UGMP Appendices Draft, Sept 2024 by ImagineLex

Appendix: Imagine Lexington 2045 Survey A

The Lexington Urban Growth Master Plan draws directly from the policies and pillars of the Imagine Lexington 2045 Comprehensive Plan. The following table designates each policy that applies to the Master Plan, and whether it manifests itself through design in the Regulating Plans, or through regulation and policy implications.

THEME A: BUILDING AND SUSTAINING SUCCESSFUL NEIGHBORHOODS

PILLAR I: DESIGN

Design 1 Utilize a people-ﬁrst design, ensuring that roadways are moving people efﬁciently & providing equitable pedestrian infrastructure.

Design 2 Ensure proper road connections are in place to enhance service times & access to public safety, waste management and delivery services for all residents.

Design 3 Design policy #3: Multi-Family residential developments should comply with the Multi-Family Design Standards

Design 4 Provide development that is sensitive to the surrounding context.

Design 5 Provide pedestrian-friendly street patterns & walkable blocks to create inviting streetscapes.

Design 6 Adhere to the recommendations of the 2018 Lexington area MPO bike/ Pedestrian Master Plan.

Design 7 Design car parking lots and vehicular use areas to enhance walkability and bikability.

Design 8 Provide varied housing choice.

Design 9 Design policy #9: Provide neighborhood-focused open spaces or parks within walking distance of residential uses.

Design 10 Design policy #10: Reinvest in neighborhoods to positively impact Lexingtonians through the establishment of community anchors.

Design 11 Design policy #11: Street layouts should establish clear public access to neighborhood open space and greenspace.

Design 12 Support neighborhood-level commercial areas.

Design 13 Development should connect to adjacent stub streets & maximize the street network.

PILLAR II: DENSITY

Density 1 Locate high density areas of development along higher capacity roadways (minor arterial, collector), major corridors & downtown to facilitate future transit enhancements.

Density 2 Inﬁll residential can & should aim to increase density while enhancing existing neighborhoods through context sensitive design.

Density 3 Provide opportunities to retroﬁt incomplete suburban developments with services and amenities to improve quality of life and meet climate goals.

Density 4 Allow & encourage new compact single family housing types.

PILLAR III: EQUITY

Equity 1 Ensure equitable development and address Lexington’s segregation resulting from historic planning practices and policies: rectify the impact of redlining and discrimination based on race and socioeconomic status.

Equity 2 Provide an ongoing and contextualized educational curriculum on historical planning practices and policies acknowledging their impact on marginalized neighborhoods in Lexington.

Equity 3 Meet the demand for housing across all income levels.

Equity 4 Provide affordable housing across all areas, afﬁrmatively furthering fair housing, complying with HUD guidance.

Equity 5 Add residential opportunities by proactively up-zoning areas near transit for populations who rely solely on public transportation.

Equity 6 Preserve & enhance existing affordable housing through the Land Bank, Community Land Trust & Vacant Land Commission.

Equity 7 Protect affordable housing tenants through improved code enforcement policies.

Equity 8 Improve access to and promote accessory dwelling units as a more affordable housing option in Lexington.

Equity 9 Community facilities should be well integrated into their respective neighborhoods.

Equity 10 Housing developments should implement universal design principles on a portion of their units.

Equity 11 Ensure stable housing. Empower individuals through shelter, and provide housing security through permanent residences and comprehensive assistance programs.

Protection 1 Continue the Sanitary Sewer Capacity Assurance Program (CAP) and encourage the Stormwater Incentive Grant Program to reduce impacts of development on water quality.

Protection 2 Conserve and protect environmentally sensitive areas, including sensitive natural habitats, greenways, wetlands and water bodies.

Protection 3 Continue to implement the PDR program to safeguard Lexington’s rural land.

Protection 4 Conserve active agriculture land in the Rural Service Area while promoting sustainable food systems.

Protection 5 Promote and connect local farms with the community through integrated partnerships.

THEME B: PROTECTING THE ENVIRONMENT

PILLAR I: PROTECTION

Protection 6 Promote context-sensitive agritourism in the Rural Service Area.

