# Solar Work Group - May 20, 2026 > Auto-transcribed civic record · May 20, 2026 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/6773 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/6773?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2026-05-20 - **Last revised**: May 20, 2026 - **Length**: 18,916 words - **Speakers**: Chair, Clerk > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed with OpenAI's open-source Whisper large-v3-turbo model, run locally by The Lexington Times. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude. Verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Planning Commission Work Group convened on May 20, 2026, at 10:00 AM, with Zach Davis presiding over the session. The meeting included two agenda items, both informational in nature: a discussion of the schedule of meetings and goals, and a review of a Solar Ordinance. No votes or motions were taken during the meeting. The work group heard 2 public comments over the course of the session. ## Attendance The following individuals were present at the May 20, 2026 meeting: - Zach Davis - Council Member Boone - Dave Sevigny - Tom Eblin - Frank Penn - Mike Owens - Bee - Allison Davis No members were recorded as absent or late. ## Public Comment Two members of the public addressed the body during the comment period, both focusing on concerns related to solar energy development and its potential impact on agricultural land in Fayette County. - **Brittany Rothmyer**, Executive Director of Fayette Alliance, spoke at [timestamp: 13:34] about the permitting of large-scale solar installations in agricultural zones. Rothmyer emphasized the importance of protecting prime soils and highlighted the economic significance of agriculture to Fayette County, raising concerns about the potential consequences of allowing large-scale solar development in these areas. - **Allison Davis** spoke at [timestamp: 36:22] on the topic of utility-scale solar farming. Davis addressed both the economic and environmental impacts of such development, with particular attention to soil quality. She also raised concerns about potential negative effects on local agriculture and property values. Both speakers expressed reservations about the compatibility of large-scale and utility-scale solar projects with the preservation of productive agricultural land, with soil quality emerging as a shared concern across both comments. ## Contested Items - **Large Scale Solar in Agricultural Zones:** A significant point of contention during the meeting centered on the appropriateness of large-scale solar projects on agricultural land. Community members raised concerns about the potential impacts of such developments, with discussion focusing on soil quality and economic effects on agricultural areas. The opposition reflected broader community unease about converting or encumbering farmland for solar energy infrastructure. No specific outcome or resolution for this item was recorded in the available meeting data. ## Discussion of Schedule of Meetings and Goals [timestamp: 01:55] The group took up a discussion regarding the scheduling of meetings and the goals associated with the committee's work. Key speakers during this portion of the meeting included **Zach Davis** and **Council Member Boone**. The discussion centered on the recognition that a second meeting would be necessary given time constraints that had arisen. Participants considered potential dates for when that follow-up meeting might be held, though no specific date was finalized during this discussion. The outcome of this agenda item was **informational** in nature, meaning no formal action or vote was taken. The conversation served to orient the group around the practical logistics of their schedule and to acknowledge that the scope of their work would require additional meeting time beyond the current session. ## Review of Solar Ordinance [timestamp: 04:43] The planning commission took up a discussion on the solar ordinance at the request of the urban county council, focusing on the implications of large-scale solar projects on agricultural land. Key speakers in this discussion included **Frank Penn**, **Brittany Rothmyer**, and **Allison Davis**. The discussion centered on the council's referral to the planning commission to examine the existing solar ordinance, with particular attention to how large-scale solar development intersects with agricultural land use. This item was informational in nature, meaning no formal action or vote was taken as a result of the discussion. No additional details regarding specific concerns raised, proposals offered, or next steps were recorded in the available meeting data. --- ## Full transcript Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for having me. Hill Boone, Council Member for the 12th District. Happy to be here. Sorry, the other button. Dave Savigny, and I'm the 10th District Council person. Tom Edlin, I'm the 3rd District Council person. Frank Pan, Planning Commission. Mike Owens with the Planning Commission. Judy Worth, Planning Commission, former member of Goal 4 Work Group and former member of the Expansion Area Work Group. I don't learn my lessons. I'm Allison Davis, University of Kentucky, former member of the Expansion Group. All right. Thank you, everyone. Our first item on the agenda is the discussion of a schedule of meetings and goals. we pulled this together kind of quickly and I initially thought we could accomplish what we need to accomplish in one meeting we are limited today to an hour and 45 minutes in this room so there will likely be need a need for a second meeting is there any particular week that would be better than another Mr. Davis, I would just offer that the staff prepared sort of a timeline of what we have for the Planning Commission's timeline at the top, and then where we are today, May 20th, with the green dot. And just if we're finishing and sending something back within our 60 days to the Council August 11th, That's – or sorry, the Planning Commission has to act by July 9th. Just those are your – that's kind of your parameters. Okay, so the Planning Commission will hear this initially at work session on June 18th is the proposed schedule. Just ideas for a future – Are you wanting to do it at the same time? Same day and time? Is this convenient? Yeah, in general. Yes, no, but whatever's easiest for the majority. Yeah, I've got something on the 10th, but the 9th or the 3rd or the 17th works. Okay. Mr. Boone, would the 3rd work for your schedule? Yes, sir. Okay. I'm sorry it will not I've got to speak at something in Versailles Are you free on the 10th Tom? No I'm going to be out of town on the Commerce Lexington trip Okay And I'm out of town until the 11th Okay After the 11th I'm here Actually it might be maybe a Tuesday morning a little earlier we've got council meetings at 1 Okay. Maybe Tuesday the 9th at 10? That would work. Okay. I won't be here either, but very unimportant. Okay. Well, let's tentatively say the 9th at 10 a.m., and then once we get a little further along today, maybe we can hear, certainly want to hear, any thoughts from Ms. Worth and Dr. Davis? Okay. Mr. Chair, we will need to confirm a location for that. This room may not be available, but we can find that out and let you all know. All right. Thank you, Mr. Duncan. Okay. Well, the reason that we are meeting today is that the Urban County Council has asked the Planning Commission to re-review our solar ordinance. We have all had a chance at this point to review the language that did come out of council. Who would like to begin any thoughts or discussions? I mean, I've read what we've gotten here. This is our second time around on this. So I would like to hear a little bit of history of how it came back to us, what caused that to happen, and what are we trying to accomplish. Can I add to that in terms of the timeline that we're working under? Is there a particular reason that we're working under that timeline? Well, not 60 days, but the particular 60 days, whether that can be extended past that. Yeah, I can probably speak to that the best. So when this, the ZODA originally came as a, what would we call those? We call those constituent-led ZODA. What do we call those? Citizen initiated. Yes, citizen-initiated ZOTA. It came to planning staff, came to you. The recommendations that came from the planning staff to you, I think you guys approved them. I don't know that there was a – I don't believe you even edited those, if I recall. Then it came to us as part of the ZOTA process. the council didn't agree um a majority of the council did not agree with the no there was several things that we didn't agree with but um if you're looking at the principal thing it was nothing on the ground on uh agricultural land so that was the that was the principal thing and then there was a whole variety of other things that um were added to the original zoda and then passed by council. So there was a variety of work that was done and that got passed by council right after you guys did your work. The one piece that council did not have, was evenly split at that time, was large scale solar in ag areas. A few people from council formed, that it was discussed at a meeting to form our own initiative to basically study that more, okay? And the result is what you see now. We studied it more. We did more work on it. We got it through GGP. And then the standard process is it was at that point it's a council-initiated ZOTA because we had already approved the originals, so it's not like the whole process is extended. At this point now it's a council-initiated ZOTA, and it comes back to you in council at a work session, and then at two subsequent meetings has pushed this back to the planning commission for you to consider the work we did. Okay? Okay. So that's where we are. Good. Okay, thank you. Well, yes, ma'am. We did do some work on the initial draft. Okay, yeah. Okay, well, the primary objective of this body, of this group, is to collect findings from stakeholders to present to the Planning Commission so that the Planning Commission can be fully versed on any questions that they may have in advance going into it. Mr. Penn, I think, put it very well. Instead of being reactive, we want to be proactive and attempt to get ahead of some of this so that the Planning Commission can be as informed as possible. So considering that you may not be here, let's see here, look at our agenda. If it's okay with everyone, I'd like to maybe move, if we do have any stakeholders who wish to comment today, and again, another reason I would like to have maybe one more hearing is to allow any other stakeholders who wish to speak to this body and opportunity to do so. Dr. Davis, you mentioned you're not going to be here during our next meeting. Do you have any, have you had a chance to review this text, or do you have any thoughts or any other stakeholders at this time? I have not had a chance to review all of the text. I am quickly getting up to speed on what is in here. so if I can maybe refrain until a little bit later in the meetings have a chance to continue to review it yes and I think Judy you meant you mentioned the flexibility on the date okay I think the dates are by statute but it is kind of odd because we're we're technically off like for the month of July and we're not meeting until August whatever is it 11th that I think our first day back council member misworth the statute requires that a council initiated text amendment be returned to them within 60 days of their initiation that doesn't it just says returned within 60 days so that that July the 9th is the date that we have to hear this about no can and I might ask law like can can counsel do a time specific I mean we have plenty of meetings between now and then that we could basically push it to a stuff time specific push when it comes back when it comes back yeah an official like say we want this back at work because he left out of a work session so it would be returned to a work session I mean you all are the the requirement for the for the planning commission is by statute and they have to get it back to you in 60 days there is no requirement when it comes back to you all so you all can can do whatever you want with it when it comes back and deal with it however you choose i realize you'll be on break when it comes back but really you're all scheduling of your breaks has nothing to do with what the statute requires in terms of the planning commission returning it to you. So once it comes back to you, that's really up to the council. Council member, this will come to you on August the 11th. It will be returned to you on your first day back. Got it. Thank you. So can I ask just a quick clarifying question? So if I'm just reading the table, the thing that's really at stake here is the conditional use permit under large-scale for for ag lands is that accurate is that what the changes the proposed changes yeah there's multiple changes but that's one of them that is correct okay well while we are kind of collecting our thoughts about us are there any other stakeholders present who would like to address the work group? If so, you certainly may. While she's coming up, let me back up just a second and ask Tracy, I guess, once