# Council Planning Committee - November 18, 2008 > Auto-transcribed civic record · Council · November 18, 2008 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/658 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/658?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2008-11-18 - **Body**: Council - **Last revised**: July 16, 2026 - **Length**: 15,587 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed by OpenAI Whisper-1. 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 Urban County Council Planning Committee met on November 18, 2008, at 1:00 PM, with CM Gorton presiding. The committee addressed seven agenda items during the meeting, including presentations on development plan adherence, the Land Bank, special districts, zoning violation fines, the Newtown Pike Design Ordinance, the Electrical Inspector's Fee Schedule, and a Day Treatment Facility. Five of the agenda items were presented for informational purposes, while the Newtown Pike Design Ordinance was tabled for further consideration. The committee took one motion and vote during the meeting. No public comments were heard. ## Attendance The following individuals were present at the Council meeting on November 18, 2008: - CM Gorton - CM Myers - Chris King - Dewey Crowe - Bill Sallee - Marwan Rayan - Joe Kelly - Harold Tate - Mike Webb - Commissioner Helm - Lisa Berman No members were absent or late. ## Votes and Decisions The Council voted on recommendations for the H-1 Overlay process. The motion was made by CM Ellinger and passed unanimously. ## Contested Items **H-1 Overlay Process** Council Member Myers raised concerns about the H-1 Overlay Process during the meeting, characterizing it as pretentious and in need of streamlining. The primary focus of the disagreement centered on the timeliness of notifications within the process. Myers advocated for improvements to make the procedure more efficient and accessible, emphasizing the importance of ensuring that stakeholders receive timely communication throughout the overlay process. ## Development Plan Adherence Chris King provided an update on development plan adherence during the council meeting. The discussion focused on identifying gaps in the current implementation process and the need for improved oversight mechanisms. **Key Points Presented** Chris King emphasized the importance of establishing a master checklist to track development plan compliance. This tool would serve to standardize the review process and ensure consistent adherence to established guidelines across projects. **Discussion** Joe Kelly participated in the discussion alongside Chris King. The conversation centered on the practical challenges of implementing development plans and the need for more robust processes to monitor compliance. **Outcome** The agenda item was classified as informational, indicating that the council received an update on the status of development plan adherence rather than making a formal decision. The discussion highlighted the need for improved implementation processes and the potential value of a master checklist system to enhance oversight and consistency in development plan adherence going forward. ## Land Bank Harold Tate presented an update on the progress toward establishing a land bank. The presentation was informational in nature, with Tate discussing the steps being taken to move the initiative forward. **Key Discussion Points:** - Tate outlined the current status of the land bank establishment process - An interlocal agreement is being drafted and is scheduled to be presented to the Council in January 2009 **Outcome:** The Council received the informational presentation on the land bank initiative. No formal action was taken at this meeting, with the next step being the presentation of the interlocal agreement in January 2009. ## Special Districts Council Member Myers raised concerns regarding the H-1 Overlay process during this agenda item discussion. The Council Member suggested that the current procedures would benefit from streamlining to improve efficiency and effectiveness. A key concern highlighted by CM Myers involved the timeliness of notifications related to the H-1 Overlay process. CM Myers advocated for more timely communication procedures to ensure stakeholders receive information in a more expedient manner. The discussion was informational in nature, with no formal action taken on this item. ## Zoning Violation Fines Chris King and Dewey Crowe discussed the limitations of current zoning violation fines during this agenda item. The discussion focused on the constraints imposed by state law on the city's ability to set and enforce zoning violation penalties. A key concern raised was that the current zoning violation fines have not been updated in 20 years, meaning they no longer reflect current economic conditions or serve as effective deterrents to violations. The speakers noted that the city's authority to adjust these fines is restricted by state law, limiting local control over zoning enforcement mechanisms. This item was presented as informational in nature, with no formal action taken. The discussion served to document the existing constraints on zoning violation penalties and the challenges they present for local zoning enforcement efforts. ## Newtown Pike Design Ordinance This agenda item was postponed and tabled until the January 2009 meeting. No discussion or presentation details are available from this meeting. ## Electrical Inspector's Fee Schedule Mike Webb provided an update on the Electrical Inspector's Fee Schedule during this agenda item. The discussion was informational in nature, with Webb presenting information about the current fee schedule status. Webb indicated that a comparative analysis of the fee schedule would be presented to the Council at a future meeting in January 2009. This analysis will presumably provide detailed information comparing the current fee structure with other relevant benchmarks or alternatives. No specific concerns or debates regarding the fee schedule were documented in this agenda item. The outcome was informational, with the Council receiving notice of the upcoming comparative analysis rather than taking action on the fee schedule at this time. ## Day Treatment Facility Commissioner Helm and Lisa Berman presented an update on the Lexington Day Treatment Center during this agenda item. The presentation was informational in nature and focused on the facility's operations and success rates. The discussion covered the current status and performance metrics of the day treatment facility, though specific operational details and success rate figures were not included in the available meeting materials. Both presenters provided information to the Council regarding the center's activities and outcomes. This agenda item concluded as an informational presentation with no formal action required from the Council. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Recommendations for the H-1 Overlay process --- ## Full transcript ... scape ordinance requirements, there's some give and take in that, that allows 'em to trade things to do some, put this in, or not put that in, or put more of a certain thing in, to accomplish what the landscape ordinance requires. But again, if the, if the development plan has mandated it, and it's noted on there, and if there's no, uh, alternatives, then they may have to go back and have that amended to show that, what they are gonna be able to do. And that's from one of your inspectors that would tell them that? That's, that's correct. Okay. One of our, one of our inspectors that's following that project through. Then our, it would either be the field inspector or our, uh, landscape examiner who works out of our office. Okay. Would follow up, but yes, it would come from our office. Okay. Thank you, Dewey. Thank you, Madam Chair. So just a quick follow-up on what you said. So you have a regular process where you look at every single plan and you go out and check it. Is that what I heard you say? Or- As part of the initial development, once the development is complete, in other words, if you were building a small, um, strip mall and it was, once that has been completed, all the building is, uh, have been constructed, all the infrastructure's in place, it's fully occupied, then we cease, we don't follow, do any follow up to that, because it's complete at that point. Now, if we get, information comes, excuse me, if information comes to us that something is, uh, been done that has not been, taken it out of compliance with the development plan, such as landscaping got removed. And we have that occur every once in a while, someone decides they don't want, don't like particular trees or something, and those will get removed. And when we find out about it, we go back to that location, notify the developer that, "Your landscaping's gotta be put back in. You can't just remove it." So we follow up on that, but once it's complete and everything's occupied, we don't do any routine, uh, inspections of those locations. E- even if the plan wasn't followed? I mean, do I hear you saying it's by complaint only, if you find out? If it, if we're, uh, certifying occupancy of the building- Mm-hmm. ... then everything's in compliance at that moment in time- Okay. ... or we would not gonna certify occupancy. The only time we do allow occupancy is in cases of landscaping when they can't physically get it in because of the weather, that it's, we're getting in that, we're in that time of year now. You're not gonna get landscaping put out this time of year. What they'll normally do is they basically, uh, give us bond money that we put on, uh, we hold in anticipating ... I feel like, as we're entering the Christmas season, I feel like it's gonna be great to see... It's a Wizard of Oz... The Wizard of Oz, It's a Wonderful Life, those old movies, because I feel like the munchkin, where they're walking through the same weeds over and over and over, and we're simply not getting any meaningful change or improvement of these processes that are so frustrating. Now, most of this, you know, you guys are at the operating level, and I realize you all have got... we all realize that you all, you've got your silos or your temples or your teepees within which to work, and that cross-communication can be challenging. What we really want, I think, to see is evidence of alignment and communication and dealing with these issues that are so frustrating for our constituencies, all of them. The builders, the developers, the neighbors, you all. So I really have to go to, you know, Mike, I realize... Where's Mike Webb? Mike was in here and I'm sorry. You're an acting... You've come into this role, but you've seen it as long as you've been here. Joe, Joe Kelly, you're in that, uh, really wonderful exercise where we were examining the current development process, and I realize, you know, any institutional environment like this, like we got here, there's lots of commitment to the status quo, but do you all feel... and you might wanna come up here, Joe, and help us here. Do you feel like, as Mr. Cho out at Toyota used to say, "Are we doing better or worse?" That, uh, last question threw me. Ah, actually, I, I think th-there is, um, consensus that we need to do better, and there's been endless discussion about how to do better. And we did go through a, a formal, um, um, improvement process, uh, uh, exercise that gave us some recommendations on how we might be able to, to, uh, streamline or improve the process. The problem for