Special Ad Hoc Committee for 2018 Goals and Objectives

Summary

Meeting Overview

The Lexington-Fayette Urban County Council met on October 24, 2017, at 10:00 a.m. in the 2nd Floor Council Chamber, with Vice Mayor Kay presiding. The council considered five agenda items focused on economic development and land use planning objectives. During the meeting, the council took five motions and votes, heard eight public comments, and approved four of the five proposed measures.

The council approved three language revisions to development objectives: adding a new objective to encourage developers of government-funded or subsidized projects to employ local residents, revising language to promote collaboration with service providers on neighborhood enhancement, and amending language to remove the word "intense" from a redevelopment corridor objective. The council also approved the creation of a new process for determining long-term land use decisions involving the Urban Service Boundary. However, the council denied a measure to maintain current boundaries of the Urban Service Area and Rural Activity Centers.

Attendance

Present: Kay, Stinnett, Moloney, J. Brown, Smith, Lamb, Farmer, Evans, Scutchfield, F. Brown, Mossotti, Bledsoe, Henson, and Plomin.

Absent: Gibbs

Late arrivals: None

Votes and Decisions

The council took five votes on various amendments and approvals during this meeting.

Approve language to encourage developers of government-funded or subsidized projects to employ residents in the vicinity 27:01 Motion by Council Member Brown, seconded by Council Member Brown. Outcome: Passed by voice vote.

Approve revised language for Theme D, Goal 2, Objective C: collaborate with service providers about how their community facilities should enhance existing neighborhoods 29:00 Outcome: Passed by voice vote.

Amend Theme E, Goal 1, Objective C by replacing 'intense' with 'increased density' in 'emphasize increased density and redevelopment of underutilized corridors' 36:06 Motion by Council Member Stinnett, seconded by Council Member Henson. Outcome: Failed by electronic vote, 6 ayes to 7 nays.

Voting in favor: Kay, Stinnett, Moloney, J. Brown, Smith, Lamb

Voting against: Farmer, Evans, Scutchfield, F. Brown, Mossotti, Bledsoe, Henson

Amend Theme E, Goal 1, Objective C by deleting the word 'intense' from 'emphasize intense redevelopment of underutilized corridors' 50:51 Motion by Council Member Brown, seconded by Council Member Henson. Outcome: Passed by electronic vote, 13 ayes to 0 nays.

Voting in favor: Kay, Stinnett, Moloney, J. Brown, Smith, Lamb, Farmer, Evans, Scutchfield, F. Brown, Mossotti, Bledsoe, Henson

Amend Theme E, Goal 3 by deleting the goal that maintains current boundaries of the Urban Service Area and Rural Activity Centers 52:00 Motion by Council Member Brown. Outcome: Failed by voice vote.

Public Comment

Council members raised several concerns regarding budget constraints, job creation, and expansion planning during the meeting.

Council Member Evans [1:04:29] called for more detailed studies on the financial and infrastructure impacts of expansion, emphasizing that the city must understand the true cost before making decisions given current budget constraints.

Council Member Maloney [1:08:16] expressed concern that the city is facing a severe budget crisis and emphasized that job creation is critical to avoid layoffs, stating that the current timeline for expansion and planning is too slow to address immediate financial needs.

Council Member Lamb [1:22:37] highlighted financial uncertainty due to a pending state pension bill and stressed that the city must focus on job creation to generate revenue. Lamb noted that expanding the urban service boundary would increase service costs without guaranteed revenue.

Council Member Massadi [1:41:03] highlighted disparities between the north and south ends of Lexington and stressed the need for equitable development and investment in underutilized areas to ensure all residents benefit.

Council Member Bledsoe [1:43:20] raised concern that increased density and growth place pressure on schools and neighborhoods, noting that parents are already considering private schools due to overcrowding, and emphasized the need for balanced growth.

Council Member Plowman [1:35:36] noted that 51% of the workforce comes from outside Fayette County and emphasized that the city benefits from payroll taxes without bearing infrastructure costs, questioning the need to expand when existing land could be better utilized.

Council Member Gibbs [1:38:24] argued against expansion, stating that dense, walkable communities attract entrepreneurs and that expansion would increase carbon footprint and strain public transit, while also endangering agricultural jobs.

Council Member James Brown [1:56:26] stressed the importance of regional planning and noted that a large portion of the workforce lives outside the county, making public transit investment essential and underscoring the need for coordinated regional development.

Contested Items

The October 24, 2017 meeting included three significant areas of disagreement among council members.

