Divisions of Planning, Building Inspection, and Environmental Services and the director's authorized agents of the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government a land management plan which shall be reviewed and updated, if appropriate, every five years at the same time as the review of the decommissioning plan. A land management plan shall include baseline soil conditions, periodic evaluation of soil conditions, pasture and other ground-cover composition, fertilization, pest control, livestock utilization, soil compaction minimization for staging areas, the decompaction and restoration of all temporary roads and installation staging areas, fencing and access control. The land management plan shall also include a description of the measures that will be taken to minimize erosion and sedimentation and to promptly stabilize and revegetate any disturbed areas with native vegetation. So moved. All right. Council Member Morton seconded. Now I'll start a new list. Who would like to speak to the amendment? Council Member LaGrieve and Council Member Baxter will start there. Thank you, Mayor. From my reading of the report out thus far, at this point large-scale SES is not permitted in the AR or AU zones. So I'm a little confused about why this is being brought forward as a subsidiary amendment. I'm not going to ask yet, but I will say, Council Member, that I appreciate this effort, the values you're sharing, and the attempt to address concerns about compaction, erosion, soil health, and the like. And when I hear what you're sharing, I also have questions about the enforcement and the processes involved with making sure that something like this is as successful as possible if it's going to be part of this legislation. I know that we have a work group that's meant to be planned, and I'm hoping that they could connect with planning, with building inspection, with environmental services to make sure that an amendment of this type would actually be enforceable and that it would meet the intended goals. So I do appreciate that this amendment's responsive to the memo from the Kentucky Resources Council, and I'd like to see the nuances of an amendment like this addressed within the work group. But I'm not going to be supportive at this time simply because my reading is that there's not large-scale solar in the AR or the AU from what's been reported out thus far. But again, I think that these are criteria that could be explored, especially when it comes to enforcement, in a future work group, so thanks for making it. But I won't be supportive, and not because I don't care about the values you've shared, but because I have questions about what this would mean functionally speaking. Thank you. Who else wants to speak to the amendment? Council Member Sheehan. Thank you, Mayor. I will be supporting this amendment for the reasons that I explained for offering the previous amendments to give guidance to the PSC. This language was based on the Kentucky Resources Council language, which we have been provided multiple times throughout all of these discussions over the last several months. So, again, I'll be supportive. it. Anyone else? All right. I would like to turn the Chair over to the Vice Mayor, and then I'm going to ask our Commissioner some questions. Okay. Go ahead, Mayor. Thank you, Mr. Vice Mayor. So this amendment is very vague. It has ideas, but it has no definite. So is the idea, and maybe Council Member Curtis, you could answer too, is the idea that if this passes, there would be an amount of work done to determine what a vegetative cover is, what all these things must be before a project could be approved, similar to zone change having conditions. Had you seen this before? I saw it maybe an hour ago. Okay. Is that what you understand? Because if the government doesn't determine the vegetative cover, it's a moot point, right? Would there be work done by the government internally to determine each of these? I think that is your intent, is it not? Is that the intent? Yes, ma'am. Okay. So if this passed, there would be quite a bit of work done to determine what the vegetative cover is, what each of these criteria, evaluation of the soil, fertilization, pest control, etc., etc., etc. And if this one passes, we would definitely have to clean things up to make it consistent, because this basically assumes you're going to have some sort of development. The way I read it, it assumes there would be development in those areas, and right now, unless it's amended further, your current version does not allow these outside in those areas. I don't know that it's really out of order, but it's going to be messy if you start passing some of this stuff without opening up that issue. May I speak to that a little bit? As chair of the GGP Committee, I'm going to ask Council Member Hershey a question just for clarification in this discussion. So the work group will be meeting regardless of any amendments made today to determine the policy regarding rural solar in Fayette County, correct? That is my intent, yes. Okay. So it's not dependent on certain things passing or not passing. So the idea here is to have something, even if it is not currently enforceable, to alleviate the concerns of so many community members, both as a value statement to the PSC, and to provide something in writing that protects the environment, that takes into consideration what is going to be done on the large-scale solar that we have already seen moving into the ag zones through the PSC. And in the event that we ever were to allow large-scale solar, that we would have a plan in place as defined here. And while this does create work for that work group, that work group is going to exist, they are going to have work to be done, and this seems to me to be a reasonable and intentional preventative measure. Even if the original motion does not pass? I'm sorry, can you? I think that was your point, Council Member LaGree, if the motion to put solar in the ag area does not pass, this is a moot point. Is that correct? I disagree. Well I mean. Because again, it's a value statement with the PSC. It is telling them that this is what we expect of them. And again, I think any questions about enforceability and definitions can be determined within the work group. Thank you. Chair is yours. Thank you. Now, did anybody else want to talk to the amendment, this particular amendment? Council Member LaGree. I have a follow-up question. I guess, why wouldn't we write like the best possible legislation that we could write, using the work group as the vehicle to craft that best possible legislation and make sure that we have guidelines that are enforceable, that then, you know, we can bring this back. We've done this with other pieces of legislation. So, you know, I guess my thought process is like, I would rather have the best possible legislation that we can put together using the Kentucky Resources Council model ordinance and the work of the work group and then amend the ZOTA at a later point to make sure that what we're doing is enforceable and is the best possible use case and function than to do something that, you know, even though values-wise may make sense for some of us, it might not be enforceable in the way that we want it to be. So, you know, I guess those are my questions and why I'm bringing up the work group and how I'm thinking about what their work could possibly be. Thank you. Thank you. Does anyone else wish to speak to the... I just... Well, Council Member Curtis. Okay. I was just going to attempt to answer the question very quickly, which