me personally is that, um, you improve a process that's n-not the best to begin with. So you can, you can make a pro- process that's not maybe the best, better, but our goal is, is to try to make the process, uh, better, generally speaking. Some of the responsibility for that, um, well, much of the responsibility is, uh, is ours to try to sort that out. One of the things that, uh, would help, for example, w- there's this one issue that you're talking about is the master, uh, list of, of what inspections are required and, and, and how are they getting done. If we can just get that on, uh, you know, o-o-on the system, whereas, uh, inspections are completed, then, then those would be checked off, and, and the developer or you, uh, could go to the, to the website and, and see what's, what's been accomplished. There are plenty of opportunities to improve, to reduce cycle times and to try to, um, uh, improve the product and kinda keep the change orders, uh, to a minimum. And everybody that I've talked to, um, is, is willing to do that. The mechanics, uh, are yet to be sorted out in such a way that we don't have to come back and refix the fix. So I can tell you that it's something that we're, that we're all sensitive to and working on, and, uh, and particularly in the, uh, infill redevelopment, uh, discussions, um, it's become apparent that, that improvement is needed. There also needs to be, uh, improvement on the part of the development community. We have a lot of really fine folks in the development community who want to do the right thing and be compliant. Uh, sometimes it's, it's confusing. If you're not a regular user of the processes, it can be a bit intimi-intimidating. And the fact that these processes are scattered across different departments, uh, makes it a little bit more challenging. So that's a long answer to your question, um, and it's not, uh, it's not satisfactory answer, but I can tell you that it is something that we're all committed to continuing to try to figure out how to make better. We have some implementation recommendations that we need to put the team back together to try to implement those things that came out of the GE workout process that we went through. And it's my responsibility. Okay. So can we then expect maybe a, uh, expect a report regularly on that implementation on where it's going? Well, I can tell you that as a part of the strategic planning process, it's, it's one of the components that we will be focusing on. And, uh, yes, you know- Okay. ... and, and I will be glad to come back and share progress. But I know sometimes it's easier... It seems like, I may be wrong about this, but it's arguably easier for you guys in the administration to get some things, uh, some change behaviors, uh, encouraged and so forth if you get the pressure and you get a little bit of, uh, encouragement from the council. So if you know that- ... that you're go-- that we're gonna ask you for a report, an accountability, then it may be a little bit easier to get some movement. I understand and- That okay? ... yes, sir. Okay. We welcome- Thank you. We welcome that. Council Member Crosby. Yes, thank you. Um, could somebody please explain to me, um, my question regards when a develop, development plan is changed, and it has to do with a fee, so maybe somebody from, uh, okay. A- and I'll use, I'll use solid waste maybe as an example, because this actually is happening in my district. If, um, say, for example, somebody puts in a development plan that they are going to utilize our solid waste collection, and that plan gets changed, and they never utilize the city's solid waste. They go private. How can we charge them a fee for a service that they are not utilizing because it was in the development plan? I'm afraid I'm not aware of any of those situations. Uh, we don't administer the solid waste, obviously. Uh, what, what the development plan does, that if, if they are utilizing public services, we have a sign-off procedure so that the public work folks know that they can get access- Is there anybody from law here who might be able to explain how we can charge a fee for a service that is not being administered and has not been for y- years? Because it was part of the development plan. It is not driven by the development plan. Setting up tax districts is set up in terms of whether it is a full urban or partial urban service district, especially with respect to solid waste collection. It has a great deal to do with whether we have the ability to provide that service, um, within that particular district, and we cannot go on a property-by-property basis. This is a tax, not a fee. If the service is available, people cannot opt out of the tax. Now, if you're talking about, like, a dumpster fee or a landfill user fee, that's a different situation. But- Have, have we ever refunded, um, out of a full urban service district, have we ever refunded, say, for, uh, street lights if they've not received it? We have refunded street lights, not because they chose not to use them, but- Because we couldn't do it. ... because we were not able to make them available yet. Thank you. In other words, we'll put them into that service district. We will request KU to put in the street lights, but sometimes, there's a delay before they can do that and so we will definitely refund if that service is simply not available to them, but we won't refund if the service is available, but they choose not to avail themselves of it. If the developer chose not to... If the developer chose? If it's, if it's private streets, that's a different situation, but this is not driven by the development plan. A developer doesn't choose when he submits his plan which tax dist- district he wants to develop it to. If the developer changed the plan. The plan does not determine the urban service district for tax purposes. That's not what I asked. I asked if... But- Never mind. I mean, the developer doesn't make that choice, so I can't really answer how his choice would affect the ta- tax district. It does not. I just said never mind. Thank you. Okay . Are you finished? Well, actually, um, you, you've made me think about a question that, um, came to mind. So with new development, is all new development automatically put into the full urban service district? As a general rule, it is. It depends upon the streets, whether they're private streets or not, in terms of whether street cleaning is available. There are a lot of different factors, and public works would probably be more able to give you the details of exactly what determines the urban service district. But- Um, but as, as a rule, most new development within the urban service district will go into the full urban service area, and there are some limited exceptions to that. Are, are you aware of a reason why, uh, street cleaning wouldn't be available? If it's a private street and it's too narrow. Number one, if it's a private street, we usually will not go in and provide that service on a private street. Sometimes, it might have to do with a preexisting street that may be too narrow to service. Again, public works is the one that, that, that would be able to- Okay. ... answer to different situations. Okay. May, uh, Commissioner, Acting Commissioner Webb, could you, or, or Marwan's here, I don't know, I, I... About the full... I, I was under the impression that several years ago, the council made it known that they did not want private streets in new development. So, who's determining that... Because many times, those private streets then, we get asked down the road to bring them and become public streets. Now, when did it occur that new development can have private streets? I think the choice is, uh, and, and Who, who gets to choose that? I, I, I think the developer can choose to, uh, make his development, uh, private. But then, uh, uh, Chris, you've been here a long time. Do you remember the discussions several years ago- I remember the discussions, yes, but- ... when council asked that we not have private streets in new development because ultimately then, down the road, citizens petition to become a public street, and there's cost involved? Correct. So I'm curious about how that's happening. Well, the, there never was a change in the laws to prohibit public streets. What was done, there was a lot more flexibility put into the design of public streets and a lot more options afforded developers, which quite often- ... other than the desire for exclusivity, in some cases, really drove some requests for private streets. It would be my observation, and I would ask Bill Salise, since he works with this every day more than I do, um, I think since we had, uh, those changes, basically which came out of the manuals process in the, uh, early 2000s, we've had very few private streets, comparatively. And the planning commission looks at that very hard before they would approve a subdivision with private streets. So Mr. Salie, would you like to add something to that? I, I would. I would agree with Chris that since we've had that discussion, we have had, uh, a, a marked drop-off in the number of requests for private streets. Uh, I also remember, we basically made the regs encourage public streets over banning private streets, and that does seem to have the desired effect. We have had a drop-off in the number of new private streets. Uh, when we had those discussions before, it was about eight percent of our streets were private. Uh, we've not updated that figure, but we've not been creating them the way we had prior. And so th- there's been some added flexibility- Mm-hmm. ... which has also encouraged public streets. Right, those different, uh, designs have been able to be allowed as public streets instead of private streets. Okay, thank you. Especially in the expansion area. Okay, thank you. Now, uh, Mr. Rayon, um, we already heard from, uh, Mr. Dewey Crow of Building Inspection and about the development plan adherence issue, and so I wonder, as engineering, you could give us some perspective on how you approach development plan adherence. Yes, um, we get the, uh, the pro- the de- eh, eh, a new development pro- project once it gets to the construction, the construction stage. That means we get the construction plans. Our inspectors who are on site, they have the plans with them, and they, uh, look for noticeable changes in the infrastructure. If such... If there- if there are changes in the infrastructures, for example, location of a street, location of a sanitary sewer, uh, a manhole, storm sewers, and so on, if there is any differences there, and they're noticeable, I'm not talking about few inches to the left or to the right, but if the changes are noticeable, and they're going to create problems, of course, then we request that they either, the developer either, uh, replaces that item and put it in the right place, or go back and do a, uh, a development plan amendment, which has to go through the, uh, planning process again. Okay, for example, if a street is shifted, uh, say 30 feet to one side, okay, it's not in the right place, okay, w- the, the developer would either have to remove that street and put it back in its place or go through the planning process and amend his development plan. And so based on what you said, then are you simply looking at plans- Yes, ma'am, the plans- ... rather than going out to a site? ... the construction plans that we have are based on the approved development plan. Mm-hmm. Okay, once it gets to us, to engineering, and i- it's in the implementation phase, then