Expansion of Urban Service Area

Council members were divided on a proposal regarding the city's urban service area boundaries. The debate centered on whether the current boundaries should be maintained or expanded. Supporters of expansion argued that growth was necessary for job creation and housing development. Opponents raised concerns about the risks of increased infrastructure costs and environmental impact. The split vote reflected fundamental disagreement about balancing economic development with fiscal and environmental considerations.

Use of 'Intense' in Redevelopment Language

A heated discussion arose over the inclusion of the word "intense" in redevelopment-related language. Council members strongly disagreed about whether this term was too prescriptive and potentially exclusionary in its application. The debate was extended, with multiple amendments proposed before the word was ultimately removed from the final language. This disagreement highlighted concerns about how specific terminology in planning documents could affect implementation and fairness.

Job Creation vs. Planning Timelines

Several council members expressed frustration about the pace of the planning process relative to economic needs. They argued that the multi-year planning timeline was too slow given the city's budget crisis and the need for immediate job creation. These members contended that the current schedule did not adequately respond to pressing economic realities facing the community. This disagreement reflected tension between the desire for thorough planning processes and the urgency of addressing the city's financial challenges through economic development.

Add new objective: Encourage developers of government-funded or subsidized projects to employ residents in the vicinity

7:03

The council discussed adding a new objective to encourage developers of government-funded or subsidized projects to employ residents in the vicinity. Council Members Brown, Maloney, and Evans, along with Director Duncan, participated in the debate.

The motion to add this objective passed without dissent. During discussion, council members raised concerns about the practical implementation of the proposal, specifically regarding enforcement and tracking mechanisms. Despite these concerns, there was consensus among council members that the objective should be adopted as an aspirational goal that could guide future policy decisions.

The council approved the addition of this objective to Theme C, Goal 1, Objective E, recognizing its value as a policy direction even as questions remained about how it would be monitored and enforced in practice.

Revise language to collaborate with service providers about enhancing existing neighborhoods

27:38

The committee reviewed revised language for Theme D, Goal 2, Objective C, which focuses on collaboration with service providers to ensure community facilities enhance existing neighborhoods.

Key Participants

The discussion involved Council Member Brown, Council Member Henson, and Director Duncan.

Outcome

The committee approved the revised language without opposition.

Amend 'emphasize intense redevelopment of underutilized corridors' to remove 'intense'

31:01

The council discussed a motion to delete the word "intense" from Theme E, Goal 1, Objective C, which addresses the redevelopment of underutilized corridors.

Key Speakers and Debate

Council Members Brown, Lamb, Stinnett, and Bledsoe participated in the discussion, along with Director Duncan. The debate centered on whether the term "intense" was too prescriptive for the objective.

Concerns Raised

During the discussion, a proposed amendment was introduced to replace "intense" with "increased density." However, this alternative language faced opposition, with council members expressing concerns that the term "increased density" was still too strong and similarly prescriptive.

Outcome

The motion to remove the word "intense" from the objective was approved. The proposed amendment to replace it with "increased density" failed.

Maintain current boundaries of Urban Service Area and Rural Activity Centers

51:30

Council members discussed Theme E, Goal 3, which addresses maintaining current boundaries of the Urban Service Area and Rural Activity Centers. The discussion centered on the permanence and feasibility of the existing boundary framework.

Key Debate Points

Council Member Brown, Council Member Stinnett, Council Member Maloney, Council Member Lamb, Council Member Gibbs, and Council Member Plowman participated in the discussion. A motion was made to delete the goal entirely, but the motion failed due to lack of a second, indicating insufficient support for removing the objective.

Concerns Raised

Several concerns emerged during the debate:

• Financial feasibility: Council members questioned whether maintaining fixed boundaries was financially sustainable
• Infrastructure costs: The expense of supporting infrastructure within defined service areas was raised as a concern
• Flexibility for job creation: Council members expressed concern that rigid boundaries might limit opportunities for job creation and economic development

Outcome

The motion to delete the goal was denied. The current boundaries of the Urban Service Area and Rural Activity Centers were maintained as a planning objective, despite the concerns raised about its long-term feasibility and potential constraints on economic development.

Create a new process for determining long-term land use decisions involving Urban Service Boundary

52:03

The committee discussed a proposed goal to establish a new process for evaluating future expansion of the Urban Service Area. Director Duncan presented the framework for this initiative, which would guide long-term land use decisions involving the Urban Service Boundary.

Process Overview

Staff explained that the proposed process would require 18–24 months to complete. The timeline would encompass stakeholder input, data analysis, and the establishment of triggers for potential expansion of the Urban Service Area.

Key Participants

The discussion involved Director Duncan, Council Member Stinnett, Council Member Farmer, and Council Member Plowman.

Outcome

The committee approved the goal to create a new process for determining long-term land use decisions involving the Urban Service Boundary.