was that this leaves us open in the meantime to apply this legislation to anything that comes before the PSC. All right. Thank you. Anyone else? Council Member Brown. Thank you, Mayor, and thank you, Council Member Curtis, for the motion. And I do see where this is, you know, potential guidance for PSC, and I was comfortable with the first amendment and the amendment to that amendment just to set parameters on the amount of land that we're seeking. I think this right here is getting just a little deeper into the details, and I do think that it would be something valuable for the work group to work on and come back with recommendations. So I wouldn't be supporting this right now, but I do appreciate the intent. Thank you. Thank you, Mayor. Anyone else to speak to the amendment? All right. Let's take the electronic vote on this particular amendment. All right. That motion passes eight to six. Thank you. So we have the original motion as amended by Council Member Hale's amendment, and now we have this amendment, which just adds to the motion, basically. Does everybody kind of get that? All right. Thank you. Thank you, all right. Let's discuss that motion then that's on the floor that was... Well, no, we have the original motion that Council Member Sheehan made that's been amended twice by vote, okay? Yeah. It's down to one percent, and it's got this latest amendment in it. The original motion was not voted on. It was not voted on. We're still amending it. We're still amending the original motion. Now, are there any other amendments? Right here. Okay. Let's go now. Does everybody understand what's on the floor? Yes. It's Council Member Sheehan's original motion, which has been amended by vote twice. It's got a one percent in it from Council Member Hale, and it has the parameters that you've just approved for other things that would be considered. Now, Council Member Curtis, you're still on. You spoke already. Let's hear from Vice Mayor Wood. Thank you, Mayor. I am making an amendment to the original motion. In Section 31.4, I move to change in AR, AB, AN, and AU zones, both small-scale and intermediate-scale, to accessory use. So moved. Is there a second? Second. All right. Let's have some discussion. Can you put that up, please, for those who haven't seen it? Yeah. So I can repeat the motion. In Section 31.4, I move to change in the AR, AB, AN, and AU zones, both small-scale and intermediate-scale, to accessory use. So if you look on this chart, next to last two rows, where it says small-scale and intermediate-scale, if you go to the very last column, that's the AR, AB, AN, and AU zones. Currently, they are Xed out, which means they are not permitted. And then the red line change with the letter A is the accessory use. So that's the motion that I'm making, is I'm making them allowable as accessory uses in those zones for small and intermediate-scale. All right. Council Member, I think Council Member Baxter, you had your hand up. Yes, ma'am. Speak to this amendment. Thank you. I just want to, for clarification, I just want to make sure that we are, that intermediate-scale is currently at up to five acres, correct? Okay. So I would like to make an amendment on the intermediate-scale to not, to change it to be from an accessory use to conditional use. Second. All right. We have a motion by Council Member Baxter, second by Council Member Brown, to change the intermediate-scale in the AR, AB, AN, and AU to conditional use instead of accessory. And does everybody understand the difference? I think you do. Conditional use would have to go before the Board of Adjustment, correct? And accessory would be allowed by, just allowed. Okay. Let's have discussion on this amendment. Any discussion? Council Member Savigny. Thank you, Mayor. This is something that I considered as well. So I did consider conditional uses in this. When we originally proposed it to the committee, we put it as accessory, or I put it as accessory units, or accessory use. And my rationale was strictly this. I don't think five acres, I don't necessarily want for five acres on a hundred acre farm for this level of a crowd to come and speak to something when it really doesn't affect many people. But we will get this groundswell for a farmer who wants to do something with their property that is good, that is helping him with his business, is supporting his business, and we make them have to jump through hoops. So I'm not super supportive of the conditional use piece because I think it's a level that will discourage versus encourage. So, thank you. Does anyone else, Vice Mayor Wood, do you want to speak to the amendment? Yes, Mayor. I think for me there are a lot of different reasons that we should be doing solar. And I think the difference between accessory and conditional is barriers. Accessory means you can do it by right. And I want to be very clear, nobody is going on to somebody else's farm property and forcing them to put solar or do anything with their own land. This is people choosing to do this with their own land. And so there's an issue of, in my mind, property rights and what people should be allowed to do on their own land. The other part is when you move it from accessory to conditional, you're putting it before a decision-making body like the BOA. And we've seen in the past that some of these decisions made by appointed bodies can be very hit and miss and can be very much dependent on who those members are and how they're feeling at the time. And there are often a lot of inconsistencies that happen at that level. So to me that is yet another barrier. That if you are a land owner and you want to do a couple of acres of solar on your own land, but you've seen the results of what's happened at some BOA meetings and people are getting turned down, you may not be very much encouraged to do something that you choose to do on an intermediate scale on your own land. So I will not be supporting this motion. I believe accessory use is the right approach. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else? Council Member Morton. So I guess I just want to be crystal clear for public transparency. I know we're talking about that amendment to be a conditional use, but I know we have two items that are within this. It's the small scale and the intermediate use. So first, and this could be to Vice Mayor Wu, so the systems, and this is for small scale, the system is for private use, correct? In the small scale. Private property use standpoint for the small scale. I think on either scale it's up to the property owner what they want to install on their property. Okay. And that energy is not sold back to the grid. That's more so mainly just for their use on private property, correct? I don't believe when we're looking at it this way with smaller intermediate that we're dictating how they use their energy. Okay. I know Council Member Sheehan was going to hop in there. Yes, ma'am. I just saw your hand raised. I didn't know if you wanted to say. Okay. Cool. All right. I appreciate it. Thank you. Others who want to comment on the amendment? Well, again, I would like the Vice Mayor to take the chair. I was going to comment. Oh, okay. You go ahead first. I just have a question. Thank you, Mayor. Can anybody from our department answer the question about intermediate if it's a commercial use or is it just personal any time that's implemented? Yeah. Yeah. Is there a commercial application or is it just a personal private application for intermediate? I was going to call you out if you didn't pop up. Good afternoon, everyone. Daniel