it has all these details that are not in m- in the development plan. And everything's supposed to be built according to those details that we have in our construction plans. Well, I think, um, just a comment, which you and Chris King and Mike Webb and Dewey Crow and Bill, all of you maybe can get the sense that this is very frustrating for council members. You know, we're not your boss. We're not any of your boss, and we aren't in charge of engineering or building inspection or planning, and we don't wish to be, most of us, I don't think. Um, but we do get the phone calls and the emails and the results of the situations where a plan hasn't been followed, and that's why we are concerned. And so I would encourage Joe Kelley, where he's... Uh, based on what he said before, to push forward as quickly and efficiently as possible to get this process changed so that everybody's talking to everybody else in the loop, and so that our citizens feel like there's a, a, um, a good process where everybody gets heard. And, and with that, Council Member Blues now wants to make a comment. Council Member Blues? Uh... Or Council Member McCord, are you ready? Go ahead. Uh, I, I think we've kinda gotten a little far afield, and I, I wanna bring it back to, to the staff and to, to Todd and other folks that are in the room. I think what's happened is, is over the course of the last couple years, we've had a number of zone changes that have come before us that, um, eh, the, the, the, the plan was this, and we hear this, and, uh, as it goes on through the night and you start to hear from neighbors and other people, um, eh, this body starts a- asking itself, "How can we ensure that that gets built? That what was represented here was what actually happens?" Uh, and that there isn't a, any kind of, um- ... bait and switch, or there isn't some sort of change, or there doesn't end up being something that harms that developer from doing what they, what they want to do. And I think that this, a- as I understand it from Council Member Myers, is really an outcrop of, um, you know, we are the last line of, of approving or disapproving. And so, we'll s- we see things from up here, and we don't have any real control over, over that situation. And I think that, uh, we've seen things where, where we would like to s- make sure that something happens. And I guess the battle is that, uh, we can become so over-regulatory that we squelch any kind of growth or any kind of really good growth. Um, eh, we may not have any say, that may not be the right thing. So I think, Council Member Myers, if I'm correct, part of what you're trying to get at with this is that we would continue this discussion with not only the private sector, but our own folks in, in letting you ... L- let's, let's come to some sort of, uh, conclusion that what happens up here is, is really a desire to just see the very best happen for our city, in that we're being asked to make a decision, but we don't have any kind of ability to, to, eh, make sure that decision is, is, uh, uh, played out. And so I think, I just wanted to ... I know we got a little far afield with other things up here with tax districts and, and light poles and everything else. And so I wanted to, I think bring it back, is, is that fairly assess what, what you, Council Member Myers were trying to get at or, originally? I think you hit the nail on the head. Okay. So I just, I want all those watching and certainly those in, in, um, the development community as well as our own folks to know that's, that's what it stems from, is that we've just had a number of things where, um, there's just a, a, a desire on our part to see that what's represented here gets done and that, that people really, uh, get what they think that they, uh, are asking for, or, or, uh, have received. So, with that, I just wanted to bring some clarity, Madam Chair, and, uh, I'll, I'll turn it back over to Council Member Blues. Counc- Council Member Blues. Thank you, Madam Chair. I, I, um ... Just to follow up, I think that, um, o- o- o- one of the things we do wanna make sure that, uh, we, we provide for and however we go, go forward with, with, uh, uh, with these discussions is that sometimes what happens is a, a, a development plan will not be followed as, as, as it's s- specified and, and then the, uh, then the development plan will be, will be revised to, uh, to conform to what has already been done. So, eh, it, it, what we have is a, is a, is, is a procedure that gets sort of, sort of reversed in which, in which the practice precedes the, uh, the plan. And then the plan has to catch up with, with the practice. So, um, um, going forward with these, with, with these, uh, discussions, um, I, I, I think we do have to have some way to, you know, to monitor this, um. And to be fair, in some ca- some cases, a plan may need to be, to be revised. But it, but it, but it should not be revised in practice until it's been, until it's been p- appropriately authorized. Thank you. Council Member James. Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, I, I am going to, I guess, not really make a motion, but I wanna say something before, um, before I say that. Um, Joe Kelley mentioned that Infill and Redevelopment has been having these discussions. Um, of course we talk about a lot of things in Infill and Redevelopment, but one of the things we talked about most recently was this, um, collaborative effort, the interdepartmental, um, work, um, on particular items where there's a little bit, you know, a little bit of planning and a little bit of engineering and how can we make those things, um, flow? And i- how can we create a process and things such as that. And I think it's happening through Infill and Redevelopment on our, on our recommended task. We've identified the different divisions of government that deal with particular things, such as development plans and we've identified, um, key players. We've got, uh, Joe Kelley has, um, got two people designated now to work on that Infill, the recommendations and implementation of those recommendations. That could be a good place to start. Um, I don't know specifically about the development plan, um, but I do know with establishing what process will work, um, to bring those departments together. Um, so I am going to recommend that this issue stay in Planning Committee, that we don't move it out. And that, um, maybe give it two months. If that's too long, I'm not sure, but Joe Kelley seems to be working on this and he says that, you know, they, they are aware that this is a concern and, um, maybe in, uh, January, February have Joe Kelley come back and talk with us about what they found out so far and get guidance from this committee to move forward with some type of process that maybe can address the concerns that we have today. And I'm not sure if that needs to be in the form of a motion or if it just stays in committee. I think it could just stay in committee. Um, and I've made a note and Paul has made a note to bring it back sometime around February, January, February. Okay. Um, Chris, I, I wanted to ask you another question back on your, um, uh, page two. Um, the third from the bottom bullet, require posting of sign on property as currently required in the expansion area. What was the reasoning for including that in the expansion area when it hadn't been included anywhere else? Well, one of the reasons is when we did the expansionary ordinances, and this is getting into a little bit of arcane history, but there was the understanding that the council was going to rezone. ... the entire expansion area? Yes. All 5400 acres? Uh, planning commission, planning staff, and our consultants all advocated that council do that so that instead of focusing on the rezoning battles when we first began the process, the land would be zoned in agreement with the comprehensive plan and we would all be focusing our primary attention on the physical character of the plan. Uh, that was considered a progressive move, but at the end, the, the council balked at the last minute on doing that, and instead opted to go back to the original, uh, approach. So the idea was, um, one of the reasons why it was done in the expansion area because there wasn't going to be a zone change when you had a sign in a preliminary development plan. The developer was first going to come in with a plan of zoned property and the sign on the property would help surrounding neighbors understand when that was going to occur. That makes sense. Thank you. Council Member Meyers. Thank you, Madam Chair. I just have a question. Um, I think Jill Kelly might be gone. The, the committee... Councilwoman James talked about that, um, Mr. Kelly is working with in, in film redevelopment. Do you know who is all on there? I'm not asking you to say their names or not, but is it development community adequately represented in those meetings? Yes. Okay. The, um, the list of, um, there's several different... There's, like, a core committee. There's a steering committee. I'm sure that list is public. Chris, you... It's a public list. Um, uh, sign in sheets at every meeting. It's a... It's actually a moose. The steering committee, which is the center of the action is co-chaired by Dr. Stevens and Vice Mayor Gray, and it includes neighborhood representatives, um, development community representatives, interested citizens. Pretty good cross-section. Okay. And you actually have taken up this issue of development plans during zone changes? Yes. As part of the overall discussion, we had a, a task force process that was very aggressive. It was facilitated with outside facilitators, involved, uh, a lot of folks, and, uh, they made 110 recommendations. And a number, a group of those recommendations had to do with the development process- Okay. ... and, and things to look at. Some cases, specific recommendations, sometimes just general guidelines, investigate this kind of approach versus that kind of approach. And, um, yeah, I'll just say while I'm at the podium right now, there are a whole lot of things affecting that process. And I think that's one of the reasons why we're really in staging mode. You've got the consent decree. Changes that we need to make resulting to that are going to change these rules, regulations, processes. Right. Management partners' recommendations are going to change the rules, recommendations, and processes. These, uh, infill and redevelopment regulations are going to change that, downtown master plan implementation. All those things are all here and we need to make sure they're all in line and we don't go back and change the ordinances five times and just confuse everybody. So right now, it's timing, coordination, and getting staged. And I can tell you from this side, everybody's committed to coming up with the best improved process we can, doing as, as many neat, innovative things as possible. Great. Thank you. Are there other questions? So we'll hear this again. We'll keep it in committee and there may be questions before we hear it again. And, um, so we'll move on to our second five-minute agenda item . These were supposed to be, uh, short updates, but that's okay. This is good discussion. And this is the land bank and it starts on page three and four of your... Starts on page three of your packet. And Council Member James moved this into committee. And it's coming from Harold Tate. And do you have a comment? This is actually the first time we've heard this, Council Member James, and you moved it into committee, so... Yeah, I think we