again, following up with what Councilman Signigvi offered. Since the council initiated this, do they have the flexibility to give us an extension? No, they do not. You have to follow the statute. Okay. Thank you. Got it. Okay. I appreciate the opportunity to share with you all some information. As you all know, this has been ongoing. This has been ongoing. I was thinking as I was trying to identify what, how, I wanted to keep this brief for you all, provide some additional context. Had a little bit of deja vu. I think it was just two years ago, you know, we chatted about this at the Planning Commission level. You know, I wanted to not rehash that same information. Thank you so much. But just provide some additional context. You know, I think that, I'm going to skip the intro about Fade Alliance, but just for the record, Brittany Rothmeier, I'm the executive director of Fade Alliance. We have been, you know, studying this issue since it first came to the Planning Commission when it was an organization, you know, initiated ZODA by Silicon Ranch in the beginning of 2024. You all just went through a timeline, and so I won't go through that again. But again, just to kind of highlight and emphasize, the Planning Commission voted to prohibit large-scale solar and ag zones in September of 24. The council voted to uphold the majority of those recommendations, added some additional provisions in August of 2025. There was the working group that Council Member Savigny mentioned that started in September of 25 that went through February of 2026. um the i was not i i don't know what was discussed in those working groups i was able to review the summaries that were provided but i because those working groups were not available to the public i don't know the majority of what was discussed in them so the information that i wanted to provide goes to the consideration of how we consider large-scale solar and agricultural zones and again if this is a repeat of anything that was discussed in the work group i apologize the council members who are a part of that but without having that information you know it's important to me to present on that today and I it was my understanding that the Environmental Commission and the Rural and Management Board have both been asked to provide feedback that's to be considered by the Planning Commission I don't know what the status of that is or what the timeframe on that was but I did want to mention that those groups had been asked by the council on a a short time frame to provide feedback as well. And so, you know, this kind of comes back to our original position on whether or not it's appropriate to permit large-scale solar and agricultural zones. And I think that the changes that we've seen based on the findings that were established by the work group, you know, we just don't believe get at that fundamental question of why is it appropriate to reconsider large-scale industrial producing energy facilities on agricultural land and what should go into that conversation and what considerations should be discussed if we're talking about whether or not that's appropriate. I think that the recommendations you know from the council obviously permit that and work to mitigate it but I think that original question that is being skipped over here is is that an appropriate use on our prime soils and I think that, you know, in our community, as you all well know, you know, we have an obligation to protect our best resources. And I think that the recommended changes at this point simply don't do this. I would say that I have reviewed dozens and dozens of ordinances from all over the country, namely communities that have agricultural economies. And I think that's really important for us to consider. I would say almost every single one of those ordinances that I've reviewed up and down the East Coast are all very clear in their intent to protect their prime soils and soils of statewide significance when they're evaluating solar facilities and how to implement solar in their own communities. And I think that that's something that the recommendations and the ordinance that's provided here to permit large-scale solar and ag zones just doesn't do. So, and I think that that, you know, just mitigating the consequences of development, I don't think is appropriate for this community based on what we have here. And I think that that's really the difference between other ordinances in the country and this one that's in front of you all to consider. We don't believe that that's responsible in light of the importance of the soils to this community. and I think we're owed you know a really kind of important community conversation about the importance of those soils and I think it should be on the record you know why we're raising this again and why we're having this conversation. It's a worthwhile conversation thinking about how we can promote renewables in this community is vital. It's critical to community members, it's critical to our decision makers, our elected officials, all our commission members. We know how important it is. And I think that there's, you know, numerous opportunities to explore what those responsible provisions are. And so I wanted to provide some context on that today. You all have some materials in front of you. I just wanted to include some of these maps. I know this is small on the screen. And so in the green folder, you know, you've got some of these maps and information. But why do we keep, oh, there you go. You know, and I just think it's, again, important to provide information on the record about why Fayette Alliance as an organization is saying we do not believe that this use is appropriate on agricultural land. So we're obviously very fortunate to have those soils that we do. Why do we protect this land? We know we've got approximately 180,000 acres in Fayette County, and the rural service area outside the urban service boundary is about 125,000 acres. Digging deeper into that, we've got 74,000 of those acres that are designated as prime farmland, and then 38,000 acres of that rural service area is designated as soils of statewide significance. That is nearly 112,000 acres that are the best soils in the country for producing food and fiber, and that really is the basis of this conversation that I just want to make sure is thoroughly considered as we're evaluating these recommendations. We've got a number of other environmental considerations. As we have this conversation, this is from the Rural Land Management Board, again, talks about all of the other important environmental considerations in our rural service area. Again, that also is really important to be considered here as we evaluate whether or not to permit this type of use in our agricultural zones. I didn't know if someone from the National Resource Conservation Service, I don't know if they spoke to the working group. I don't know if they're going to be able to speak to you all as a group. That is a division of the USDA. They are the soil experts in the state of Kentucky, and then we also have a local NRCS representative. They do a lot of work with the Royal Air Management Board and are just soil experts. So I'm not going to play this, but in case that Steve Blanford, who is our local NRCS representative, couldn't be here, I will share that, the video with you all. Farm Bureau did an excellent video a couple of years ago and interviewed Steve Blanford, who's one of our soil scientists, to speak about the quality of soils in Fayette County and why they're important. you know it's it's you know it's one thing for me to kind of be standing up here talking about that it's another for you all to hear from an expert in soils about why exactly this land is unique and why we're organizations like Fade Alliance continue to stand in front of you and advocate for consideration of those soils so I'll send that video out to you all in case that that no one from NRCS can actually come and speak to you and you all can hear from the experts themselves So how do we use that farmland? This is newer information from when the last time I presented to you all, when the census information came out. We've got 682 farms in Fayette County, which is an increase. We're one of the only, I would say, counties probably in the country that is actually increasing the amount of farms in our rural areas. the market value of products sold annually and this is of course from 2022 is the most recent information was 333 million dollars which was an increase from the last time the census was done in 2017 fayette county ranks third in the state for ag product sales and i thought that this was an interesting stat that also put us in context nationally fayette county ranks 424th out of more than 3,000 other counties in the country that are producing these same products. I think that's really significant. And we know that we have such a strong ag industry because our land uses ensure that our ag land is protected for agricultural uses and agricultural purposes. And once we begin saying, well, we can use that land for industrial uses with a little bit of agriculture, we begin to undermine the foundation that this community really stands on. We begin to impact the number of ag operations that want to be located near an industrial use. We reduce ag land that's available to local Fayette County farmers and beyond. And I think that the choices that we make in our policies have ripple effects. And I hope that you all are able to hear from farmers in Fayette County to speak to this. They are the ones that are going to be most directly impacted by the use of our land and these types of quantities if we were to permit this type of use in a rural area. So I think that that's important to note. I think this is no surprise to anybody, but the top products in Fayette County are horses, cattle, and crops. Hogs, pigs, and sheep are not measured in the census because the amounts are so minimal it would give away individual operation information. So those are not counted, but there is a livestock inventory in 2022 in Fayette County. There were 12,000 cattle, 16,000 horses. We have the most horses in the state, 2,000 chickens, and about 500 sheep and lambs. I know this is not the first time you all have seen information about our economic impact study of ag that was done actually by Dr. Davis and her team at the University of Kentucky. They originally did this study in 2017. We had it updated to make sure that we were accounting for what's the economic impact of agriculture here in Fayette County on our local economy every single year. And Dr. Davis and her team found that the ag cluster in Fayette County, which includes a lot of different things, business service, retail, wholesale trade, all that's solely dedicated to agriculture. And so Dr. Davis and her team were really clear that this is a conservative number because these industries that they've counted in this economic impact are solely 100% dedicated to ag. That those businesses generate $2.6 billion in economic activity in Fayette County every single year, and another $1 billion in additional profits, incomes, and dividends that goes into the pockets of our community members every single year. Our ag industry supports 16,000 jobs and contributes $13 million to the local tax base every year. We also know that a reduction in ag industries has a ripple effect throughout the community because it's so closely tied to the other industries in our community as well. And the study found that if ag production declines by just 10%, that there will be an additional overall decrease of $20 million in economic output. I think that's significant, again, because our ag industry is tied to so many other industries in this community. I wanted to speak on tourism. There is a printout in your folder of the economic impact report from Visit Lex. Again, I don't know if someone from the tourism group is going to be here to talk to you all, they just put out the 2025 economic impact report that reported that as of 2025, they set another record, nearly 12,000 people are employed by the tourism industry, and tourism has $131 million economic impact on local and state taxes. So the tourism aspect of our community is obviously another huge pillar of our economy, an important consideration to make. So I included, And again, you all may have copies of these already, but the findings from the council work group. And again, this is, from my understanding and following this along, the findings are what the council then worked from to make the recommendations to the ZODA that you all are considering here today. And again, without having been privy to what was discussed in that work group, I can only go based on those findings. and in the extensive amount of research that I have done personally and that Fade Alliance has done over the past going on three years, I think there were some important points to discuss about those findings. And so there were findings on, and the findings are on the right side of your folder, just for easy access. So there were findings about power generation and the grid that listed some. I think a couple of important points that are not addressed there was any measurable, way to evaluate the energy that's created