Crum, Planning Staff. So the concept of whether or not this is personal use or for a commercial purpose, really we're looking at the size and the scale of the installation. So once you're connected to the grid, even at a small scale, on a residential level, if you're generating power, some of that excess, even on a normal residential level, gets sold back to the utility company, to the grid. So whether or not it's enough to just sustain only on-site and you never sell back or you're consistently doing that, it's really hard to legislate. So the intermediate, or the way that we have this set up, is based solely on the size of the panel. And generally speaking, a small scale probably is not enough to make a real bump and be sold back often, but really it's just a way to look at the size and the scope of it. So it's all private property, it's all using whatever power they need on hand, and then excess is sold to the grid. Okay. Well, so the other thing I'll say, so I appreciate that answer, and I do get Council Member Savigne's point, but I do think that we're talking about these installations in an ag area which is uncharted territory. So I just feel more comfortable supporting a conditional use just so our community can have the conversation about what is appropriate in that zone. And then if we're putting a work group together, that could be something that they weigh in on. They could say that the applications that we imagine from stakeholders, feedback that's going to come in, maybe that should be an allowable use and not conditional use. So just moving forward, I feel more comfortable supporting it as a conditional use intermediate. So thank you. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you. Council Member Lagree. Council Member Sheehan. Thank you, Mayor. I also want to see more solar, which I think I have made evident, so I'm not going to support a conditional use here. I feel like, you know, Hallway Feeds has a solar installation right beside their business that powers their business. It is one and a half acres. So right now we would say that they could put it in, but then if a farm business out in an ag zone wants to do that exact same installation, they would have to go to a conditional use process. So I would like to see those be more equal. Thank you. All right. Council Member Boone. Thank you, Mayor. I can't support the accessory and will support conditional use for the main reason of, you know, we're talking about not a small piece of property, whether it's 5, 10, 100-acre farm. It has neighbors. There's no talk about buffers from neighbors. There's no talk about who's surrounding where the said solar farm would be. So I think having the engagement with another body, i.e., the public and or the Board of Adjustments, would give that kind of justification of where and what it would look like. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you. Anyone else? Council Member Curtis. Thank you, Mayor. I appreciate this discussion about the conditional use permit, and I think it's one that we should be having. I'm not going to support this amendment right now, speaking from the perspective of somebody who grew up on my family's farm and supports the rights of individual property owners to do with their property what they want. In the same way, I appreciate Council Member Boone's point about neighbors, but at the same time, when we allow folks to put solar on their rooftops, the neighbors don't get to come and complain that they're ugly. And I don't think that we should be applying different logic here than we would apply to a scenario like that. So thank you. Thank you. Does anyone else want to speak to the amendment? Council Member Baxter. Thank you, Mayor. And I do appreciate the discussion around this. My amendment was simply to bridge the gap between what was recommended from the Planning Commission and what was proposed as an amendment, the original amendment. It was just in the sense of compromise. So I'd appreciate support. Thank you. Okay. Anyone else? All right. Will you restate the amendment, please? Oh, here it is. And so, wait, this is not it. That's the accessory. So, Council Member Baxter, will you restate it? Yes, ma'am. I move to amend the intermediate scale ground-mounted solar to a conditional use permit. So moved. Okay. Thank you for that clarification. All those in favor of the amendment, does anybody else want to speak before we do this? Please log in if you're in favor or not. All right. That motion passes eight to six. Now, Council Member Savigny. Okay, there are currently no motions on the floor. Oh, yours was amended. Yeah. So, will you go restate it, please? Yeah. So, and anybody, please correct me if I'm wrong. This is my motion as amended by Council Member Baxter is to amend the AR, AB, AN, and AU zones for small scale to accessory use and intermediate scale to conditional use. Thank you. Thank you. And small scale is up to five acres? Is that correct? Okay. Okay, thank you. Any discussion on this amendment? Council Member Morton. Thank you. I didn't speak at the last one, but I'll speak to it right now. It's the same thing. As all knows, I am a strong proponent for community input. That's why I was more inclined to support the conditional use permit rather than accessory use so that we can lay out, one, get the input from the surrounding communities, from neighbors, lay out the strengths and concerns from the community's concerns, and then also make sure that we're making wise decisions through a process. So, with that being said, I appreciate the amendment, and I look forward to supporting this. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else? All right. All those in favor of the amendment, say aye. Aye. Well, let's do electronic. Sorry. We'll be consistent here. I need one more vote. We have 13 showing. All right. That motion passes. Now we're back to the original motion as amended a few times. That was the amendment. That was the amendment. Now we are, I believe, back to the original motion as amended multiple times. So who would like to speak on the current motion on the floor? Okay. Yes. You have percolated to the top. Wow, it's percolated to the top. Yes. So what I, I've discussed this with many of you that I find it a bit of an oversight by the Planning Staffing Commission, that ground mounted small scale solar in residential zones of up to 2,500 square feet can be placed on the ground in a single family dwelling in a neighborhood. I believe that the location of solar on the ground is only, is going to have a huge impact on neighbors. They're going to have to put it wherever the trees aren't, and it may be right next to a neighbor who probably isn't going to be super excited about it. So therefore, I move that on the table on 31.4 on ground mounted small scale in residential zones to change the language from small scale accessory use to a conditional use permit. So moved. All right. Just to clarify, this is? Residential. Residential only. Small scale. Residential only. Yeah. Yeah. Ground mounted. All right. Small scale. But businesses are not included in your motion. They are not. This is, those are all residential zones. All right. Who would like to discuss this amendment? Council Member Morton and Council Member Baxter. I appreciate Council Member Savigny for bringing this amendment forward. I actually agree with him. I don't, I can't understand why it would be accessory use in urban or in small scale when you have a lot more neighbors and you're a little bit more closer, less acreage, all these different things. So I agree with