were... We did get this overview before. I think Harold came forward, um, with someone that had helped, um, to put this in... research this information and put it together, but I don't... I do have some additional information on the Vacant Property Review Commission and Abandoned Urban Property Tax, which is referenced on the back page. Um, so I'd be happy to, after Harold speaks, to address that. Thank you. No problem. Welcome. Welcome. Well, I'm here to give you an update on where we are on the land bank program. We have met. As you may remember, um, you all had asked to look at ways that we could, um, come up with a possibility of acquiring land. And we went to look at different models, and we looked at the Louisville model, and they'd created a, uh, a land bank, as you can see, it's created under KRS, so it is a statewide. And, um, it would be made up of three members, one appointed by the governor, one appointed by the school board, one appointed by the mayor and council. We have met with all the entities. They are, uh, th- think that this is the best route for us to go, so we are in the process of drafting up the, uh, local agreement that will be signed by, uh, the city, the school board, and the state, and we should have that for you all for, in January. Very good. Uh, questions from council members? I know Council Member James has some comments. Do you want to go ahead? Yeah, thank you. I actually have several questions. Um, it... Y- you referenced under section D1 where it talks about who appoints, um, and it says, "Appointed by LFUCG." Is that the mayor? You meant specifically the mayor, or is that who appoints? I would imagine it would be under the regular process where he would make a recommendation and it would come to the council. Okay. So- The, the language that's here though, is this the language in the statute? Yes, ma'am. So it doesn't say "by the mayor" in the statute? I, I, I'm not certain if that's the exact language in the statute. I'm sorry, I can't say. Okay. But we can find out for you. So this is kind of a reiteration possibly- Correct. ... of the language? Okay. And, um, with three members being on the board, so three would be the quorum? Mm-hmm. So all three members have to be present? Have to be present, that's correct. Okay. Um, how long are the board positions? Don't know that. That would be, uh, part of the agreement. Okay. And ... I'm sorry. Four-year term? Okay. Sorry, I missed that. Oh, I see it. Um, regular meetings, um, do they only meet as necessary or do they just have regular meetings? Uh, uh, I know that there would be a minimum. In Louisville, they have a, um, s- regular schedule, but then if there's not an item on the agenda, it's postponed. Okay. And are the meetings public? Yes. Okay. And, um, to whom, to whom does the board report to? Well, that was one of the items that y'all had discussed at the last meeting, and we had talked about, currently what we had talked about would be a joint venture between Division of Planning, Community Development, and the Downtown Development Authority. And that'll be covered in the interlocal agreement? Yes, ma'am. And, um, how can, within the interlocal agreement, we put anything that we're interested in? Say if we wanna have a land bank that has affordable housing only. Um, is that, is the interlocal agreement the time to do that? In- Well, I'm, I'm just using what Louisville did. What they did is they came up with a program of which they addressed certain items as that, so that everybody was aware upfront what the funds could be used for, how they could be used for. So that would be something that Louisville used for these three entities to come toge- together to develop that program, which I'm sure will be shared with, you know, shared with all three entities, including the council. Okay. Is that in the interlocal agreement as well? Good question. Let me see I can find out on that one for you. Okay. Um, are the board members allowed to purchase property? Pardon? I'm sorry. Are the board members allowed to purchase property in the land bank? If the government's - No. And if a piece of property that's acquired, um, at the foreclosure sale, um, has code enforcement, um- No, no, no, no, no. ... citations or violations, do you know how those are handled? Right. That was one thing Dave and I were talking about last week that we wanna check into, and I will get with David Jarvis on that. Okay. And I'll hold, um, hold my questions. Madam Chair. You said something about the Vacant Property Review Commission too. Yeah, I was gonna ... Um, I do have, um ... Um, you're familiar with the Vacant Property Review Commission? Um, and I don't know, uh, committee members, if you're familiar with that, uh, commission or not. I, I did a little bit of research and we did, we did have one, um, that was active with Urban County Government. Right. Um, and they purchased one piece of property, um, and I believe sold a piece of property or, um, or gave that property away or whatever the process was. But that was the only transaction. Um, so I, I would think that, um, reactivating that commission would be ideal, um, in addition to the Abandoned Urbany- Urban Property Tax, which I have a copy. Um, I've been working with the law department, um, on the Abandoned Urban Property Tax and, uh, talking with them about how could we make that happen here in Lexington. And it would be, a- as it's noted here, it's a good related tool to use with the land bank. Um, so I will give that, um, to you for your reference. It, uh, w- they go hand in hand. The Property Review Commission, um, is the state mandate review or the overseer of the Abandoned Urbany- Urban Property Tax. So you can't really have one without the other. They go hand in hand. And there's quite a bit of information here from, um, I believe, David Barbary, and, and he is here today if you'd like to ask any questions. Um, it's quite a lot to read during this, uh, council meeting or committee meeting. I apologize for not getting it to you in advance. Um, but it looks like we're gonna see this back maybe in January for the draft, so within that time, if you have any questions, feel free to let me or, or David Barbary and the law department know. Thank you, Madam Chair. Dr. Stevens. Uh, well, my question was related to the Abandoned Urban Property Tax, and I didn't see what the relationship, uh, of that to the, uh, possible vacant land commission is the, uh ... And perhaps Mr. Barbary will answer that. Dr. Stevens- I won't have time to read this- Sure. ... before you answer. If you, uh, when you read the statute, if you've already created a Vacant Property Review Commission, the statute indicates that you should be using them as, as part of the process for the Abandoned Urban Property Tax. If you've already created one. And we've already created one, so when we did the analysis for Council Member James, it was our recommendation based on the statutory language that you go ahead and use them as part of the implementation if you ever create the, uh, the, uh, abandoned property tax. That, that hasn't been created, you mean? The abandoned property tax? No, no, that has not. No, that would require you all adopting an ordinance to do that. But, but what the tie-in between the Vacant Property Review Commission and that tax is, if you've already created one of those commissions, then technically, al- although I don't believe it's manned right now, we have one on the books, uh, the statute indicates you are supposed to use them as, as part of your administrative process in, in, in identifying the properties that would, that would be, uh, subject to this potential tax. But if we were to adopt this Abandoned Urban Property Tax, uh, structure, that would be a separate commission? No, I think you would use that commission. You would just need to adopt the tax. You would basically adopt an ordinance that allows the tax to be adopted and the Vacant Property Review Commission would be used administratively to assist in identifying- ... which properties would fall subject to the tax. The primary m- uh, focus of the ordinance for the tax would be to actually establish what the rate was, as well as what the process was, including the appeal process for someone that feels their property should not be subject to this tax to go ahead and timely appeal it to have it removed from the additional tax. The way it works, there would be properties that meet certain legal criteria. They would be identified, uh, administratively probably in the government primarily through code enforcement in some other divisions. They would be funneled to the Vacant Property Review Commission to make the initial determination of whether or not they w- they should be deemed that category, and if they were and they were not successful in appealing it, the result of that would be they would have an additional ad valorem tax imposed on the property. Thank you. I'm glad that, uh, Council Member James is interested in this, because I think it's an unsolved problem in our community and it needs to have c- more and continued work. Good luck. Thanks. Council Member James. Well, and, um, it's really a prime time for this, because last, um, summer, um, the planning com- department, um, did the, um, well, they've completed it now, I'm not sure when it completed, but there's a vacant and under-utilized property assessment, and one of the key components to the abandoned property tax is that you have to verify that a property sits for several years, um, unused or not rehabbed or, you know, dilapidated, and we actually have a basis from which to start. Because we have that assessment. So, um, and that would have d- been, um, last summer, I believe, so we could take that and if that property over the next three years, or for three years, um, has nothing done to it, it would then go on this list of abandoned urban property tax and there would be an increase, um, in those particular, in those particular, um, cases for those properties. So it's a really good, uh, talk with, um, the, the gentleman out of Covington, Kentucky, um, that runs their program there, and they said it's been very helpful for revitalization. They just, um, they're not getting a lot of money from the tax. Um, they have a lot of people that are actually keeping their properties up. So it's not really a, a money-maker, it's more of an incentive to, to make sure that properties are, um, kept up and, and we all know how bad it looks, or maybe you don't have a lot of places in your area where there's boarded up windows and houses with broken windows, um, but it could really, it can really bring down not only the neighborhood but the residents in that area. And the broken window theory is if you don't care about keeping up properties, you don't care about much of anything. Um, so this kind of helps to eliminate the negative stigma of, um, abandoned properties. So when you, uh, Harold, when you bring these inter-local agreements in to us probably in January, uh, to the planning, will you b- bringing them to the planning committee? Yeah. How about, it seems to me would we be at a point, Council Member James and David, where we could sync all this together at the same time to come forward with the, uh, draft, I mean, you've got the draft ordinance here, um, on the abandoned urban property tax. There were, there were some lingering... I, I, I will be honest with you. I'm mystified by the ad valorem tax timing process here, as far as when you need to get it in to have it happen. So I think