by solar, how many Lexingtonians are going to be served by energy creation, or how electricity transmission wholesalers like PJM work when energy generated in Lexington is sold to those types of institutions. The wholesale energy networks are incredibly confusing. It's taken me a long time to wrap my mind around them, but I think understanding as a community how those work is important to understand the impact of using ag land for industrial-scale energy generation. As far as the environmental findings, some of the questions that still existed there was that those findings didn't speak to the creation of additional urban development and new expansion areas and plans for reducing carbon emissions. I know that the working group was only focused on ag areas, but it did raise this question that we know that urban development is the largest source of carbon emissions. And so as we expand nearly 3,000 acres as of 2023, how are we going to continue to create sustainability instead of only looking to our ag areas to do that? I think there's a missing explanation about soil quality in Fayette County. Again, that's what I wanted to speak on to you all today and hope that you all will have some additional input from soil scientists about how soil quality can actually be maintained and the importance of maintaining it. is something, again, the fundamental questions I feel like we're really missing from the workbook recommendations and then the recommendations that you all are considering. Another piece was stormwater management practices. There was a new study from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory that was very clear that existing stormwater management regulations for commercial and industrial development are not adequate for solar. They go through what those best practices recommendations are for stormwater management. A lot of other communities in the country are revising their own stormwater management regulations because they've seen the negative impacts. As we evaluate how to regulate solar here, I think that that's something we should be thinking of. We have the benefit of now learning from what other communities are experiencing. Let us not put ourselves in the same position that a lot of communities in Virginia and across the country have been in when they've seen the negative impacts of stormwater regulation manuals because they cannot adequately account for how we need to be managing stormwater with solar regulations. I think that, you know, getting input from Fayette County farmers who are actually working the land and understanding how those types of issues can be mitigated, how impacts from solar development can be mitigated, are really critical. I think notably missing is any criteria for discouraging or preventing solar development on prime soils or soils of statewide significance, other than including the definitions. It's just simply missing from these recommendations. And that really goes back to the main reason why I'm in front of you all today, to get that on the record and how important those soils are to our economy and our identity, and that we have to be really careful in evaluating how we're going to permit solar in the community. So I think that, you know, the findings also spoke to the economy and jobs. I think what's missing from those findings is there's no report out on the long-term jobs that are created by solar development. We know from solar companies, you know, reports to the state and more that those are very minimal. I think that's important to have on the record. There are other economic considerations as it relates to large-scale solar impact to ag industries that are, you know, impacted by co-location of solar and ag or nearby locations to solar development. Something I did want to mention is that Spicos Farm is a farm out in Newtown Pike. It's a sport horse farm. It's about 800 acres, eerily kind of similar acreage as the original Silicon Ranch proposal. Spicos did their own economic impact study by Ernst & Young, which is a national accounting firm. Spico's farm every single year supports more than 60 jobs and more than $10 million of local economic impact every year. Those are the types of operations that I think we put in danger by considering use, large-scale uses of solar in our community. Do we have other ag operations that rely on our land being zoned for agriculture that are going to want to locate around these types of facilities? So it's not are we displacing current farms, it's also are we discouraging the continued use of our ag land for ag operations. You know, someone asked Lisa Laurie, you know, is she likely to locate her farm with all the impacts that it has next to a solar farm? I think that would be an interesting question for the currently operating ag folks here in this community. I think understanding from nearby neighborhoods is also really important. I know that Council Member Boone has already received, because I was copied on those emails, emails from concerned residents about clearing of vegetation and trees by East Kentucky Power for the project that's currently proposed and moving forward on Winchester Road. I think some serious consideration of buffering and setbacks and viewshed protections needs to be had, impact from neighbors that are going to be extremely directly impacted by these types of uses. is really important. So some other things that I wanted to point out that I don't think were appropriately addressed was the unenforceability of an acreage cap on large-scale solar projects, the unenforceability of community benefits agreements, and then the appropriateness of conditional use permits for uses that are as large as we're talking about. The last presentation from Silicon Ranch, there was an increase in the acreage that they're proposing for this development. You know, 24 was 790 acres. Now it's 890 acres. We're, you know, nearly 1,000 acres, or we're talking about utilizing for one project. Toyota in Georgetown is 1,300 acres, and that employs 10,000 Kentuckians. We're talking about a nearly 1,000 acre project that might employ four to five long-term jobs. So again, these are just really serious considerations that I hope will be considered by this group as we continue to evaluate these recommendations and what and where these types of things are appropriate. So again, just a reminder about the acreage. We know also that we've got about 750 acres in current development of large-scale solar in Fayette County. That's not subject to local planning and zoning. We've got 350 acres on the Haley Peck landfill and then another 400 acres by East Kentucky Power, again, that's currently underway. So we also have a lot to learn from those projects. How are those projects impacting this community? What are we learning from things like neighbor feedback about what appropriate setbacks are? What are we learning from them clear-cutting trees and things about what kind of buffers and vegetational requirements we're going to put into place? Like I mentioned, done extensive research, reviewed dozens and dozens of national organization recommendations, as well as municipality ordinances. And very overwhelmingly, those ordinances and recommendations are protect prime farmland, encourage siting to avoid prime farmland and soils of statewide significance. And I utilize industrial areas, commercial areas, and the built environment and marginal farmland for solar development. And I think we have to seriously consider those recommendations and what they're based on as we think about what's appropriate here in Fayette County. because we are uniquely situated with our soils. This is just a sampling of ordinances that I've reviewed from many different states and national and state organizations as well. So, again, I appreciate the opportunity to share this information, to put this on the record for consideration as we continue to evaluate what is appropriate here in Fayette County. And just a reminder of why I stand before you again, and make clear that we do not support large-scale solar on ag land. These are some of the reasons why. I'll continue to provide position statements to you all that really dig into the details. There's a lot of nuance to this. It's not just should we support solar in the rural area. That skims the surface of this question. It's so nuanced and technical, and we have a lot to learn that we can learn from other communities across the country and what they've experienced, what they've learned. And I hope that we take the time to do that and ask this fundamental question of, is it appropriate in our community based on the soils that we have and the agricultural industries that are so vital to our community? So I appreciate you all considering this information. I'm happy to provide any follow-up info as needed, but I hope that those handouts are helpful for you. Excuse me. Thank you very much. Thank you. Does anybody have any questions? or anything for Brittany at this point? If not, thank you very much. Thank you for the opportunity. All right. Dr. Davis. Okay, so I had a chance to briefly go through this. And just as a bit of history in my involvement with this work, started back in Clark County. I just can only say pre-COVID because that's the only way I know dates anymore. And so I did, when this research was very young in the academic world, I did a lot of research of utility-scale farming across the country and policy recommendations, decisions across all different types of places. So I had prepared at that time sort of a considerations brief that has since been used in many, many instances and did sort of a utility-scale solar farming roadshow across the state to hear a little bit about concerns and think more about what farmers of different types and different acreage and different types of soil, how they're addressing this. Since that time, there has been a lot of additional research. Obviously, now the conversation is around data centers and changing that. And so suddenly a solar farm, you're like, oh, okay, I guess that's not quite as visible as a data center. But there has been a lot of additional research and a lot of still unanswered questions. And in places where I have been, where the discussion, where contracts have been signed, it has been years and years and years before there have been any panels in the ground. And so it just creates a tremendous community strife that has torn communities apart for reasons where there should not be, in my opinion. So I kind of browsed through here, and a couple things really struck out at me. And one is knowing that this conversation came back up again. And once I saw really why we're here, which is talking about this conditional use permit on ag land without any consideration of the type of soils, made me very concerned. And I think one thing that we have to understand is that the landowners who are being approached by solar developers and being offered really attractive contracts are only because that land is so valuable. and I don't know if we really understand that they're not going to marginal lands because a it's um it'll cost the developer more to get those panels in the ground and so by default we're now talking about where these contracts are being targeted are being targeted to our best lands on purpose and so if we kind of think about that that's um that's very concerning If we are going to marginal lands, I think the conversation would be quite different. But they're going to places where our land is the most valuable. And I don't see that conversation in here. I am concerned about comments like may come up with a community benefits plan. The decommissioning, this is not my area of expertise, but it is 100% a significant argument everywhere. where I have seen any kind of policy decisions, where we continuously undervalue any of the bonds that these companies need to put up when thinking about decommissioning. A couple of things that are not just included in the economic impact report. When we first started doing this work back in 2012, before solar farming was even a thing, we really did want to try to capture the uniqueness of central Kentucky and particularly Fayette County. And so we did do the economic impact, but we also spent a lot of time interviewing industry leaders to better understand what the land means to them as non-agricultural, industrial, commercial CEOs and HR leaders and so forth. And it is clear that the land that we love in central Kentucky is a driving force in how they're able to attract and recruit very sought-after workers. We have a great – there was a great article that we published that sort of talked about all those interviews and the value of those lands to folks who have no stake in agriculture but have stake in the viewshed. Some recent literature has come out trying to understand the impact of utility-scale farming on ag lands and also nearby residential properties. And as expected, sort of those ag land values will go up, but the residential property values for the first 10 years fall by 5%. And those effects start to fade after nine years, but that is a consistent finding across multiple studies. The other piece is the viewshed. And I have told people about this. When we were on that bus two years ago