everything that Council Member Savigny just said, and I think that that was probably just a mistake. So thank you. And I'll support the amendment. Thank you, Council Member Baxter. Thank you, Mayor. And thank you, Council Member Savigny. I will be agreeing with you on this one. Does anyone else wish to speak? Vice Mayor Wu. Thank you, Mayor. We've heard a lot said about all the reasons that we shouldn't do solar in the ag zone. And the alternative that's been put up by a lot of folks is we should do it inside our urban areas, inside our urban service area, on rooftops, on parking lots, whatever it is, just not in the ag zone. But then if we make something like this small scale, if we're taking away options from homeowners on what they can do as an accessory use and putting it, once again, same argument as before from me, putting it back in the hands of appointed decision makers who can decide one way or the other. And we've seen this happen in other cases as it relates to short-term rentals, for example. I think if we had to ask permission from our neighbor to do everything that we wanted to do on our property, my educated guess is that we would no longer be allowed to do hardly anything on our property. And that's a real problem for me when it comes to not only things like solar, but also things like housing. It's a very uncomfortable conversation to have because the people that often come to us at the podium are saying, I am comfortable in my life, in my neighborhood, in my situation, and this thing that's about to be proposed bothers me in one way or the other, and so I don't want it. And so we have this very polar preservation versus growth or development or something new. So the thing that I'm trying to preserve that I already have is going to be impacted negatively by this thing that's being proposed. And so I have a problem with moving in this direction into conditional use because I think, again, I'm going to go also back to property owners' rights. And I would be curious to hear from my colleagues, too. What is the biggest objection? If you could visualize your neighbor putting a ground-mounted solar panel on their property and they're choosing to do it, I would assume, because I'm thinking about my house, if I could choose to put it on my roof, I would. That's the least bothersome. I don't have to look at it all day. I don't have to mow around it. But let's say I couldn't because I have trees all over my roof and I have a big sunny spot in my backyard, and that's where I want to do it. I'm trying to figure out what is the rationale and the argument for my neighbor, or if I flip it, let's say I'm the neighbor. What is it about that ground-mounted solar panel? And this is in somebody's house. This is not obviously large-scale. This is a couple of panels. What is it about what my neighbor is doing right now that bothers me enough for me to say, I don't want you to do it on your property for whatever reason you're doing it, to power yourself because you care about the environment, whatever it is. That's my question. And if I don't have good rationale for that, I don't think we need to be telling our neighbors what to do on their own property. Thank you. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Now, who else wants to speak to the motion? All right. All right. Can we put the motion up, or do you want to restate the motion, Council Member Savigny, since everyone hasn't seen it? Just restate it, please. Yeah, I'll just restate. My motion is to change small-scale residential solar from an accessory use to a conditional use permit. All right. Please let's vote electronically. All those in favor? And opposed? All right. That motion passes 9-5. Now, next in line is Council Member Lynch. We have the main motion as amended many times. Thank you, Mayor. Since we have stated that we want to have some conditional uses, I think we need to give a framework to our Board of Adjustment as to how to deal with the conditional uses. So I move to add in Section 31-7 as originally presented at the July 1st General Government and Planning Committee meeting that gives conditional use permit application requirements. All right. Council Member Curtis seconds that. Our staff has the language that they can put on the screen. If you have not looked at 31-7, that was originally presented in the GGP meeting on July 1st. Okay. I would like to ask our staff, please, someone to work through this so those who haven't seen it know what it is. These are the guidelines that would be given to the Board of Adjustment. Can you give us a summary, please? Have you seen it before? I'm looking back at our staff. I'll ask him to hold off. These were included in the package you left first. So do you want to summarize it for the public who are watching and those who have not seen it? We can read it. So in Paragraph 1, it stipulates what the applicant has to provide, name, address, telephone number on their application, the project owner, project operator. Paragraph 2, the address of the property, where the solar panels will be located, property owners, contact information, documentation for that property, such as a deed, lease, or other agreement with the landowner, demonstrating the applicant's right to use and control that property. Paragraph 4, a topographic map that depicts the vegetative cover, watersheds, floodplains, geographic information, and the property surrounding the area. Paragraph 5, a conceptual design of the project. It needs to be included, that includes the number of modules, mounting type, system height, system capacity, installation method, total land area covered, information about associated structures and facilities. Paragraph 6 talks about a conceptual site plan that needs to be included with the application that depicts property lines, zoning classifications, all adjacent properties, existing buildings, proposed structures, transmission lines, and any other associated structures, etc. Paragraph 7, a screening plan demonstrating how the use is proposed to be visually buffered. The plan should include renderings of the proposal from all adjoining rights-of-way, as well as adjoining residential uses. Additional buffering that may be required by the Board of Adjustment. And then Paragraph 8 is a map from the Natural Resources Conservation Service identifying prime farmland, farmland of statewide importance, documentation from the Fish and Wildlife necessary as well. Paragraph 9, proof of adequate casualty and liability insurance. Paragraph 10, for conditional use permits within an agricultural zone, the Board should consider the impact of the proposal on the existing soil and topography as well. Paragraph 11, whether an applicant for a conditional use permit is seeking a construction certification, they'll be done pursuant to state law. That's just a summary. But all of this is included in the July 1st general government planning packet when this was initially proposed. Thank you for going over that. Now, is there any discussion about the motion? Council Member Curtis, then Council Member Reynolds, then Council Member Savigny. Council Member Curtis. Thank you, Mayor. I hate to be that person, but I do have a slight amendment to the motion to put forward. So that language I passed along as well earlier today. It's just a slight addition. So I move to amend Section 31-7, subsection A, item 10, to read as follows. For conditional use permits for SES within an agricultural zone, the Board shall consider the impact of the proposal on the existing soils and topography as well as the compatibility of the proposed SES with agricultural use of the land. So moved. All right. Who would like to speak to this amendment only? Anyone? Council Member Brown. Thank you, Mayor. I think this is another one that I appreciate the intent, but I think it's so detailed that it could be something that the work group can weigh into. I think it's taking us further down the road than I'm comfortable going, so I won't be supporting it. Thank you. Thank you. Who else would like to speak to it? Council Member Savigny. Thank you, Mayor. This and the original and the amended are actually all from, I keep forgetting their names, the Kentucky Resources Council. So these are both there in that document. And this one we originally did not include, but since we have kind of included some wording in the definition area, I think that this is a good addition. I do think it was very well vetted by the Kentucky Resources Council. They've had like three versions of their document, and this is in their final versions. So I'm going to support this and the original motion. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else wish to speak to this amendment? All right. Council Member Curtis. Yeah, just real quick, I want to add that, again, this is language from the Kentucky Resources Council, and it's just intended to bring our conditions for the applications for a conditional use permit further in line with that and to further state our values that we prioritize the preservation of our agricultural land. Thank you. Anyone else? All right. All those in favor of the amendment to the amendment say aye. Well, let's keep doing electronic. It's safer. All right. That passes 8-6. Now we have the amendment, and this is Council Member Savigne's amendment? Council Member Lynch's amendment. Any more discussion? Council Member Sheehan. Thank you, Mayor. I will be supporting this amendment. As we have experienced with the short-term rental applications for conditional use with the Board of Adjustment, it is important for us to give clear guidance for what should be considered as a part of those hearings, and this list of items are documents provided for that application that then the Board of Adjustment can review, and we have shown are important by putting them in this list. So because we just approved the amendment to make intermediate scale in the ag areas conditional use and we have other conditional use items like in the business and industrial areas, I think it is important for us to have this language, too. Thank you. We have Council Member Reynolds, Council Member Morton, and anybody else who wants to speak? Thank you, Mayor. I want to thank my colleagues for working so hard on this and all the detail. I know that you all are super passionate about this issue, and I really do appreciate it, and I think even though all of us kind of follow different places, I understand your concern and your work and why you're bringing this forward. That being said, I can't support this amendment, and what I would love is to see it go to the work group, to be able to dive into it a little bit more, and I know that these are recommendations. However, I guess I'm a little bit frustrated that we didn't do all of this in committee, that there wasn't a work group set up previously to bring all these things forward, to bring them to the committee members, and then pass them out of committee. Yes, we can do this here and now. That's fine. But it really is work that should be done in committee, and so I will not support this. I wish the work group was set up previously, but since it is going to be set up going forward, I think this is something that would be great in that work group. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Morton. Thank you. I actually have an amendment to that amendment, and our staff has the language, and I sent this out a couple of hours ago. I'll read the amendment, and then I'll talk just a little bit about it to answer some questions that may come before they come. So the first one is going to be, I move to amend Section 31-7 to include a 12th requirement, which reads as the following. Section 31-7A, 12, for conditional use permits for large-scale SES, the Board of Adjustments shall acknowledge the impact of the proposal and benefits it may have on the community, including any community benefit plan in place. One, the applicant may enter into a community benefit plan with the city or one or more community-based organizations within Lexington-fed Urban County Government. Two, the amount suggested for the CBP is $750 per megawatt sold annually for 15 years. Three, the community benefits plan shall prioritize alleviating energy costs to low-income households. So moved. Second. And just a little conversation about that. So why do we need this? I believe that all large developments, especially those that get a return on investment, should come with a reinvestment back into our community. In this case, my amendment tied to solar for this case, but like I said, I believe it should be for all cases of development. But in this case, my amendment tied to solar, we know that in certain cases, depending on the plan for those folks, direct investment is kind of broad, and it's not in the micro scale, whereas in this case, you can see direct investment to our community, to our neighbors. Two, the purpose. The purpose is only for large-scale solar energy systems. The investment could go to the city. For instance, Solarize Lexa is not funded right now. Could it be investment into it? Or it could go to other community organizations that are within the surrounding community where this investment may come. And then reinvesting back into the mission of solar is important, and that's why this is presented in number three. But for our most vulnerable communities, they should be able to have access to benefits of solar. They should be able to reap some benefits. And then I would say this is not a requirement. This is just a suggestion. This is a recommendation. So with that being said, that is the motion, and that is my intent behind it. Thank you. Council Member Reynolds. Thank you, Mayor. Council Member Morton, I really appreciate, and when I talk to you about this, your intent and spirit behind it, and I think it's great that we're looking at the possibility of being able to link this to something in Lexington that would benefit our constituents. So I really appreciate that. But same as the previous item, I will not be able to support it, and I recommend that it goes to the work group. Thank you. Thank you. Vice Mayor Wu. Thank you, Mayor. Council Member Morton, in this amendment, how do you define community? How do I define community? And not in a larger sort of abstract sense, but kind of when you talk about, you know, we're talking about monetary potential benefits given back to the community. So how do you define community? So it's in two, well, excuse me, in one, it highlights either to the city and or just to community-based organizations. So that would be at the discretion of the applicant, I would say. Okay. So it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with proximity or what's directly around them? Not at all. It can be any other organizations? At the discretion of the applicant. Okay. And I want to make sure in our ordinance language, like language is important. So in 12, you say the Board of Adjustments shall acknowledge, and that's kind of a mandate for them to acknowledge it. And then in item I, it says the applicant may enter, which means when you use the word may, it also means they may not. Correct. So the board shall acknowledge the impact of the proposal. That's just acknowledging the impact. And benefits it may have on the community, including community benefits plan. So basically saying if this applicant decided that they want to bring a community benefit plan forward, they can, and that can be acknowledged by the board. Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Does anyone else wish to speak? Council Member Legree. Thank you, Mayor. Council Member Morton, I appreciate the value system that you're sharing here and honestly the creativity when it comes to the idea of bringing more resources back into the community. I have a number of questions, as a couple of my colleagues shared, and as Council Member Reynolds said, I would like to see if we were to pursue something like this, a little more clarity on what does that mean in practice, like shall acknowledge or the applicant may enter into a community benefit plan. I think it would be interesting to try to work that out. I know that you may be on the work group, and I would like to have a little bit more information about what this would look like in practice because I have some questions about what enforcement or what the practice of this would look like. So I won't be supporting it now, but that doesn't mean that I don't appreciate the intention and see some potential in the future with this type of thought process. Thank you. Council Member Sheehan is next. Yeah, and then I'll get back to you. Thank you, Mayor. Council Member Morton, I know that you worked on this pretty hard to craft this language, and I appreciate that at this point it's optional. I'm very open to then building a template for what this can look like that we can suggest, but being that it's optional, I'm very comfortable with moving forward with this language for the benefit of the community. So thank you. All right. Did you wish to speak again? Yes. Yes, please. Council Member Moore. So, yeah, as stated, it is optional. No enforcement needed because it's optional right now. I forgot to add in my comment earlier that following this whole discussion and council reports, I will be putting in committee community benefits agreement to look at in totality across the board. So after that work is done, legislative act is done, we may be able to come back and make it, rather than just a plan, an agreement binding. So this is not binding. No enforcement needed. It's all good faith measures from applicants. That's it. That's all. Does anyone else wish to speak to the amendment? Council Member Brown. Thank you, Mayor. And I'll just briefly just say, you know, thank you, Council Member Morton, on your work on this. And I'm very supportive of this. I think it's a good way to get community buy-in and help supplement some of the good work that folks are doing. I'm not going to support it just because of where it's attached in this. I think it could be part of the further workgroup conversation. But, you know, if it passes, it goes. But if it fails, I would reintroduce it to this amendment. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you. Does anyone else want to speak to the amendment? All right. Let's log in. And please register your vote for this amendment or oppose to it. All right. That amendment passes 8-6. Now, let's see. Where are we? You have Council Member Lynch's original motion has been amended. And that is where we are on her amendment. Does everybody remember what it is? I can re-state it, Mayor, if I need to. Is there any other discussion on Council Member Lynch's amendment, which has been amended? All right. Let's go back into our electronic voting, please. All those in favor, log in. All those opposed? All right. That motion passes 9-5. Now, are there any other motions to amend? Or can we go to the original motion, which has been amended maybe six times, seven times? Who knows? If you're on the speaking list, are you speaking to the original motion as amended? You have another motion to amend? All right. Go right ahead. Actually, I probably don't have an amendment exactly. But this would have been the time that if we were going to make an amendment for large-scale solar in the ag zone, that we would have done it. You guys have done a great job. Your testimony was wonderful. It was great. But we don't, in politics, sometimes if you don't have the votes, you can't move forward. So even though we only have 5,000 acres of industrial land, we have 128,000 acres of farmland, we have people willing to make $800 million investments in our community. We don't have the votes. Because there are things that need to be worked out in this work group. I can promise you that the work group is happening. We are going to move through the work group with some very, like, important information. We're going to try to make sure that we build a larger consensus in our group. But currently we don't have that consensus. So at times like this, you put things in a work group, and you work very diligently, and you bring aspects and you bring people in that have different opinions, and you try to come to some common conclusion. So I just wanted to share with you, your efforts have been greatly appreciated. The work is not done in that one area, but we will continue to work on it. That's all I have, Mayor. Thank you. Who else would like to speak to the motion on the floor as amended? Council Member Sheehan. Thank you, Mayor. Because of our approval of the accessory use language for small scale, I have a concern about the way the accessory use is written in the original. So I have a suggestion. We were having this discussion, so I didn't send it out before. But this is the language that we had originally proposed in GGP. If accessory use was going to move forward for some of the ground mounted, because as it's written would be just the black text, the ground mounted SES may only qualify as accessory use if the total area of the system is less than 50% of the floor area of the principal structures of the lot. And that's typically what we see for accessory uses in our residential areas. So I have a kind of addendum here that is different for the agricultural zone that is not based on the principal structure, but based on the property and the size of the property. So I would like to make this amendment because we have approved the small scale language for the ground mounted solar in the ag areas. So moved. Council Member Curtis seconded. Now we'll discuss this amendment. We have Council Member Savigny. Who else will want to speak to it? Vice Mayor Wu. All right. Go ahead. Thank you, Mayor. And thank you, Council Member Sheehan, for this. This also is in regard to, oh, yeah, since it's only accessory use, it's only about the 2,500 square foot, the small one. Originally it was if the original intermediate had passed five acres was the max, but that if you had a five acre agricultural lot, you would only be able to do two and a half acres. But that has since been taken out. So just a point of clarification. Thank you. I'm supporting this. Vice Mayor Wu. Thank you, Mayor. And just to clarify for my own slightly addled brain at this point, you're basically just clarifying the language because in the urban zones, we base that percentage on the principal structures. And in the ag zones, there may or may not be a principal structure. We're just looking at the land in totality. So it's just a little tweak of the language so that it applies more appropriately to ag land, right? Correct. Okay. Thank you. Does anyone else wish to speak to the amendment? All right. Let's do the digital vote, please. All