y- uh, y- to answer your question generally, I think yes, but I don't know if it could, even if we did it in January, I doubt it's gonna work for 2009 the way taxes run. Um, s- b- but I don't really know that for sure, but part of what needs to happen is, when you all make a decision to go forward, we need to, we need to sit down with the PVA office and make sure we have the timing of when all of these things would need to happen in order to actually work. Well, and the Vacant Property Review Commission is already on the books. We already have that established, and it, it just seemed to me they all ought to come together. So... I would agree. We would have to get the, um, the administration to put that, um, put those requests out to fill those positions in the Vacant Property Review Commission. Um, couple that with the ordinance, the inter-local agreements, um, the planning, uh, department's, um, vacant and under-utilized property, the information from PVA, um, I think it... And if putting that into place, like I said, you have to have the properties that are vacant for that amount of time, it wouldn't be for another two years before we'd actually be able to implement that first, um, increase in tax. So even if it didn't hit for 2009, if we got it on the books, we'd be ready for it for 2010. So maybe at the January meeting, you might be prepared to make a motion to sync all this together. Yes, I can do that. Uh, a- and we could start filling the commission and, you know, moving toward getting this all to be coordinated. Be happy to do that. Okay. I'll work with Harold and with David. Really appreciate that you've taken an interest and brought it forward because I think it has worked in other communities. Yes, it has. And we could use it. Is there any other question, Council Members? So, so we'll be hearing from you again in January. Thank you very much. Our next item of business is, uh, special districts, which Mr. Myers put into committee. It starts on page five of the packet. Do you have any initial comment? I do. Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, this issue I put into- into committee, gosh, I don't know how long ago. I guess maybe a year, year and a half ago. It was in regards to the H1 overlay, um... ... zoning issues that we went through, uh, that were really contentious, where we had neighbors pitted against neighbors, and my concern was that, um, the way this process is set up, that once someone in the community decides that they want H-1 overlay to take place in their neighborhood, then it's sort of the position of the government that they get behind that, uh, decision and the train sort of leaves the station and the resources of the government are behind that side of the, of the debate, rather than it being a neutral party in letting the neighborhood decide what it wants to see happen. And remember last time when we looked at this issue, we had a text amendment that we asked the planning commission to look at, and they, um, opted against adopting our text amendment. And so, really I put this in this committee so that we could begin to discuss this conversation, or have this conversation again about how to streamline this process, make the process so that everybody in the community that, that would be affected by an H-1 overlay or special district be notified in a timely fashion up front, and that they all have sort of an equal opportunity with government resources to, um, objectively look at the situation before it moves forward. One of the things I think that would be, be key in this process is maybe having a joint meeting with the planning commission and the Urban County Council and discuss that text amendment and how we can maybe work together to come up with a solution to this problem that doesn't, um, find the council impeding the planning commission's ability to do its job according to state statute, but still be able to have a positive outcome for our neighbors. So, that's the reason why I put it in the committee, um, to begin that conversation. Thank you. Do, do you want anything more on this today? I think, um- Uh, we have coun- I know that we have council members who have questions, but I'm wondering if, if, because, uh, one of the things that I'm getting ready to email council members is that I've had a meeting with Chris King and Randall Vaughan, the chair of the planning commission, and we ha- we are planning a joint planning commission, planning committee workshop. Uh, it'll be January 22nd, which will be right before their planning commission meeting, and we have our agenda, but we're, we're, um, looking for common issues and we feel like we'll have more than one meeting. So, and of course it'll be an open meeting with all council members invited, so. When- January 22nd. When you say workshop- Mm-hmm. ... um, what's that? It's, that means it will be, uh, it will not be a joint meeting, which requires a quorum of everybody, um, and it requires it be televised in a room that'll hold 20, how many, we're 15 and they're 11. Uh, we felt like a workshop would be the better place to start, and, um, so I, I think this is a great issue for that, you know, council, planning commission group, um- How, how- ... to discuss. ... can you help me understand how formal that meeting is, in terms of what the outcomes can be? Is that, is that the type of meeting that motions could be made and that we would bring legislation forward, or is it just sort of a brainstorming? Um, I think it'll be up to the group whether, it, it definitely could be brainstorming, but if the group has motions that they think wanna, they want to come out of it, that could be, um, something that gets done. So, yeah. Okay. But, um- Did you say you already had the agenda set? Mm-hmm. We've talked about a draft agenda. Do, is that what you have before you there? Yes, it is. Can you talk about the issues that are on the agenda? Not today. What I intended to do, because this isn't an item in committee. Okay. What I intended to do was to put an email forth to council members and then Randall is going to email, um, commission members. We've done this in the past, years ago, had a joint workshop, and so there is precedent for it. And so we would, uh, email out the draft agenda. And I think, uh, Rochelle has a comment. I was just going to answer to the question about motions. Technically the workshop is a collaborative effort- Mm-hmm. ... between two entities. It's not really, um, a formal meeting of either of those entities, of either the planning committee or the planning commission. So the appropriate action to be taken from that, after this c- uh, collaborative effort would be for the planning commission and/or the planning committee at their next meeting to propose motions of their particular entities as a result of what took place at the workshop. Or at a, at a work session. Yes. I mean, it sh- Are she could be. W- basically this workshop is not, is not organized in such a way that it would be appropriate for motions to be- Right. ... acted upon. Right. So, now Council Member McCord, oh, I'm sorry. Can, can I ask you a question? Mm-hmm. Is your motion that you're gonna pass around, is it to have a joint workshop with the planning committee or the council? The joint planning commission, planning committee workshop to which all council members will be invited. This is, there, this is something that's happened in the past, and it's worked really well for coordinating planning issues. Council Member McCord, did, were you finished? Yes. 'Cause I think Council Member McCord had a question about something. Well, it's, it's directed to this and I'm glad to hear that we have a, have a date and then, uh- Yeah. What, what I'd like to do is, can I make a motion out of this committee that, uh- ... that we put onto the agenda, um, maybe staff recommendations or, or administration's recommendations as it relates to, I think, what Council Member Myers is saying, with, with H-1, for example, we don't want to step on the Planning Commission's toes as to what can and can't be done, but are there things, uh, that can be improved in the process through the application that doesn't alienate neighbors and things like that? So my motion is to include into our discussion that day on the 22nd, um, these, these tax dis- or these special districts, excuse me, um, and recommendations that they, that the staff has or administration has that, for, for improved process that doesn't, um, doesn't cut into anybody's jurisdiction or anything. I, I think that what he's looking for is, is just an improved process. If we can get that on the agenda, um, but specifically having something to work off of as to what we can and can't do, that'd be, that'd be great. So moved. ... that motion and second. And then I second. I might tell you that, um, what we envisioned for this first workshop was not specific- Okay. ... issues such as an H-1 overlay. It was that the Planning Commission would help the council understand what they view as their role. We would show them and talk about some of the issues that are in our committee. Um, w- Chris was gonna help the joint group understand the context for zoning and planning, and then we would move to specific issues for a second meeting. Now, um, since the chair of the Planning Commission had a lot to do with this agenda, I would pref- I mean, I'm, it would be really good to run it past him to see if he wants a specific item addressed, such as, a, an overlay. It's kind of- Well, how about I make a compromise? Uh, if they can- Yeah, this is kind of a start. If they can bring, if they can bring, uh, to that meeting- Mm-hmm. ... what, what we can do, can't do with regard to this, we don't necessarily have to decide anything at that meeting, but I think it'd be good ammunition for us to, uh, to sit down with and, and talk about heading into that next meeting. I, I don't think anything's gonna get resolved in one meeting anyway, but it, it, it, so my motion is for them to bring forward recommendations specific to that, that we would receive it at that meeting. We don't necessarily have to make it a specific agenda item where we work on it, but I do believe it'd be helpful for us to have it in our hands. Mm-hmm. And we might have a future meeting together, a future workshop together on that very item. I, I think if, if I can quote the Vice Mayor, I think it's imperative that these two bodies, um, start to spend some time together, um, talking about, uh, our, our various roles and, and, uh, what we can do to work together on, on planning since that seems to be our biggest issue in this- Mm-hmm. ... in this city. Yeah. This is exactly why I contacted Randall and Chris to try to get a joint workshop going, 'cause I think we have a lot of issues that we do need to talk about. Absolutely. So with that I, I moved to put that, for them to bring that forward at that meeting on the 22nd. Okay. So s- restate your motion. Uh, that the administration or planning staff would bring forward, uh, recommendations as to, uh, what can be improved and what, what the council can act upon, uh, for, with regard to H-1 overlay- bands around it. ... uh, the application process. Okay. We have a motion and a second. Uh, Council Member James, did you want to speak to the motion? No. Okay. Uh, Vice Mayor, did you want to speak to the motion? To the issue? To the motion on the floor, which is to ask plan, ask for recommendations for improvement- Yeah. ... in the H-1 overlay process. Yeah. Yeah. At the workshop. Yeah. Okay. Have at it. Okay. Thank you, ma'am. Um, I like what Council Member McCord is suggesting as a deliberate, intentional, uh, objective and an outcome that could be a focus. I think it also illustrates that the issues are not limited to just planning. These issues are not limited to just the Planning Commission and Planning Committee as entities of our government- I agree. ... but also other governing areas. I think we had this as part of our recommendation in one, one of the 101, Chris? How many recommendations in infill and redevelopment? 