and we were touring sort of those proposed areas for inclusion into the urban service boundary. and you know we had certainly different perspectives on what what how that should be approached but there was a unanimous response when we drove by some of our most amazing farms and that those farms were potentially going to be included in the inclusion and everyone sort of went, oh, and it was kind of like a gasp, like, this is, we don't want to touch this, and I can't imagine that that will be the same response if those farms are then plastered with urban, with utility-scale solar, and this idea of the screening plan, a lot of different states are requiring a viewshed study beyond just saying, here's what we're going to do, they need to have a full viewshed study of how they are going to make sure that folks do not see these panels from any direction, whether it's neighbors or thinking about our horse farm tours or whatever it may be. It is not, people don't drive by a solar farm and say, wow, that is gorgeous. Thank you for driving me by here. The other piece is, and this may not be as relevant in Lexington as in other places because of the heritage of farming. But one thing we have seen is because these contracts are so long and farmers are older, that when these contracts expire, the farmers likely will also have expired. And if there are no succession plans in place, then returning that farm to its original productive use becomes pretty impractical and less likely than if there are significant farm succession plans in place. And so that's a consideration as well. The last piece, on number 13 on the second to last page, which is really talking about, you know, what to get a conditional use permit they need to provide quality of soils farm activity ag improvements environmentally sensitive areas natural protected areas like so what so they they provide it how are you going to evaluate what this means and are you going to consider each of these permits in isolation of other requests. We know the marginal impact of losing one farm might not make the front page. But as we continue to recognize that there are more and more developers coming on play, how are we going to think about this aggregate effect? Because it will happen. I think I mentioned this last time, I live in Jessamine County, which took a very different approach to growth and we started I started doing this work in 20 I guess 2006 or so and it was talking about one farm and now all the farms are gone and now they no longer have what looked like central it looked like Lexington we now are a fully suburban community and so I want to understand if they say here's my farm activity who is going to evaluate whether that is critical or not. And how do we know, is it going to come in front of a panel of ag economists and we're going to say, yes, this is too significant to say goodbye. So that's my biggest question. It's like, so what? You're asking folks to do this. How are you going to evaluate those impacts, both as individuals and then as the aggregate? So I think that was my brief review of the document. But thank you for the time. Thank you for being here. Do we have any questions or comments on Dr. Davis' remarks? I'd like to ask you a question. And you just said you're not an expert on decommissioning. But one of the concerns that I've had about the decommissioning piece is what I'm from the American Farmland Trust and some other areas, other sources of information. What looks like we're reading is a set of best recommendations for decommissioning based on what we think will be best. Do we have any real research right now that says if we decommission in this way, we know that we're going to preserve the quality of the soils? And let me put that in context. As I read a lot of what's coming to us, we're talking about soil quality as in, you know, we're going to scrape off the topsoil and we're going to retain it, we're going to put it back. What I learned in a master gardener class is that soil also has a structure. We just barely understand the importance of soil structure these days. And to assume that taking off the topsoil and putting it back will give us the quality of soil when we've lost the soil structure is a bad assumption. Can you respond to that? I think part of my response is this is very early, right? What we have seen are two things. One is sites have become abandoned because the bond for decommissioning was so low that the developer did not have an incentive to decommission properly. The others are if we have a responsible developer who makes it through the course of the contract, that would have meant that the contracts were signed 30 years ago. And so I think there are some best practices that I've seen. I think the state of Ohio had some recommendations that I thought very robust, probably not something that a developer really would necessarily sign on to. So it really was created in a way that was a deterrent for developers because it would be very costly. But I think the thing is that I have heard from some that sometimes this is even better for the soil, that it gives it time to rest, and then after it takes about a year after the decommissioning, and you can expect that the soil will return. Others, I've heard that the soil will never be the same. And so I don't know if we have – I can continue to see if there's anything new. I have not had a chance to look recently, but that was what – when I was doing my research that I saw, that it's just sort of an unknown how great the soil will be when it returns to its original intent. Thank you. Do we have Council Members to think? Yeah, I just, my question, my questions to you, to you just probably around the, I don't disagree on the viewshed concept. I think it's probably, and I would say one man's beauty is another man's, you know, whatever. So I don't mind when I drive by a solar field because I think, okay, these are people that actually have invested in doing something that is supportive of green infrastructure. So I don't share the same feeling about that. And I don't think all Lexingtonians, you know, they're going to be somewhere between two parameters. I just, the things that concern me the most is we can put all, I think you have to understand that we're trying to come up with as good a way as possible to ensure as well as we can all the fear factors. factors okay um so that's what we put together and we put that together from our we basically talked to american farmland trust you know we we looked at the resources kind of like we looked at all that stuff and we and we asked people that we're actually doing things like how do you do them is this better than this you know and so we we did as much of that as we can um the net of what we're giving you is we basically have said we think there's a way to farm and do something else. And we believe that this is possible. Okay. And I just want to make sure that I think it's important to put requirements on this and on these people that might be doing something like this. but keep in mind that those same requirements go on all ag users right and and these are also ag users so i just i don't know what's the best if a sod farm is better for the soil than a soybean farm i don't know you know i don't know if cows a cow farm is better than this type of farm and so I just want to make sure that we're not eliminating people's lines of businesses because we don't think that that's the best use for soil so can I respond what I'm concerned about councilman is that This is site specific depending on where the transmission line is. So it's not where we can find the cheapest land or where we can get to. They don't want to build any more transmission line than they absolutely have to. So it's not the value of our land to farm is extremely expensive. The return on our investment is very little. Why do we do it? of appreciation. Farmers do two things. They buy a farm and they live on the depreciation. They put their kids in better shape than they are by the appreciation. So what my concern is is that as Dr. as Allison said, the average age of Kentucky farmer is in his 60s. There's a tremendous amount of land going to change hands in the next 10 to 12 years. Land all over Kentucky is expensive, but land in central Kentucky is really expensive. And the reason for that is it's a hedge against inflation. People are buying this land as an investment and a hedge against inflation. So what happens to that land does two things. The appreciation doesn't increase like it could or should. The other thing is that our land is made as grazing land. It's really not made for beans or corn or any of that. Western Kentucky will give you 20% more production per acre than Central Kentucky will. And the reason for it is big farms and flat land. Now I say all that to tell you is that it's a finite resource. When we did moldboard plowing instead of what we do now, we washed a lot of land down to the creek. And that's why creek bottoms in most counties are very rich. And that's why putting a post hole up on the hill is very tough. And the reason is we mow the cloud. That's not happening anymore. But my point to you is that this is not an asset that just stays constant. Depending on the use of that land and depending on the number of farmers, and I just told you what the average age is, The problem is going to be keeping a farmer on the farm for the next two generations. What happens is one child inherits the farm. The other one gets what liquid assets that the farmer had. And then that particular person doesn't want to farm because he doesn't have to. So when that contract runs out, they've been mailbox farmers for at least 20 years. Then what happens to them? American Farmland Trust. I've been involved with them for a long time. My son sits on their national board. They encourage solar, but not in the system where we are because the demand for the land is for the reasons that I just articulated. So we're in a quandary here. We're putting a, I would call it, an industrial use. on agriculture, but it's certainly a commercial use. And if we do this, I've been on the planning commission for a long time. If you start opening that up, it's a commercial or industrial use, at least expansion. It's a backdoor expansion. We just got 2,800 acres. We just found out it's going to cost $1.3 billion to fix it. Now we're going to take another 800 acres? we have to think about that. And that's my response to what you have to say. Judy. You all may want to shut me up because I may be diverting us too much from where we are in terms of specifically soils. But I was thinking about this last night, and we started talking about regional planning several years ago, particularly in the context of not having enough land for industrial development. And in the interim, you know, we did a land swap with UK, and now we've got the regional plan for the surrounding counties where we've got industrial land that Fayette County will benefit from because of the agreements we've made. And I'm wondering if we're not missing the boat here by focusing on solar development in Fayette County, where the soils and the land have a particular composition, as opposed to trying to do a regional plan like we've done with the industrial land in surrounding counties that the solar may be appropriate and we might be able to use that same kind of approach. I am an advocate for solar. I'm even an advocate for solar on farmlands for places in Texas where I grew up, where out west you've got water shortages, people are having trouble irrigating, if they can get money off of solar panels or further west, and I think that's great. We're just in a very particular location that makes, to me, this question a different question from it would be if we're in west Texas. Okay. Thank you, Judy. Do we have any? Yes, Dr. Lewis. I want to comment about the view show because my mother moved here from Baltimore, and she passed by a solar facility. She's like, oh, that's really cool looking. So I get that. But I just, I don't know if we're always comparing apples to oranges. And I think about driving up to Chicago and you drive past that giant wind farm, right? And it is mesmerizing so much so that you hope traffic isn't coming in the opposite direction. And you're checking to see if things are moving and you think, oh, this is, you know, this was a great approach to renewable and so forth. But the farm that was there before didn't have the same characteristics of the type of farms that we have, I think, in central Kentucky. And I think we, I'm afraid that, you know, some of it's anecdotal. Some of it is, you know, thinking about the qualitative interviews we've done. But I am afraid that if we go down this path, you will lose the character of this place that is why people have come here. and you know solar panels they're not the worst thing I've ever seen I'd rather probably pass by a solar farm than see you know pigs right there that's just my personal preference but I the character of this place is what defines this city and you don't want to turn into a Columbus you know Ohio you want to be Lexington and you want to be the place where people see the rolling hills and they see the traditional farms that have been so important