right. That passes 14-0. Now we're back to the original motion as amended many times. Does anyone wish to speak? This is the original motion as amended all these different times. Council Member Savigny. Thank you, Mayor. And I just want to add a few more things that this is hard work. A lot of the things that you saw today were all proposed in the GGP meeting. Sometimes people, we can use procedures to cut off discussion, and that's what happened in the GGP meeting. So that's why we're going back through all of these. So I just want our council to understand that we would have had this discussion if we were allowed to have the discussion, but we weren't. So we had it today, and the council has spoken. Thank you. Okay. This is speaking to the original motion as amended. Council Member Sheehan. I want to say thank you to my colleagues for all of the reading, all of the meetings that we've had around this issue. I know we still have one piece of this to be tackled in a work group, and we intend to do that. So the conversation will still move forward, and we'll bring in stakeholders that are experts in solar, that are also experts in ag, to have that conversation. But I do want to particularly thank Council Member Savigny for all the work that he has done on this. I have enjoyed working with you. But I do obviously plan to support the underlying motion. I also want to thank the community members who have come to give us their feedback because, again, while we see all different sides of this issue, a lot of wonderful points were made and things for us to consider, and I will be taking this feedback that we have heard into the work group as well. So thank you. Thank you. Does anyone else wish to speak to the motion? Council Member Elling? Yes, thank you, Mary. Actually, we could have taken up all these issues in the committee. I made a motion to amend, but all that did was open up the discussion. All these could have been done. The same thing could have been done at that meeting. There was never a call for the question. That means that you stopped debate. So all this could have been done in the meeting. So to make that statement is not a fair statement. I've been doing this for 20 years. All I did was make a motion to put this on committee, and that's what you do. Then you discuss the committee motions. Then you make amendments like we did today in committee. We could have done that in committee, and the discussion was never stopped. So to make that statement is completely false. Council Member Morton? Thank you. I think this is a perfect segue to sum it up. It's been 6-26. We've been having lively, great discussions. Like I said earlier, this is not one side versus the other. This is not any of that. This is coming to a common ground, moving our city forward, looking at our values of our city, and figuring out the best way as legislators to move forward. First and foremost, I want to thank the community members on both sides for coming out, giving their concerns, giving their thoughts, giving their emphasis, because it truly is important. I think even through the day, while there's many different votes, you've seen some unanimous, some right divided down the line. And that's exactly what this is supposed to be. This shouldn't be a procedural chamber. We shouldn't be having unanimous votes every time. We should have live discussions. We should really think deep. We should work hard. And that's exactly what's been done with these items. So I will give credit to Council Member Sabigny, Council Member Sheehan. They have been busting their tails on this item. No kidding, busting their tails. And, you know, with some help, with some support, without support sometimes. They've pushed this through. And even within that one amendment I made, I leaned on them for help for that because I couldn't receive help. So I think it's just important to realize that there's work still to be done. And I don't think it's a matter of when. It's just a matter of if. Excuse me, I don't think it's a matter of if. It's just a matter of when we will see solar across the board. So I look forward to being part of the working group. I look forward to still listening to both sides and moving forward with what's best for our city. So a shout out, like I said, to Council Member Sabigny, Council Member Sheehan for their hard work on this. Shout out to all the Council Members that have listened and made intentional and logical decisions based on their position, based on community input, and just based on their values. And I look forward to finishing the discussion down the line. So thank you. Council Member Curtis, the motion on the floor, are you going to speak to that? Okay, thank you. So I will be supporting this motion today. And I just wanted to express my gratitude to everybody here for engaging with this in good faith. I've listened to so many folks, whether it's been framed by some people as an us-versus-them situation. We all want to see our land here in Fayette County protected. We all want to see a sustainable future for our city here in Lexington. And even though we have different opinions on how we get there and we have different experiences with procedure, I really do appreciate the way that our stakeholders, our community, and my colleagues have come and engaged in conversations where we can disagree without being disagreeable, because Lord knows these conversations can be uncomfortable. I also would be remiss if I did not go on and state my appreciation for the engagement of organized labor on this. And their presence in the room speaks volumes to the substance of these amendments, I think. And so I plan to support this. I encourage my colleagues to as well. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you. Vice Mayor Wu to the motion. Thank you, Mayor. I also wanted to thank the folks in the room, whether or not we agree. I think this is exactly what democracy looks like. So I appreciate you all being here speaking and supporting your positions. And for better or worse, what you witnessed tonight in the last hour or two is also what democracy looks like. It's a little bit messy. It's a little bit hairy. It gets confusing. It gets convoluted. But I think that's how we move forward. I appreciated Councilmember Savigny's really kind of transparent and to some extent vulnerable remarks about sometimes why we do things. Sometimes we do things because we don't have the votes, because those of us on a particular side of an issue know that we can't get across the finish line. So we try to find another way to do it, because ultimately we want to get there. I am not one to, quote, unquote, stand on principle and bring something up knowing that it will fail, because that does harm to the issue and the topic itself. So we all try to be strategic and try to be smart about how to gain consensus, as difficult as it is. And in a larger picture sense, one of the things I love about my job is that we're doing what we have control over. There are a lot of things happening at the state and federal level that we have no control over. There was a Reuters article today that said the USDA is ending its solar and wind programs on farmlands right now. That applies very, very directly to what we're trying to do here. So we're trying to control what we can control for Fayette County. So I will be supporting this amendment. I look forward to the work of the work group and hope we can move forward. And I thank all of you all for being here. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you. Does anyone else wish to speak to the motion? All right. We'll take an electronic vote. This is the final motion as amended, many times which I hope someone has written down and recorded. All right. That motion passes 14-0. That is the end of this issue, as far as I know. Is that the end of your report? All right. Thank you very much. We're going to go back to our agenda. And the next thing is council reports. Council Member Morton. I just have one report. I'll wait until it calms down a little bit. Council Member Morton, are you? Just to allow the folks to get out of the room. All right. Cool. I think every time I get ready to go, I just hear voices. Go ahead. So I just got one motion. I move to put a community benefits agreement into the BFA committee. So moved. Second. All right. We have a motion on a second. Any discussion on that motion? Council Member Reynolds. Do you prefer it there than in the work group? Is that what you're saying? Yeah. Yeah. Correct. And I can give a little context, if you like. So this is not just tied to just SOLA. This is across the board. So I believe it needs to have full discussion. Work with our legal department across the board to come up with legislation for it. So while it can be discussed in the working group, it's not just pertinent to the working group. Okay. Thank you for that clarification. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Any other discussion on this motion? All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? That motion passes. Anything else, Council Member? All right. Council Member Reynolds. Thank you, Vice Mayor. I wanted to mention that I have a new intern. And her name is Ilya Foss. And she is at UK. And she majors in international studies and minors in music theory. And she's very enthusiastic. And she was here earlier, but obviously the meeting went a little long. So she's left by now. So hopefully she'll still see this. But if you see her, she'll be in a few days a week. Please say hi. Then I just wanted to make sure that everybody knew that this Saturday is the grand opening of Gatton Park on Town Branch. And it is at 12 p.m. And I hope all of my colleagues will be there. And that you invite your constituents. It's open to the public. There will be a ceremony at 12. And then from 1 until late there will be live music, dancing. There's going to be a guy on stilts. And all kinds of activities for children. So I hope everybody will come out. It is an epic celebration. So thank you. Council Member Beasley. Thank you, Mayor. First of all, thanks to all my labor union friends who showed up today. I appreciate that. Also, I would like to say congratulations to the community department of corrections and our fire department. They did the Special Olympics UPS truck pull this past Saturday and did an amazing job. And then I have one more thing and then we can go. I move to place Article VI of the Lexington-Fayette-Urban County Government Code of Ordinances relating to the contractors into the Budget, Finance, and Economic Development Committee for the purpose of comprehensive review of all the sections and then report back to council with any recommendations, amendments, or updates or any other actions deemed necessary. So moved. Council Member Morton seconds. Any discussion? Yes, we have a question. Council Member, can you repeat what you said the item pertains to? Yes, ma'am. Let me just read the whole thing again. No, no, no, no, no. Just what you named the part of the ordinance, the number, but what does it pertain to? Contractors. Contractors. That's what I didn't hear. I'm sorry. Thank you. Yes, ma'am. All right. Any other questions? All those in favor say aye. Aye. Is anyone opposed? All right. Thank you. Council Member Lynch. Thank you, Mayor. I have a few announcements for my District 2 neighbors and the community at large. This Thursday, Council Member Sheehan, Council Member Savigny, and myself, who all serve on the Commission for Veterans Affairs, are excited to be at the ribbon-cutting this Thursday for our new Veterans Unity Point at Kenwick Community Center for Veterans. So the community is invited to this ribbon-cutting on Thursday at noon. Please come out. There will be cake. Council Member Savigny will make sure of that. And we're excited to cut the ribbon on this new point of access for our veterans throughout our city. So please come out to the ribbon-cutting on Thursday, one and all. Also happening on Thursday, McConnell's Trace is having their Neighborhood Block Party from 5 to 8 p.m. They're in the neighborhood community center parking lot by the pool. So all of my McConnell's Trace neighbors, please come out. There's going to be food. There's going to be a DJ, I believe. There will be vendors as well. It should be a good time. So please come out to the Neighborhood Block Party as well. Happening this Sunday is the Farm to Faith Market hosted by Black Soil. It will be at First Baptist Church Bracktown. So please come out and do a little bit of your grocery shopping in the 2nd District. And then also on August 2015, talk will be happening at the Black and Williams Neighborhood Center. And I want to give a huge shout-out to Ray Thompson and Andrew King-Hampton, who are staffing our Black and Williams Gymnasium there, doing some phenomenal programming for the District 2 neighbors there. And also a big shout-out to Director Sanders, who is steering the ship over there. There's some exciting things happening at the gymnasium. So please come out to Team Talk. And then lastly, I would just like to thank all the neighbors that have emailed us, that have called us, that have come to speak today about solar farming. I appreciate all of your input. And as my colleagues have said, this is only the first step on our journey, and so please continue to stay engaged because we saw some awesome things happen today because you were engaged. So please continue to engage on this topic and others. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Council Member Boone. Thank you, Mayor. I want to say thank you to all my colleagues for the productive discussion today, and thank all the residents for coming out to share their input. I know they all left, but I look forward to serving on the work group and giving this item the time that it clearly needs. So I appreciate it. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you. Council Member Morton. Yes, and thank you, Mayor, for the reminder. Thursday at 5.30 p.m. in Douglas Park, in the heart of the city, in the West End, starting at 5.30, there will be the ribbon-cutting for the new Douglas Pool Aquatic Center, and that will be amazing for the Northside community, but amazing for that community that has been long waiting for a beautiful and, what I hear, the best pool in Lexington. So this evening will begin with a press conference followed by a ribbon-cutting ceremony. In case of the rain, programs will move under the Aquatic Center, so we're excited to celebrate the opening of Douglas under the Aquatic Center. Under the water. I think it's like a tenner. They've got all types of minis out there. There's something that's going to keep us covered from the rain. That's what it is. But either way, we're excited to celebrate this new space with our community, and see you there, 5.30 Thursday. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else for announcements, reports? All right, there's no one signed up for public comment for issues not on the agenda, so do I hear a motion to adjourn? So moved. All those in favor say aye. Aye. We are adjourned. Thank you all for coming. We are adjourned.