101? 110. 110. That the symptoms of, the, uh, the symptoms of the distress and the opportunities for better organization and our processes are also affecting other governing entities, like Board of Adjustments, like Historic Preservation and BOAR. So for example, I think what commit- Council Member McCord is saying, if we look at the root cause of some of the issues associated with H-1 and in D-1, much of that has to do with perception of the brand, of the Historic Preservation brand, and the difficulties of the process. So in order for us to get at these issues, I'm hoping that you all will consider also Mike Owens is the, actually this idea emerged from Mike Owens, who, former chair of the Board of Adjustments, and he's now on the Planning Commission. And it was Mike who sort of revealed to me that, you know, we all tend, there is, I won't say that it's too easy to say we're going in different directions. There's an, a lack of clarity and common purpose and vision, but that's kind of what he was saying. So if this is indeed gonna be a meaningful brainstorming session, maybe including some of those folks at the table- Mm-hmm. ... would be beneficial as well. When, when, you're suggesting when there's a full-blown discussion of this? But this- Well, yeah. ... this first workshop, I think there's some ground that needs to be gone over that will be separate from the H-1 overlay to as- It's been about, what, five years, Chris? Or six years since there's been a joint workshop, and I think what you're saying is really important, but I see that as a whole meeting with... You're, you're suggesting bring in the BOAR, bring in the Board of Adjustment. Or at least reps maybe. Yes. Representatives from them, that's where you could have a shared learning experience from the problems that are being illustrated because those problems are affecting governance, regulatory enforcement- I agree. ... in all of these different dimensions. Hmm. I think it's a great idea. So maybe i- if not, the full BOAR, then a- Representatives. ... representative of the board and- Of course. ... of the, of the Historic Preservation staff, a representative of Board of Adjustments and their staff maybe. Mm-hmm. Okay, very good. Uh, does anyone else wanna speak to the motion? Uh, Council Member Meyers. Thank you, Madam Chair. I, I agree with what the Vice Mayor and, uh, Council Member Corder said, and I think it's very important, as you said, Madam Chair, that we come together, the two bodies come together, and I hope that more of the council members than just this committee come to those meetings if possible. Um, but that we not just... Because I think we can all read what their charter is and what our charter is, and we all understand that. I, I think it's very important that we form a relationship with them, but then we move beyond that relationship and start to address the real issues at hand that are causing such divide and consternation in our community. So, um, I look forward to both the meeting where we get together as relationship, relational, but then also getting down to the issues at hand. Thank you. Thank you very much. Is there any other comment on the motion? So there's a motion on the floor to, um, ask Planning to bring recommendations for improvement in the H-1 overlay process, um, for maybe a basic discussion or initial discussion at the, uh, workshop. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any, anyone opposed? I heard that. Council Member James is on the list still to speak about the issue. Yeah, the, um, on page five, um... Council Member Meyers, did you... Is, is page five based on what you just talked about, the overlays? It's not? I might be able to speak to this. I misunderstood what Council Member Meyers, uh... This dealt with an issue that he had, he has directed Planning and, uh, uh, Ned Sheehy to work on with the General Assembly, I believe. Okay. So. Okay. I was just a bit confused 'cause it said, "Except for Irvin County Government." So I thought, "Well, that doesn't relate to us." Thank you. Is there any other discussion on the issue? If not, we'll move on to our next item, which is, uh, zoning violation fines, which starts on page seven. And, um, Council Member Meyers moved this into committee. So do you have any comment at the beginning here? Um, I'll let you go ahead and bring... Uh, is either Mr. Crow or- Wait. ... Mr. King- Uh-huh. ... King? Okay. W- we have Mr. King, Mr. Crow. Is Mr. Jarvis here? Okay. Chris? Um, I'm assuming that these, this item and maybe the one before were related to a couple of recommendations that staff had made to Ned Sheehy in development of a legislative agenda. Uh, every year, uh, they put out a call for recommendations of things to be discussed, and two that we had looked at this year, one was the restriction that we have against using special overlay districts in statute, which we, we think is... We'd like to see that taken out. And also, this question of, of penalties. And, um, this ties to a couple of issues. It, it ties to the issue that you raised about adherence to the zoning ordinance and the development plans, and it also is tied to a meeting that we had with Council Member Henson not too long ago, um, in looking at, um, in zoning ordinance fines. And she was investigating whether our laws could be changed to increase the fines, uh, related to violations of the zoning ordinance. And we, we were... Informed Council Member Henson in informing you that the s-... Those are set by state law, and we have no options to have penalties that are higher or greater than those that state law says that we can have. Now, the other thing that's curious is that those have not been updated in 20 years. If you think of just something as, uh, innocuous as straight-line inflation, it certainly seems that, um, it would be prudent for the state legislature to con-... uh, consider, uh, updating the maximum fines for zoning violations. Uh, Mr. Crow will tell you better than I, since he deals with this every day, that quite often, the fines that we have and as they are administered by the courts and the administrative processes, are not a deterrent. And we were talking about development plan adherence earlier. Development plan adherence is when a developer chooses not to adhere to the plans that they have had approved. You know, they're, in those cases, they are the bad guy. And, uh, again, the only way you can usually get, uh, uh, someone to, to comply or conform is if there is some consequence to that action. And quite often, we find that the consequences, uh, the advantages to any citizen or developer or other person to violate the ordinances is much greater than the stick that we have to get them to comply. And, uh, we just suggested this to, um, Mr. Sheehy and the other folks to think about it, talk about it over in Frankfurt, see if there's any interest in, in creating more meaningful fines. Co- Council Member Myers, did you wanna comment? Yes, thank you. And then I have Council Member James. Okay. Thank you, Madam Chair. And, uh, Mr. King, I agree with you 100% on that. And we also looked at this issue from another perspective, and that is, um, the sign ordinance with respect to right of way sign violation and other types of sign violations and are working with the prosecutor. My office had a meeting with Mr. Crow and Mr. Jarvis and, uh, Mr. Roberts, and, um, I believe someone from the law department was there as well. And we talked about how we can increase the minimum fine and the maximum fine, so that, um, putting yard signs out in the right of way is not, um, a business, a business advantage to those who choose to do that. So, we found the same thing that it's a state law that we have to address. And so, that's another angle in which we think that we need to go to Frankfurt with to see if we can get some movement on that. Excellent. Thank you. Council Member James. Thank you, Madam Chair. Um, Chris, the pe- the penalties that are listed on page seven, um, the KRSs that it's referenc- referencing. Mm-hmm. What are they talking about violating? Sure. Under subsection one, when it's talking about KRS 10201 to 347, those are the general, what I would call, the meat and potatoes planning and zoning rules that allows a community to set up a zoning ordinance, have subdivision regulations. And, uh, and so when they're referring to those, those are violations of those types of things. In subsection three, talking about KRS 103681 to 3684, that is dealing with a process known as Certificate of Land Use Restrictions, which is a small adjunct to the development process in which we, uh, administer as a planning staff and have those, um, recorded in the, uh, clerk's office. So, both of these, um, one and three, would be, um, penalties for the developer personally or the resident? Is the resident affected or is it only during the development? It could be either. I mean, it's any zoning violation. Let's say, um, a developer that violates a zoning ordinance would be one type of case. Another one would be a property owner. Let's just say you opened up a restaurant in your home, you know, and you weren't zoned to do that. Mm-hmm. And you were, you know, taken to task for that. Same either way. Okay. So, we'd... We're limited because we can't exceed what the state statute says as far as, um, monetary penalty. Can we do anything above and beyond the monetary penalty? So, can we say, you know, if you reach, um, $1,500 penalty, then you can no longer... You won't be given another building permit, or you won't be approved. You can't come through our process. That's a legal question. My understanding, uh, having sat in meetings where that was discussed is that, no, we cannot do that. It's not legal, okay. Thank you, Madam Chair. Do other council members have questions on this item? Uh, if not, thank you very much. Uh, I do think, Mr. King, that we are probably not going to get to item seven today, and I apologize. But, um, you and I had talked, and you said you could bring it forward at the next meeting. We'll make it our first- We would be more than glad. ... item at the next meeting. That will be in January. Is that not correct? That's right. That would be great. Okay. Great way to start the new year. Okay, very good. Now, um, I don't know if there's anything to report on the electrical inspector fee schedule. I put it in here just in the event that there might be. Mike Webb, are you... Do you have an update? Have you been meeting? Yeah. We did meet and we have... We did meet with the electrical inspector, uh, the contractor and his attorney, and had a discussion about the fee, the histories of the fee, and, and how long it's been since it's been changed. Uh, we did ask, uh, the contractor for some information about things that are impacting, uh, his business. Uh, and we did discuss some components of the contract with the contractor that may be impacting how much, uh, that he's making on the contract. In addition to that, we gathered our own