to the history of this place. And the research that we've done has suggested that that is important to the folks that live here and to the firms that work here in terms of being able to have a workforce, to have a tourism economy, to have this cluster of ag firms, ag business firms and supporting firms that are here. And I just, will it 100% change the character of the community? I don't know. But is there a good chance or a chance are we willing to risk that, you know, by making this pretty irreversible decision? And I just I don't I guess I don't understand why, with the exception of an individual landowner. And I've seen some of the contracts. They are lucrative. That's the only reason why we're doing this. It's not netting us, you know, new jobs. It's not, you know, let's get another Toyota locale. That would be a completely different conversation. I just don't understand why this is showing up as being such a vital part of every community's local economy. Thank you. Yes, sir. I don't think 1% of land in Fayette County dramatically changes anyone's picture of the way Fayette County looks. So I'm going to just push back on that. And I think that's in general what you're going to hear from council is that 1% doesn't. I think you're also going to hear that it's currently written as a conditional use permit. and you know they're going to each one of these things if it if there's probably one or two that might show up that can jump through all the hoops and and i would disagree with we have we have caps right now that we currently have on our short-term rentals seems to be working now can the state override anything we do absolutely and the state itself is is kind of Every year it has this 1% of land, you know, to be used for solar. It kind of shows up every year. Eventually it might get traction. So I think we're – I don't disagree with you. I don't want – and I said I don't want, but I would say most council members don't want that change to happen either. but it's coming up because we think it's important and it is part of our comprehensive plan even though people tell us it's there's I could I could find probably ways to say it's in contradiction and I can probably and I can find as equally many ways to say it's supportive just like any one of your zone changes that you have to deal with right so I think there's a group of us that are supportive of that. So that's why it keeps coming up, and I don't think it's going to just go away. And if it would be easier, I think we heard from Fayette Alliance that they did a nice job at presenting, you know, their thoughts on this. I don't, I wasn't asked, nor was I prepared to give a presentation that said exactly all just to kind of go through the changes, because there's actually been two sets of changes that have taken place since it came back to you. So I don't know if it would be best for us to do that for you, to give you like a blue line that this is what's currently in place. You know, this is what you approved. This is what's in place. And now here's what you're being asked. And just kind to go through those well I think you're looking at a red line of what we actually approved which wasn't what you approved okay I'm sorry you mean two years ago a year ago a year ago okay yeah so the council received your recommendation and then they made changes correct okay I see what you're saying yeah so those may not have been what Yes, this is the adopted ordinance from last fall, but you, the Planning Commission, the four of you reviewed it the fall before in 2024. So by 2025, they made changes and added things and then came back with these proposed changes in 2026. And that wasn't, like I don't know why it took so long to get to us, but that wasn't our doing. That was just the way – that's the way scheduling goes for you guys. So can I – what makes you believe that it's – if we're thinking about just one particular request, what makes you think that it's going to stop there? I mean, I don't disagree. I'm an economist. I live on the margin. But what makes you think that it's going to stop? I think that's the typical back and forth that takes place anytime that solar is coming into a community. I've listened to probably dozens of podcasts about different local localities that had this. So it's the same discussion. What makes me think it is that we're putting a finite number in the ordinance, okay, because we felt like that was a way to state our values as a community that says we care enough about this to make sure that you do it with some sort of vegetative cover. You've got something going on. You've got water quality plans in place. So all these things, and 1% doesn't drastically change a community. Sure. I'll ask you here as you're rolling off another leader of this initiative is rolling off the council. what assurance do we have that another council coming in might not propose a change in the ordinance to a two percent or a three percent you have that you really have that with every every ordinance that we have we live in that we live in that world and and to be honest with you it's like it's not that fun pushing something this big it's not you know it's not so council member Edlin? Yeah, well, I mean, there's a difference of opinion on council about this, obviously, but one of my concerns is this 1% cap is pretty meaningless, frankly, because the situation we're in with solar and some of the last columns I wrote in 2018 and 2019 before I retired from the Herald-Leader were about the utility industry's push in the legislature. You know, they saw solar is the future, and they pretty much determined that they were going to control it all. You know, they changed the net metering laws so that it made small-scale solar, you know, really it made it very difficult for people to recover their investment. So now the whole solar conversation has evolved to industrial solar because that's all that's permitted, and that's a very narrow view if you look around the world of the way solar is being effectively done. And, you know, we can say as a council or community we want to have a 1% cap or a 2% cap, but the reality is now that if a regulated utility, as East Kentucky Power has done, wants to come in, there is no cap. You know, this is – so, you know, it's – in some ways it's a nice stated goal, but it's kind of meaningless. And I think, you know, to me the broader solar discussion needs to be what is the sustainable future for solar going forward. And I don't think the framework that Frankfurt has forced us into is the answer for that. Just to follow up on that, the Public Service Commission can do anything at once. they yeah they can there is a merchant sighting board so that's basically and merchants are the ones that are going after they're the ones who go after the homeowners i mean i don't that the the utility doesn't it's not it probably they probably do but it's not necessarily their business they're just i mean they're in the business generating power they're going to figure out how they're going to do it. But the Public Service Commission did state publicly in a meeting last year that they at least lean on a local ordinance. So if you have a cap, it would at least give them something to think about. I think it would also give, I think it also, I don't think we're going to win this suit that we have currently with East Kentucky Power. But I also don't think we had a leg to stand on without a solar ordinance so i think um i think there's i think there's two pieces of that and i um i i just think that i just think that they um they're they're at least if it's in place we have something to lean on if we want to push back which we tend to do as a community anytime that something like that happens so here's a question at the planning commission, anytime we are reviewing a zone change or even a development plan, we are very diligent in asking the applicant, what neighborhood engagement did you participate in? What stakeholder engagement? Since if this question is really involving essentially one zone, AR, for lack of a better way of putting it, was there in any of these meetings, was there any neighborhood or neighbor or did you go to the people in the rural area and say this affects you what do you make of it are you talking about the our group or anytime someone is going to actually utilize an ordinance to go do something i guess from the beginning to where we are today with what is being asked to the planning commission was there any resident engagement um i mean there was you You guys, you had resident engagement throughout your, when you brought this soda out, okay? So we all had the, we all afforded ourselves to be able to watch your engagement on that particular thing. So we did hear that. We've heard it when every time that we have, every time that we brought this, we brought it up in, It came to us last year in April, April or May, April, the spring. We didn't have a specific public engagement meeting for this, but we got plenty of public engagement at every council work session and meeting that were leading up to us making a decision on that. So this particular version of this, we got public engagement at, we didn't, we have standard public engagement at the beginning of every meeting, so we had, I think, three or four meetings before it came to you, and we had, and people spoke at those meetings. Alrighty, thank you. Mr. Owens? Did I push my button? No. Thank you, sir. You know, being in this room and in council chambers for 15 years now, you know, what I'm always looking at is what's best for Lexington. You know, what is best for Lexington. And I keep looking at solar. We all need electric. But is it coming to Lexington, Fayette County? Do we have jobs coming there to take up that sort of acreage? Are we really getting a benefit as to taxes? I'm not hearing that. It's very, very minimal. And that primarily was my driving reason a year and a half, two years ago, for the vote that I gave. The only benefit was to the applicant and one landowner. I've heard listening through this, there's been discussion as to, well, this is going to provide 200 jobs. Well, several years ago, I redeveloped 200 acres myself for my employer. I could say that we supplied jobs for 120 people, but most of them were there on the farm for a week here. They'd leave and be gone. They'd come back for two days. It wasn't even a full-time thing. It wasn't even what I'd call temporary. I just, you know, personally I just don't see the benefit for Lexington compared to what we're possibly going to lose in the long run. And when I say long run, it's long run. Because there's a reason, transmission lines and ease. There's a reason that we have developers wanting the same land. It's because of ease. They don't have to take a building down and start all over. We all know those stories. we did something similar about probably the same time with hemp production we allowed hemp production but on a small scale medium scale type basis not a large scale basis in the rural area primarily for the same reason it was taking up prime soil land um you know data centers was mentioned a moment ago uh last night down i-65 and horse cave kentucky they've got readings going on right now they've already done first reading they're looking at second reading to put a moratorium on data centers simply because it's that's not what they won't, okay? That's not what is best for their area in their determination. And, you know, that's what we're looking at here. I'm sorry. I just, you know, with the economic benefits that we have with what we currently have, I mean, it doesn't balance out in any stretch of imagination uh sorry to say um you know i i think this guy sitting right next to me here could speak to it much better but my wife being in real estate business i mean she won't even go look at property that's got power lines right next to it won't even go look at it because she knows that her people do not want that look on a constant basis. So it's, you know, anyway. Council Member Boone, do you have anything to say? You've been quiet over there. I was quiet, so before I asked you to speak, I was going to at least put in my two cents for it. No, I appreciate it. Yeah, I guess so. I was a part of the solar working group, and being the 12th district person, I was glad to be a part of it. However, I didn't necessarily agree with or vote for any of these proposed changes, just to kind of put that on the record. I think overall, this already kind of got voted down. We create this work group. I'm pretty sure we can read between the lines of what happened in there. Like, to your point, Zach, I'm a 12th district person. I have a farm. It wasn't, I guess, the general consensus to hear a bunch of those voices, I suppose. I think they knew what they were going to hear. and I think that that's kind of why we are where we are here. I know the solar is already here. We're already doing projects through the state. We don't know how these things decommission. They're all too new. Why would we, I guess, risk our prime soils to become part of this experiment? I had a meeting with Jada Griggs who's in charge of our solar lex program and To reach our 2050 goals she stated that we didn't need large-scale solar and that was never part of their plan To to reach our 2050 net zero goal, so I mean to all of your all the points made We don't get any benefit. There's this weak language that may do a CBA agreement. We know the power's not going to stay here. It's a short-term job hiring kind of situation. I think it's not the best use of our prime land. If it was going to impact our community, we're going to have lower electric bills, there's going to be more jobs, it would be a totally different conversation as far as economic driver. But I don't see our community benefit as a whole for the sacrifice of our farm and ag industry. yeah I mean being the 12th person I can promise you that there will be lots of pushback for this to happen if we go talk to the neighbors next to the proposed areas I could probably say that most of them probably don't want a solar farm next to them I've added in here language about brownfields, and all we're talking about is the ag zones. There's lots of areas that we've, I don't want to say given up on, but to help put solar on rooftops, and yet it's not as easy to go and just put posts in the ground and put panels on it, but it's definitely a more responsible way to use our land. So I would aim to go back into our built environment and figure out how we can bring solar more prominently there, whether it's funding to help some of these people put it on their roofs or businesses. I think it's a more responsible long-term view of our community. Just expanding on that a little bit, I wish I heard more of a conversation about incentivizing solar beyond in the soil. Denver, they put canopies in the school parking lots, and they put solar panels on top of those. we have tried in the planning commission to get some folks who are asking for zone changes and development plans and proposed asphalt ponds to talk about putting canopies out there in their parking lots and putting solar is a hard sell and you know there's a lot of potential to work on that but i don't think we're i don't know what we i don't know if that's a ku psc reimbursement problem or what the or it's just more expensive i don't know what the issue is but other places seem to be able to do that we seem to have a hard time doing that i'd like to know why so yes just a couple things so we do have we do have a solarized program that we we subsidize we've subsidized solar in the past on rooftops um rooftop solar is like it's it's a great thing, but it doesn't, when you look at scale, it just, it doesn't really work. It just doesn't scale. So that's why, that's why industrial solar works better, because it scales, it tracks the sun, it's more efficient. I just wanted to respond to a comment. And we are putting it on our – we're putting about 300 acres, or a person is proposing about 300 acres edlin on our old landfill site, which, by the way, is also from the national soil folks, is basically the same ratio of prime soils. It's 60% prime soils, and I think it's about 30% of soils of statewide importance because we're not just putting it on the capped landfill. But they're paying taxes. You mentioned the money piece of it. They do pay taxes. They do pay net profits tax. So there's definitely a benefit. I would not say there's no financial benefit. there is absolutely a financial benefit for the city. But then there's also, it does correspond to our comprehensive plan and our green goals. And as for the folks that worked on the Empower Lexington and the Race to Net Zero, that is true. They picked places that solar was possible. All of those places are not viable. but they did pick places that it was possible, and that's all I'll say on that one. So, thanks. I will add, we had obviously several conversations about Haley Pike. Is it Brownfield? Is it not? Is it ag? What is it? As a city-owned landfill, it was considered all part of a Brownfield. If somebody, if you go back and do another research or whatever, then those could change. But as of today, it's been all considered brownfield. So, yeah. Thank you very much. One, Fayette County's been talking about its soils for, well, probably since 1958, if not earlier than that. And one thing Mr. Penn taught me a few years ago on something entirely unrelated was when you look at the urban service boundary, obviously it goes all the way to Jasmine County. And that's been so long ago. Those expansions that Frank mentioned in one meeting, why do you think we went all the way to the county line on the south side? Because the soil quality was less than the, essentially, the rest of the county. It was a compromise at the time, and that probably would have been in the 70s, 1972. But who's counting? So I just wanted that to be on the record that that was a consideration at that time involving soil quality. We have about 20 minutes left in this room if we choose to use it. Do we have any thoughts? And Council Member Savigny, during our next meeting, if you do wish to, I mean, whatever you would like this work group to see, it's entirely open. Yeah, I think I'll just, I'll probably make sure that you have a copy before it'll be, I'll get it to you this week. of, I'll give you a copy of what you guys approved, what was approved by council a year later when it came to us, and then what these changes are, so you can at least see the summary of the changes. Okay. Was there ever any discussion about trying to locate this on soil that's not statewide or prime soil? we don't you we don't have that in fayette county really you know right so our our our soils it's like we're we're expert the percentages are kind of the percentages in most places that you look now we do use we do use different they do do different things in the rural land management board to decide kind of the value of somebody's property based on their soils and not all of them are pay out the same way. But they score that way. It's 30% soil. Yeah. I mean, we both serve. I started it, and I will tell you that the quality of soil is the most important. Yeah. It's not what's on it at all. It's the quality of soil, and it gets 30 points if it's statewide and points, or if it's prime soil. Yeah. We didn't come up with a scoring system for that. My point is this. The only reason they want it located where it is is because of the transmission line. So we might as well decide that it's a commercial use based on where the transmission line is because they're not going to build another transmission line to get to it. So that takes away the soil quality and makes it an industrial use because it can't be located anywhere else because that ranch doesn't want to do it. Is that a fair statement? the only reason it's located where it is is because of the transmission line and that's exactly why the landfill the landfill property is close to a transmission line the East Kentucky Power property is close to a transmission line so it's everything along the eastern side of the county is the optimal place because it's a million bucks a mile I think is what they say And I'm not disputing that at all. I'm saying what it is. What I'm saying is that the location is directly dependent upon where the existing transmission lines are. It's more likely to be. Okay. Well, I don't want to argue. What I really would like to do is to say if the benefits outweigh the, if the advantages outweigh the disadvantages, then there's only one reason to locate on prime soil, and that's transmission lines. That drives the decision. Can I ask, I guess it's a requirement in the conditional use that the land must still be in production. So can you talk a little bit more about that so I understand what the stipulations are? I'm glad to talk to it, but Hill, do you want to talk to it? I think it's, we're basically saying, or they have brought forward that if we're growing grass underneath solar panels, that that is considered a dual use. I would kind of beg to differ that that's not a true ag use. if they were cutting down and selling hay or something like that, it would be more comparable to, like, regular farm activities. That's my two cents on it. So it's not the requirement to keep it in its sum of the land or to continue current practices, right? It's any agricultural. It's any agri, yeah. And we, because that, when we talked, going kind of through planning and kind of the basic understanding is not, first of all, not all farms are doing something. Okay. So we really cared mostly about making sure there's some sort of agricultural cover crop because soil quality matters and soil erosion matters. Right. So that's basically, we left it as a, it had to have some sort of crop coverage. That was 85% crop coverage. I would, I don't want to be deaf. I just think it's, in my opinion, reading it, it's misleading to someone to see that because it makes it seem as though there will continue to be agricultural production as opposed to saying that it'll be, you know. So what we know is what traditionally happens on, you know, on these utility scale, which is we graze some sheep underneath, and that's not necessarily the same intent. I think when I first read that, I thought, oh, well, what are we talking about here? Are we talking about still having acreage, you know, or there's a limit on how much of that farm can be parsed out for solar farm versus production? But I just feel like the language appears to be a bit misleading to me. If you had a way to enlighten it, please let us know what that is. Yeah. I'd like to know. A couple of years ago when this was presented to us with the agravoteics and so forth, I remember they were talking as far as sheep, and the revenue from sheep was going to be 1% of what they brought forth, which to me is nothing. I certainly believe it would be constructive to have an NRCS representative present to us during our next meeting about soil, soil quality, the effect moving or altering soil. If topsoil is moved, every gardener knows that if you go out and dig in your yard and when the soil is wet, it will never, ever be the same again. So that, I think, would be constructive. Again, our job is to collect findings that we can present to the Planning Commission so that the Planning Commission can act in accord with Council's directive and respond with a fact-based document. Do we have any other comment or questions? Mr. Owens. I would offer, if I don't know who, maybe this staff could come up with a number or locations as to other brownfields in Fayette County, other areas similar to our brownfield, let me put it that way, that would be possible. I understand the cost is involved, but, you know, simply put, you know, what is best for Lexington? Is it here or here as far as best for Lexington? Can I add on to that? When we did Gulf War, we asked the GIS people to stack the maps. if we could get a soil map with transmission lines and brownfields all in one map, I think that would be helpful. Just so you know, the race in that zero has a one-pager that has all the brownfields on it that are recognized brownfields. Okay. So I can get that to the group. Tracy, just to kind of clarify that, you know, obviously we're looking at land that may be available for something like this, but also possibly land that would already be in use for similar utilities, etc. just, you know, if we're talking acreage, how much is already taken out? You know, we know of a couple areas, but... You mean by the Haley Pike Landfill Project and then the East Kentucky Power? All of Haight County. As to what acreage are we looking at that's already being used for something like this? Well, yeah, digging to that. For example, Mike, you say something like this. Use your microphone. Utilities, you know, solar is a utility. It's an industrial use, but it's a utility. So what else are we using? What other parts of it, what other land do we have in Fayette County that's being used for that at the present time? For utilities in general. Yeah. Could be gas, could be electric. Correct. You got it. Thank you. Just remember that if you want to put this in perspective, when we were talking about 40-acre limit, we could say it's the infield, the grass course, the infield at Keenum, to give you a picture of it. Calumet is 700 acres. So you're talking about something that's larger than Calumet. So when you fly into Lexington or wherever, You look at Calumet and it used to be a little morbid, the bypass could cut it off. So it's seven acres, so just put another hundred acres on that. That's the size we're talking about. And that puts it in perspective for what the community is. I just wish we could do it on a land that wouldn't. I can. I can. Mr. Owens asked about Visit Lex and if they would be willing to maybe even just provide us with some data. I appreciate this handout that came from them and I was on their website earlier today just trying to look at Lexington or Visit Lex as an outsider. what do I see? And their website, which is a beautiful site, is very comprehensive, but it has a lot of beautiful photography on essentially our rural area and Bourbon. Of course, the University of Kentucky plays a big role, but when it comes to tourism, that certainly seems to be the draw for the economic impact that we get from that. So we will try to maybe get some data in that regard in addition to the NRCS representative. Mr. Boone, is