information. I, I know he provided information, uh, at the last planning meeting that we went to about the cost of electrical inspections in communities around Lexington. We have put together, uh, our own packet of information to do a comparison. And right now, we are in the process of taking the, the units of work that he's done in each of the categories and assessing fees from outside of Lexington. ... what the total profit or the, the, the total amount of dollars would have been for each of these communities. We haven't got passed there. We haven't been able to complete that evaluation yet. Okay. Okay. Do you think you would be ready to come back with that in January? Yes, I think we will. Okay. I think that would be a good thing. Council Member McCord, you had put this into committee, does that suit you since they're working on it? Thank you very much. We'll put you on the agenda for- We'll be there. ... January. Now, uh, council members and Commissioner Helm, we have, um, our item of the day treatment facility. It is 22 minutes until 3:00, and so we need to be done at a minute before 3:00. Do you think we can... Do you wanna go ahead and hear this? Do you think we... Do you think you can... Is it a pretty speedy presentation and- I think Lisa and I can name that tune in- Questions? ... less than, than that. We're gonna at least give it a good try. Okay, good. Uh, did you have a question, Council Member Stennet? Ye- yes, Chair. If, if we could just... Uh, we got a copy of the PowerPoint, kinda kn- narrow that down to five to ten minutes. Uh-huh. And then leave the rest open for discussion. I think that would- Perfect. ... help us a lot. Uh-huh. I think that's a good suggestion. I hate to squeeze you, but we've been waiting for this, so- S- ... no problem. ... welcome. Let me just give you a little... This... And this starts on page nine of the packet, and council members, uh, I must tell you to... and anybody else who has a packet, please ignore page 37. I have no clue how that got in the packet. That's okay. It's a to-do list of Council Member James. Good afternoon. Just wanna touch base with you just a little bit on the, uh, Lexington Day Treatment Center. Um, just a little history and background that is not in your PowerPoint, but wanted you to know that the Lexington Day Treatment Center was established in 1971, and it was considered Kentucky's first day treatment center. Um, there are 26 of these programs in Kentucky. 19 of them are operated by local school districts, six of them are off, are operated by the Department for Juvenile Justice, and then one is operated by a local government, which is the one here. Lexington or LFUCG receives under contract with DJJ about $240,000 for the current fiscal year in support of this particular program. Um, the program is considered, uh, by KDE as what is called an A6 Program. An A6 Program is an alternative education program that has a treatment component that is provided on non-school property. Lisa Behrman is currently serving as, uh, her, her official title is Clinical Services Manager. She's currently serving as the Acting Program Administrator, kind of doing both jobs at, with, uh, together. And she's going to give you a couple of essential pieces of Lexington Day Treatment. We've heard what you've said about narrowing the, the, the presentation, and so she will probably skip over a lot of the, um, slides and leave time for questions. Thank you. Thank you. Welcome, Lisa. Thank you. I'm gonna try to skip over and get to the outcomes and things I think you might be interested in. Um, I don't know how to do this. There. You got it? Yeah. We have a maximum of 60 clients that we serve at one time at day treatment, and we divide them up into five groups with 12 clients in each group. Um, but we serve a lot more than 60 clients over the whole year. Though we have... A bulk of the students do remain for a full year, um, we have several who are transient, who come and go, um, either because their needs are too severe to be served in the community or, um, 'cause they're having legal problems or simply because they don't think day treatment is the program for them and they wanna go back to their home schools. Um, our clients do come from all over Fayette County, and, um, this is just kind of a point in time demographic, but it's pretty typical over time that that's what it looks like, though we usually have more females than we have right now. Um, that's our staff for now. Um, we have the five social workers. One social worker works with each group. One thing I did wanna say about our admission and referral process is that we are a voluntary program. Um, even though some clients may be court-ordered or come from the Department of Juvenile Justice or, um, DYS Probation, they... Everyone goes through an interview process. They have to be able to talk about their treatment goals, things they wanna work on, change, and improve about themselves, and they have to agree to our expectations and the rules that we have and sign a contract of agreement in order to be, um, accepted into the program. Now, as long as they agree to that, um, everyone is accepted who agrees to those terms. The way we go through the process is simply by when we receive the referrals. So, we just go by the date of the referral, and then when we have an opening, those clients are given an opportunity to interview. Um, we've had some transportation changes this year, so that is a concern as well as, as far as who gets into the program. Um, they have to fit on the bus route. The clients are at the program from 8:15 to 2:35 every day. Again, we have the five groups, 12 clients in each group, and each group works as a team with a social worker, a teacher, and a paraprofessional. And those clients, each week, their progress is reviewed as far as their behavior, their treatment goals, their attendance, and their grades. Um, those are the treatment components that we have in the program. Our -- I think one of our really important things that we have is the discovery program, which sort of gives us all a common language and comprehensive social skills that we work on throughout the day, through the whole building. Um, and our concepts from discovery are implemented through our point sheets and our behavior management system, along with what we teach in group and in individual counseling. Trying to go fast. Am I doing okay? Okay. As far as the treatment process goes, we start out with an orientation treatment plan that I develop at the intake, and then we have 21 days to develop our individualized treatment plan that is sort of our guide for what we're gonna do with the clients for the whole year. And this is really a collaborative effort. We meet with, um, the s- the social worker at day treatment, the teacher, but also all the outside resources who are working with the clients as well, including the parents, of course. But any mental health professionals, probation officers, and outside social workers are also a part of these meetings and contribute to the treatment process. And then we review those goals every 60 days, change them as needed, ask for input, and make referrals for any additional services that are needed to try to meet their needs. Also, their aftercare plan really starts at the very first meeting, where we start looking at what we want things to look like when they exit so that they can ultimately either go back to their home schools and be successful. And then after that, we follow up with them for a semester once they return back to their home schools. And actually before they go, we take all of our clients over to their home schools so they can meet with their contact people. We try to aid to make the transition process as smooth as possible and have them meet their contact people. They also have to be able to present to the administrator at that school what they worked on while they were at day treatment, why they feel like they're ready to come back and be successful now, and, um, what treatment goals they've reached and what skills they've learned that they think are gonna help them be successful. Okay. These are just the other treatment components I'm going quickly through. And then the educational component, which is really run by Fayette County Schools. Um, but we do have a seven-period day, and they do earn credits that follow them back to whatever school they go to. Yeah. Um, we had 24 s- complete, successfully complete last May, 13 completed in August, and then we had 15 return to day treatment in August from that -- from the group from last year. We had five graduate from high school in May and two receive their GEDs. Um, and then just so you can see that when our clients go back, they go back to all the high schools in Fayette County. There's not necessarily a concentration, um, in one high school or another. It looks hi- Last year, it was higher at Bryan Station, but it, it varies based on the semester. Um, and then we also have students who return to their middle schools, and so far this year, these students are doing really well. And th- this is what happened to the clients who did not graduate from the program. Um, several came back and are still with us, and then as you can see, they're all over the place. Some have left, some have gone to a DJJ placement, some have gone to a mental health facility, um, and some exited day treatment before they completed and just returned to their home schools. Um, our success rate with the Department of Juvenile Justice is measured by our clients making it to progress phase. And we chose progress phase because that really shows that they've made progress in their treatment goals and as well as they have to maintain a C average and show behavior improvements. Um, so at this point in the year, we have a 76% success rate, and attendance rates for all of our clients is higher than it was at their home schools, and for many, significantly higher. We have several clients from truancy court, um, who were not going to school at all and, um, are attending day treatment pretty regularly now and have worked their way out of truancy court, so. And then as far as this year, just trying to predict what's gonna happen, we have four who are scheduled to graduate from high school in December and will graduate from day treatment as well. And then at this point, we're looking at all the rest of our clients remaining at day treatment until May or August, and then hopefully leaving successfully, and then we'll be adding new clients for those who have, uh, left for graduation. Okay. Questions? Very good. We need to have you around here more. Why, thank you. Okay. We have Council Member Stennet and then Council Member Myers. Yes. Kudos to that presentation. Thank you. That's the kind we like. Uh, just a couple questions. One, w- what kind of, um, uh, communication has been had with, uh, Fayette County Public Schools? I know we asked during the budget process what kind of communication has been going on between the two entities. Would they... Is this a program that they fully support and want us to keep continuing with, or has there been any changes on that front, Commissioner? Uh, it is a program that we are in constant communication with Fayette County Schools. As you heard Lisa t- say, um, this truly is a program that has a very strong educational component. The students are, are actually Fayette County students who are attending this program in lieu of their home school for a variety of reasons. The teachers that are there, um, are there, uh, as