there anybody from the 12th District, since, again, this essentially affects the 12th District, anyone you would like, I think, could provide any data or perspective to this work group? I'm sure that there are some farmers in that area that we could, they would have direct kind of contact. I can give it some thought also and get back and try to get them here for the meeting. Okay, thank you. And has the Rural Land Management Board completed their findings on it? Or are they still in the process? I can answer that. They're still in the process of looking at that. They have a meeting at the end of this month, and I'm not sure exactly what they're going to have scheduled then. But, no, they're not. But they do have it. they do have the draft? They do. Okay. Again, that's a perspective I think worthwhile hearing. Okay. Does anyone else have anything for today? I just want to say I'm going to miss the next meeting, obviously, but I want to say I'm grateful for the opportunity to have this discussion. I don't know where we'll end up, but I think for me personally, it's been helpful to have all this on the table. Great. Yes, sir. I just want to add one thing, too. Keep in mind that we're also trying, even though the PSC doesn't have to agree with us, we're also trying to create methodologies, if something is going to be done, that it at least allows us to put some pressure on in some sort of method or mode to a public utility that decides to do something and give us some sort of parameters to kind of hold them somewhat accountable to. Thank you. Certainly. And to question, do we have similar parameters for, for example, cell phone towers, even though we can't, in many instances, we have no authority to say no, or even we don't like it. But is there anything in our order that's presently about, we prefer cell phone towers be XYZ, like Council Member Svagnis is discussing? Yes. Well, the cell towers, since about 2000, the PSC or the state gave local communities with planning commissions the ability to approve cell towers and then create an ordinance that directs cell towers in terms of zones. So commercial zones, they're permissive. It's more permissive than a residential or an agricultural zone. And in the agricultural zones, we recommend that they be the stealth towers as opposed to the, not the monopole, but the, what's the? Lattice. Lattice. If we ever decommission a sale tower, do we know if that works or not? I'm not aware that those would come to us. Maybe they would go through building inspection, but I don't think they would come through planning. Yeah, they do replace or add, you know, co-locate the antennas on there. But, you know, they've got a bond to decommission them. Yes. The question becomes, have we ever had to use that? I'm not aware that we have. Tracy, with cell towers, don't we still have a language in our ordinance that speaks to restrictions as far as rural hamlets, viewsheds, historic highways. There's spacing requirements from those. Okay. That, of course, the commission can waive. Of course. Okay. All right. Does anyone else have anything for today? If not, the Planning Commission is very grateful for your presence and your thoughts. Thank you to our guests for coming. Mr. Duncan, yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just an update. We have checked, and this space is available for only one hour on June the 9th, from 10 until 11. We can find another space, I'm sure, but we may not be able to broadcast from that. So I just wanted you all to know. But if we think the meeting needs to be more than an hour, we'll probably need to find a different space, and we'll certainly update you all on that. Thank you, Mr. Duncan. and you and I can discuss this later, but would chambers be an option if it's not being used? Potentially, yes. That would be the only other option to broadcast, but we'll check on that, yes. All righty. Well, if nobody has anything else, I very much appreciate it. The Planning Commission appreciates it. Thank you to staff for your time. See you tomorrow. See you tomorrow, yeah. I'm a home town. I'm a street white-washed window and vacant store. Seems like there ain't nobody Want to come down here no more They're closing down Textile mill Across the railroad tracks One of them says these jobs are going, boys And they ain't coming back To your hometown Your own town Your own town Your own town Last night me and Kate We laid in bed Talking about getting out Backing up our bags Maybe heading south 35 We got a boy Of our own now Last night I sat him up Behind the wheels Said son take a good look around This is your hometown Amen. I'm not a man. Out all over town Drove me back To drinking in this Bar I found myself A brand new friend I'm headed down That road again I'm working on my Next broken heart After you said It's hard to tell You taught me how To hurt so well When it comes to love, I know my heart Well, I play this game that I can't win I'll be somebody's fool again Working on my next broken heart Well, I thought all day long you'd be the death of me But I've met one good night who wants what's left of me I've seen that look before She'll tear my world apart I'm working on my next broken heart guitar solo left of me I've seen that look before should tear my world apart I'm working on my next broken heart I'm working on my next broken heart I'm working on my next broken heart I see the bad moon rising I see trouble on the way I see earthquakes and lightning I see bad times today Don't go around tonight But if you finally take your life There's a bad moon on the right I hear hurricanes are blowing I know the end is coming soon I feel rivers overflowing I hear the voice of rage and ruin Don't go around tonight Let's vomit in your life There's a bad mood on the right All right I'm Looks like we're in for nasty weather One hour you're thinking for a night Well, don't go around tonight But it's fine to take your life There's a bad moon on the right Don't go around tonight But it's fine to take your life There's a bad move on the right We'll be right back. I'm not the only souls accused of hit and run tire tracks all across your back. I can see you had your fun, but darling, can't you see my signals turn from green to red? And with you, I can see a traffic jam straight up ahead. You're just like So hard to get through the youth Trying to get Right over you What a big deal With slowing down And I've got Better things on the other side I'm too Yeah Cross it Look out, look out Look out, baby Cross time Yeah, look out Cross time Yeah, look out Look out, look out Cross time Yeah, look out What's that? What's that? What's that? If you need me, call. No matter where you are, no matter how far, just call my name. I'll be there in a hurry. On that you can depend and never worry No wind, no wind, no rain No rain, oh winter's cold Can't stop me babe, oh babe Baby, if you're my goal No wind, no rain No way to stop it, babe If you wanna go Oh, oh, oh, oh Oh, oh, oh, oh Oh, oh, oh, oh I know, I know you must follow the sun Wherever it leads But remember, if you should fall short of your desires Remember life holds for you One guarantee, you'll always have me And if you should miss my love, one of these old days If you should ever miss the arms that used to hold you so close or the lips that used to touch your soul tenderly. Just remember what I told you the day I set you free. Ain't no mountain high enough Ain't no valley low enough Ain't no river wide enough To keep me from you Ain't no mountain high enough Ain't no valley low enough Ain't no river wide enough To keep me from you Ain't no mountains high enough Nothing can keep me, keep me from doing Ain't no mountains high enough Ain't no mountains low enough Take your river wide enough Say it again Thank you. I, I was the lonely one Wondering what went wrong Why love had gone And left me lonely I, I was so confused Feeling like I'd just been you Then you came to me And my loneliness left me I used to think I was tied to a heartache That was the heartbreak But now that I've found you Even the night's all better Now that we're here together Even the nights are better Since I found you Even the days are brighter When someone you love's beside you Even the nights are better Since I found you You You knew just what to do Cause you have been lonely too And you showed me how To raise the pain And you did more than mend a broken heart Cause now you've made a fire start And I, I can see That you feel the same way I never dreamed there'd be someone to hold me Until you told me And now that I've found you Even the nights are better Now that we're here together Even the nights are better Since I've found you Even the days are brighter When someone you love's beside you Even the nights are better Since I found you I never dreamed there'd be someone to hold me Until you told me and now that I found you Even the nights are better Now that we're here together Even the nights are better Since I found you Oh, even the days are brighter When someone you love's beside you Even the nights are better Since I found you Oh, even the nights are better Now that we're here together Even the nights are better Just like I believe And wrap my heart round your little finger Here you come again Touch what I'm about to make it work without you You look into my eyes and lie those pretty lies And pretty soon I'm wondering how I came to doubt you All you gotta do is smile and smile And therefore, all my defenses Just leave it up to you And in a little while You're messing up my mind And filling up my senses Here you come again Looking better The End so Hey, y'all. It's your vice mayor, Dan Wu. And today we're here at the Keeneland Library with library director Rhoda Ferraro. And we are checking out this great new exhibit called RAICES, Latino Legacies in Racing. So, Rhoda, what is this exhibit? Yes. So RAICES is an an amalgam of years worth of work to showcase the lives and contributions of more than 100 men and women from across the Americas working at every level of the sport. And RAISES means roots. It does. And we worked hard to assemble an advisory panel of folks from six different countries and And they were weighing in heavily, like at every part of the decision-making process, including the title of the exhibit. And there were so many potential titles on the table. But in the end, people kept coming back to Reyesus, you know, that concept of roots, not only like those individual and collective identities and legacies, but, you know, just the impacts, you know, over time and the fact that there's like this huge foundational historic context to all of this. And it's perfect that it looks like the English word for races. It does. It does. Yeah. And this is obviously not a new phenomenon. Latinos have been an integral part of racing from day one. Tell me about just the historical span of this exhibit. Yes, you are right. And we don't have exact numbers, but safe estimates would put us today at about 70% of the horse industry workforce is driven by Latino talent and work. And this is across the span of all different occupations, right? It is, across the span of all different occupations. And you'll see that here in the exhibit. So our stories start in the 1800s, and they work toward the present. And the beautiful part about this exhibit, I think, is it speaks to larger industry trends and that folks who work in the horse industry, you do see this multigenerational kind of, you know, phenomenon that's taking place. And I can't speak to why that is. It's because you had that exposure early on. And, you know, we have folks on the advisory panel would say that it's a deep commitment to uphold the family's legacy when we are in this cultural context as well. So there's a host of factors as to why you see this multigenerational kind of ties. But as you work through the stories, you might be reading about somebody who's active in the industry today or was active in the industry 10 years ago. But they're third or fourth generation horsemen or horsewomen. And so some of the stories are just a progression of that family's work in the industry over time, too. So, yeah, we're starting in the 1800s and we bring it to the present. And truly, that's why the word legacy is in that title as well. Tell me about what it takes to bring a show like this here. Yes, it took quite a bit of time and effort. There was just so many moving pieces that that needed to kind of fall into place before I felt like we finally could say yes. and do this the way that it needed to be done with the insight and perspectives that it needed. And we finally got there. And that was in large part to a 250 Lex cultural grant that gave us that boost in funding to bring these international experts onto our panel and as contributors. It was also thanks to a private sponsor as well, Susan Naylor. And the Caneland Association backed my time on it. So that external support is what drove my being able to bring in these historians and writers and translators. So it's pretty special. Lots of time, lots of work, lots of partnerships. Who would you say this exhibit is for? I think this exhibit is for everyone. And this is our first bilingual exhibit. So when you come into this space right now, what you'll see will be interpretive panels. You'll see display cases. You'll see a lot of photographs, and the text will be printed in English, and you listen in Spanish. The exhibit also has an exhibit companion book that was released with text in English, and you can listen in Spanish. We're working right now on translating that companion book into Spanish, so you'll be reading it in Spanish with that capacity to listen in Spanish for that heightened access. But in terms of age groups, it's also for everyone. Well, not only do we have stories and words and photographs, we also have some trophies and artifacts. So let's go take a look. Yes. All right. So we have a trophy case here, some great trophies. And you've got a great story about Ramon Dominguez, right? Yes. So Ramon Dominguez is a perfect example of those multi-general ties that we spoke about earlier. From Venezuela, was born into a family kind of steeped in the horse industry at various levels. So Ramon wins back-to-back Eclipse Awards for the Outstanding Jockey in the 2010, 11, and 12. This photo of him behind us is a photo taken at Keeneland. But what I want to share about Ramon is, one, Ramon was on the advisory panel for this exhibit. In addition to being a superstar athlete, Ramon is an incredibly generous person. and Ramon had a spill at the height of his career that was career-ending. And he came back and is this incredible voice, an advocate for jockey safety. You'll sometimes see him on air as an analyst and broadcast in both English and Spanish. He spends a lot of time advocating for jockeys. And he also is an inventor. So I think the most incredible story about Ramon is just that perseverance and the steady presence of sharing generosity. And that's at every level. And, yeah, last year he won one of the last man standing ultra marathons. Wow. Yeah. So I think that speaks to that grit and that perseverance, too. So this isn't just history. This is living history. It is. Absolutely. So how can folks see this exhibit? So you can come to the library Monday through Friday, 830 to 430. It's freely available to folks, and you can just take it in on your own. And then how can folks engage more with the Keeneland Library generally? Yes. So I would encourage folks to start with our website, which is keeneland.com slash library. But know that what you're seeing on our website is really just a fraction of what we do. So if folks are looking to research anything that touches on the horse industry, I mean, it can be several degrees of separation removed from it. We get 10,000 of those requests a year. So don't ever feel like, is this a question that they could potentially help me with? Maybe we can, maybe we can't, but we will always look. So regardless of what it is that you need for information or even for image assets, reach out to us. We are the world's largest repository of information and images that cover this industry, not just here in the bluegrass, but internationally as well. How long will this exhibit be up? We are going to have this exhibit up through early November. so we're going to have a big international audience visiting us here in Lexington for Breeders' Cup in late October. So we'll have this great fortune of kind of timing this to coincide with that. So we're already planning Breeders' Cup-specific tours. I'm really looking forward to that. All right, let's go learn about some of these people. Yes. All right, Rhoda, this looks like a shot from a movie. It does. Tell me about this photo. I do love it. And I think the same thing like this. This couldn't have been a candid moment. This feels like a movie poster. So back to one of those core themes of overtime. This shot was taken in July of 1969. What we see here and I love the activity of the shot. You still see those rotors, the movement of the rotors, you know, on that helicopter. These jockeys would have just left racing in New York. They were landing at a track in New Jersey to ride in the afternoon, same day. We have Eddie Belmonte. We have Braulio Baeza. We have Jacinto Vasquez. And we have Angel Cordero Jr. Greats. And, you know, the fact that they're all together just like this, as if this was the most, you know, normal, routine thing to be doing for four people to pack into a helicopter and ride from New York to New Jersey. But it was absolutely the norm for their life. But I do think it speaks to that degree of dominance and how far back in history we see examples of that. So, Rhoda, tell me about Mirna. Yes. So, Mirna is a groom. She works for the Brazilian trainer, Paulo Lobo. Mirna is from Guatemala. Much of her family is still in Guatemala. Her daughter is here. and what I love about Mia is one, I mean her personality, her attitude, her approach is always just so positive and upbeat her degree of commitment to the care 24-7 care and management of horses is just amazing and it's just great to be down in that barn because you're hearing all these languages spoken every day, so you'll have Spanish, you'll have some Portuguese in the mix, you have some English. So it's just a Palo Lobo stable is tremendous and his crew, including Mirna, are equally so. So we're fortunate to have thousands of people who are committing their lives to the welfare and the care of these horses every day. Mirna is one of them. So not only do we have a lot of historical information, historical photographs, we also have modern day photographs taken by local photographers. Yes, so do check these out. This is another example of partnering with community organizations. So the kiosk that you see here with these amazing shots that were taken on Caneland's backside when I spent some mornings with these artists and walked them around the grounds and they were able to capture these amazing moments that really on any given morning you would arrive and you would find equally amazing moments. But to see as an artist, you know, the way that it played out and what they captured in the photo is amazing. So yes, we're very pleased to partner with this local artist project and showcase some of their work here as part of our exhibit as well. Well, Rhoda, thank you so much for showing me around today. Raisis, The Making of Latino Legacies in Racing will be up at the Keeneland Library through November. And each night I'd spend praying that God would make her mine. And if he'd only grant me this wish I wished back then, I'd never ask for anything again. Sometimes I thank God for unanswered prayers. Remember when you're talking to the man who stares. And just because he doesn't answer doesn't mean he don't care. For some of God's greatest gifts Are unanswered prayers She wasn't quite the angel That I remembered in my dreams And I could tell the time changed me In her eyes to it seemed We tried to talk about the old days, wasn't much we could recall. I guess the Lord knows what he's doing after all. And as she walked away, well, I looked at my wife. And then and there I thank the good Lord for the gifts in my life. Sometimes I thank God for unanswered prayers. Remember when you're talking to the man upstairs. And just because he may not answer doesn't mean he don't care. Some of God's greatest gifts are unanswered. Some of God's greatest gifts are all too often unanswered. Some of God's greatest gifts are unanswered prayers. The End I live my life like there's no tomorrow All I've got I have to steal He's down on me To beg on my road Yes, I'm living At a place that kills Running with the devil Running with the devil with the devil I found the simple life ain't so simple when I jumped out on that road I got no love no love you'd call real ain't got nobody waiting at home Running with the devil I'm gonna tell you one time Running with the devil You're right! Yeah! You know what? I found the simple light What's so simple? No When I jumped out Of that road Got no love No love you call real Got nobody Waiting at home I'm running with the devil Hold on, hold on, I'm running Running with the devil One more time Running with the devil Running with the devil Running with the devil Running with the devil Thank you. And here's to you, Mrs. Robinson Jesus loves you more than you will know Whoa, whoa, whoa God bless you please, Mrs. Robinson Heaven holds a place for those who pray Hey, hey, hey Hey, hey, hey We like to know a little bit about you for our lives We like to help you learn to help yourself Look around you all you see are sympathetic eyes Stroll around the grounds until you feel at home And here's to you, Mrs. Robinson. Jesus loves you more than you will know. Whoa, whoa, whoa. God bless you, please. Mrs. Robinson. Heaven holds a place for holes to pray. Hey, hey, hey. Hey, hey, hey. Thank you. Jesus loves you more than you will know God bless you please Mrs. Robinson Heaven holds a place for those who pray Hey, hey, hey Hey, hey, hey Sitting on a sofa on a Sunday afternoon Go to the candidates' debate Lack about it, shout about it When you've got to choose Everywhere you look at it, you lose Where have you gone, Jordan, I? You know our nation turns its lonely eyes to you What's that you say, Mrs. Robinson Joe to Joe has left and gone away Hey, hey, hey Hey, hey, hey Thank you. You know, today destroys the night. Night divides the day. Try to run, try to hide. Break on through to the other side. Break on through to the other side. Break on through to the other side, yeah. We chased our pleasures here. Dug our treasures there. Can you still recall the time we cried? Break on through to the other side. Break on through to the other side. Everybody loves my baby Everybody loves my baby She gets She gets She gets She gets I found an island in your heart To the country in your eyes Arms are changed, eyes are aligned Break on through to the other side Break on through to the other side Break on through, oh, oh yeah Way to see, week to week Day to day, hour to hour Take it straight, deep and wide Break on dude to the other side Break on dude to the other side Break on dude, break on dude Break on dude, break on dude Hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey Yesterday All my troubles seem so far away Now it looks as though they're here to stay Oh, I believe in yesterday Suddenly I'm not half the man I used to be There's a shadow hanging over me Oh, yesterday came suddenly Why she had to go I don't know, she wouldn't say I said something wrong Now I love for yesterday Yesterday Love was such an easy game to play. I need a place to hide away. Oh, I believe in yesterday. Why she had to go, I don't know. She wouldn't say. I said something wrong. Now I long for yesterday Yesterday Love was such an easy game to play Now I need a place to hide away Oh, I believe in yesterday I like the way your sparkling earrings lay Against your skin so brown And I want to sleep with you in the desert tonight With a billion stars all around Cause I got a peaceful, easy feeling And I know you won't let me down Cause I'm already standing on the ground And I found out a long time ago What a woman can do to your soul Oh, but she can't take you anyway You don't already know how to go And I got a peaceful, easy feeling And I know you won't let me down Cause I'm already standing on the ground Thank you. I get this feeling I may know you as a lover and a friend. But this voice keeps whispering in my other ear. Tells me I may never see you again. Cause I get a peaceful, easy feeling And I know you won't let me down Cause I'm already standing I'm already standing Yes, I'm already standing on the ground The Fireman I'm the fireman That's my name Last night they had a bad one A mile or two down the road Everybody walked out and left this woman Burning out of control Well I was down there in about an hour or so With a little mouth and mouth She was ready to go I'm the fireman That's my name You call me the fireman That's my name Making my rounds all over town Putting out old flames Tell everybody like to have a hold I got I can cool them down when they're smoking hot I'm a fireman That's my name Fireman, I'm a fireman I got a fire engine red, T-bird automobile In a minute or less I can be dressed fit to kill I work 24 on 24 off when they get too hot to just give me a call. I'm the fireman. That's my name. They call me the fireman. That's my name. Making my rounds all over town But now no blame Well, everybody'd like to have a wood I got I could cool them down when they're smoking hot I'm the fireman, that's my name They call me the fireman, that's my name I pulled into Nazareth, was feeling about half past death. I just need some place where I can leave my head. Hey, mister, can you tell me where a man might find a man? He just grinned and shook my hand, knows all he said. Take a load off, Benny. Take a load for free. Take a load off, Benny. And you put the load right on me I picked up my bag I went looking for a place to hide When I saw Carmen and the devil walking side for side I said, hey, Carmen, come on, let's go downtown She said, I gotta go, but my friend can stick around Take a load off, Fanny Take a load for free Take a load off, Fanny And you put the Lord right on me Go down, Miss Mosin There's nothing you can say It's just old Luke and Luke's waiting on the judgment day Well, Luke, my friend What about young and young?