provided by Fayette County, uh, Schools, and they also have an administrator who, uh, supervises and oversees that program. Um, it is a program that Fayette County, uh, every school district must offer this type of an alternative program. So, um, Fayette County has every reason to want to see this program continue. When you say offered, by, by state statute it's a state... It is a requirement that every local school district offer a program of this nature to students who qualify. Um, DJJ also has a responsibility for making sure that students, uh, youth that are adjudicated by the courts for whatever reason, uh, and cannot attend their home school are also given the opportunity for placement in a program such as this. Um, what happens in many, uh, county school districts in which they may not have a day treatment center, then it's their responsibility to either provide something within a school, you know, set aside a program, or in some counties they actually bus the students to either an adjoining county, or in the cases where there's an independent and a county district, sometimes they work out an agreement in that manner as well. Okay. And, and wha- what is our current annual budget, our portion of it, versus Fayette County Public Schools' portion? Oh. Um, Fayette County, uh, provides seven teachers, five regular teachers, two special ed teachers, and what they call sar- seven paraeducators. Those are instructional aides, if you will. Those, uh, are in the classroom to help. Their budget is, I'm sure, um, close to $600,000. They do get funds, funding that a local school, a local, um, urban county government would not be eligible for. Okay. They get funding because of their ADA, um, through the SEEK program. They also get funding through KECSA. Uh-huh. And th- the students are also eligible for some other funding, including transportation. If they were transporting them, Fayette County would actually get funding to support that, and that's an issue that we've been, uh, working with them on, seeing if they would allow us to transport, but yet somehow get KDE to, um, reimburse them and then fund, uh, funnel the money or pass through the money to LFUCG. So we're still in process with that. The total budget for LFUCG is, uh, a million three plus. We do, as I said earlier, get approximately $245,000 from DJJ, uh, a- under contract. And DJJ gets its money based on, uh, those students who are Medicaid-eligible. And of our million three, have we cut any costs this year in terms of staffing or anything and saved any money, uh, in terms of the old staff versus what we currently have? We have. Um, we have reduced, um, program aides by about three and we've, uh, reduced by, uh, I believe one, um, aide and administrator. So yes, we have reduced the, the program cost. And, and is, is that deliberately? Are we not gonna hire 'em back, or what are we try... I mean, where are we going with the staffing? Were we overstaffed? We were staffed very nicely, let's just say. Um, what we, what we found, and I think Lisa would agree, um, is that we had several individuals who were there because their previous employment had, or their previous place within LFUCG had stopped operating, and so they were transferred to, um, day treatment center. Right. And so, um, we ended up probably with more f- staff than we would have, uh, had if we had actually outlined a program and said, "Okay, we're gonna do this program and here's what we need in order to operate it." So through attrition, I think we are making some, some headway there. And, and how many students did we serve in the last year? 37, I think you said, 24 and 15, or? No, we- That's how many graduated. Okay. H- h- But we served over 100 throughout the year. Throughout the year, off and on? Um, we take... We have 60 at a time. Okay. But yeah, well over 100. I just wanted to verify that. Thank you. You're welcome. Council Member Myers. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Commissioner, for the presentation. And I just wanna follow up on a couple of things. You said that we've reduced the administrative staff by one? Yes. By the administrators? Yes. Haven't we lost two administrators? Just recently, yes. But, um, that position is still funded, so, you know, there is that possibility of, of refilling that position. Yeah, that person is not officially retired until tomorrow. Okay. So what are the plans for that position? Well, currently, we haven't really had time to think about that, but I think our, our... You know, we wanna look at the program and really see. In fact, Lisa and I were talking earlier, that we actually want to go and visit some of the programs that have been i- been identified to us as outstanding day treatment programs. Not to say that ours is not, but to look at others who perhaps are operating under a different model. Uh, as you know, the, uh, director of that particular division, the Division of Youth Services, is also a vacant position, and so we're trying to kind of move cautiously. We'd like to get that position filled and let that individual help us to determine the next steps, uh, for day treatment center. Well, I know in our council meeting, uh, last year, we discussed the fact that there were three administrators and we could probably do okay with two, but that to have one administrator in there and that administrator be the LCSW that's over all of the treatment plans and then that same person have to manage the whole facility was probably a little too much for one person to be able to manage. Exactly. Lisa's, Lisa's struggling just a little bit. We're gonna give her a little clerical help so that she doesn't go under totally. So, so being, so Lisa is the, er, uh, Administrator that's the LCSW that's over the treatment plans, right? That's correct. So being that we're in that situation that we discussed last year, um, does the administration, uh, intend to fill that position? We are going to- The second admin- We are going to look at that very, very carefully to see exactly what that position needs to look like. You know, what, is the title appropriate? Are the number of days correct? Because again, when these programs operate within a local school district, the, um, if they operate under a principal, then a second administrator is not hired. My understanding is that most programs do not have two administrators administrating the program. Now, granted, our program is probably the largest program, um, in the state, and we, we need to look at that as well. So it sounds like you're saying that you may be able to fill that position, but with a less, not necessarily the same level of position before, but that you'd get some type of administrative relief to that single director. We're, we're going to look at all of our options with that program, yes. I, I think there are a couple of other places where we can, uh, reduce cost, and we will certainly take a look at that as we get closer to budget. In fact, we're actually gonna start some of our, uh, strategic bus- budget, uh, work sessions, uh, uh, in just another week or so. So, we will begin to really look at that. Okay. Can we direct bill Medicaid? No, we cannot. Well, I shouldn't say that. That was a concern that, uh, I think Mr. Clark had brought up that, you know, if we could direct bill, uh, perhaps we could generate more dollars, and I have really not looked into that issue with DJJ. I- is the model that may be appropriate with, um, comp care where they have a psychiatrist on staff for X number of hours a week, and then the LCSW is there billed through, bill Medicaid directly through that, uh, psychiatrist? Could we look at, will you look into that as a model here, that we can employ say a, a staff psychiatrist part-time, and then day treatment can bill directly through that psychiatrist, which would give us- It's- ... probably $300,000. Yeah. We can look at that. Okay. We, um, we also have the ability to direct, um, bill for mental health services through our Family Care Center Health Clinic. That is, uh, something new that has just, uh, come about, I guess, within the last three to four months. And so we're gonna look at that angle as well. Okay. My final question, uh, we're running out of time. Transportation. Last year, uh, we discussed and, and strongly encouraged the administration to look at working with the school system to take on the transportation. I think you've merged the transportation between day treatment and Family Care Center. Center. That's true. Right. Can, why did you do that? And what ramifications did that have on the school system- ... not being able to take the transportation piece? Um, well, we did that primarily because we were looking at a reduced number of employees. The Division of Family Services has many more employees, and they have e- more employees who can actually, who actually have their CDL and can drive the bus, um, because it is required that in order to drive a bus, you have to have the CDL. We were looking at it as well because we were wanting to, um, not duplicate services. What we were finding is that we had two divisions located on the same campus that were actually taking 50 passenger buses, uh, down the same street, right behind one another, and we felt like that was just not a real good use, that was not very efficient of us. We, we don't have it down, um, as clean as we'd like it, but we're still working on that, as well as continuing to work with Fayette County Schools to, uh, see about their potential to help us with transportation. Well, I understand that you don't want to do duplication of services, but if we had left the two separated and transferred the responsibility of transportation for day treatment center to the school system, then there wouldn't be a duplication of services, and that would have net us back approximately $900,000. Fayette County has not, Fayette County has not agreed to take on our transportation at this point. We have been talking with them since April, and, uh, as late as October 23rd, I had gotten a letter saying that they still were not convinced that, uh, this was something they want to do. So we are still talking with them. But isn't that because you combined the two- No. ... and they don't want to transport- No, it is not. ... the, the infants? No, it is not. So if you separate the two back out, they're still not interested in doing the transportation? Well, that really has nothing to do with it because they would make the determination as to how to transport. In fact, back in April, they sent a, a letter outlining exactly how they would do it. They would actually use six drivers and four monitors and, uh, would run it totally different than we're running it, um, at the present time. Okay. The information I had said that, that the reason they didn't want to do it was because they couldn't transport the infants with their liability. The infants? Right. Well, we have always said that we certainly, uh, do not necessarily expect them to do that, but that is not the reason that they have chosen not to, not to do it at this particular point in time. Okay. And I certainly will be more than happy to share with you the letter that they just recently, um, sent and the ongoing conversations that we're having with regard to this issue. Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Helm, thank you very much. We appreciate your presentation. Council members, are there any items on the back page that you wish to remove from committee? If not, the meeting stands adjourned. Thank you very much.