Protection 7 Protect the urban forest and signiﬁcant tree canopies.

Protection 8 Protect and enhance biodiversity in both the Urban and Rural Service Areas.

Protection 9 Respect the geographic context of natural land, encourage development to protect steep slopes, and locate building structures to reduce unnecessary earth disruption.

Protection 10 Reduce light pollution to protect dark skies.

PILLAR II: SUSTAINABILITY

Sustainability 1 Establish a plan to reduce community-wide greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by 2050.

Sustainability 2 Establish a plan to reduce all LFUCG facilities, operations, and ﬂeets to net zero greenhouse gas emissions.

Sustainability 3 Reduce air pollution and greenhouse gasses through compact development and complete streets that encourage multimodal transportation options.

Sustainability 4 Reduce and mitigate negative environmental impacts of impervious surfaces and vehicle use areas.

Sustainability 5 Expand and promote energy efﬁciency, renewable energy, and electriﬁcation initiatives.

Sustainability 6 Apply for LEED for Cities certiﬁcation to track progress toward sustainability, greenhouse gas emissions reduction, and environmental equity objectives.

Sustainability 7 Develop and proactively share educational materials and programs to increase public awareness of energy efﬁciency beneﬁts and services.

Sustainability 8 Sustainability policy #8: Enhance Lexington’s recycling, composting, and waste management programs.

Sustainability 9 Incentivize green stormwater infrastructure beyond regulatory requirements.

Sustainability 10 Develop incentives for Green Building Practices and Sustainable Site Design.

Sustainability 11 Require low impact landscaping and native plants species.

PILLAR III: RESTORATION

Restoration 1 Implement the LFUCG urban forestry management plan to restore and grow Lexington’s urban forest.

Restoration 2 Identify opportunities to strategically link parks, trails, complete streets, greenways, and natural areas to advance Lexington’s green infrastructure network.

Restoration 3 Support community gardens and urban agriculture to restore natural resources within the Urban Service Area.

Restoration 4 Improve public health and reduce the regional carbon footprint by decreasing vehicle emissions through the use of alternative fuel vehicles.

Restoration 5 Improve watershed management and waterway quality.

Restoration 6 Coordinate to address litter abatement.

Restoration 7 Support Environmental Justice and equity.

THEME C: CREATING JOBS AND PROSPERITY

PILLAR I: LIVABILITY

Livability 1 Encourage economic opportunities for a wide array of agritourism while preserving the Bluegrass identity.

Livability 2 Emphasize the preservation, protection, & promotion of the iconic Bluegrass landscape along rural gateways & roadways serving as primary tourist routes.

Livability 3 Promote sports tourism through the development of athletic complexes & enhance Lexington’s existing facilities.

Livability 4 Promote economic development through improving the livability of downtown to support more residents and community serving businesses.

Livability 5 Enhance programs & activities by Lexington’s Parks & Recreation department, & support public event planning, community events, & festivals.

Livability 6 Attract & retain a vibrant workforce by improving affordable housing opportunities, amenities, & entertainment options.

Livability 7 Create a walkable city with quality transit that is attractive to new businesses and residents.

Livability 8 Promote quality of life aspects, including investment in public space, as an attraction to new businesses & residents.

Livability 9 Promote economic development through the preservation of strategically & appropriately located industrial & production zoned land.

PILLAR II: DIVERSITY.

Diversity 1 Create opportunities for incubators. Seek incentives for owners of vacant ofﬁce/laboratory space, & for developers who build incubator space for startups & for growing businesses.

Diversity 2 Encourage a diverse economic base to provide a variety of job opportunities, allowing upward mobility for lower income residents of Fayette County.

Diversity 3 Support full funding & adequate staff for the Minority Business Enterprise Program (MBEP) which increases diversiﬁcation of city vendors through promoting an increase in minority, veteran, & womenowned companies doing business with the city.

Diversity 4 Encourage training, programs, access, & inclusion to employment opportunities.

Diversity 5 Maximize context sensitive employment opportunities within the opportunity zone tracts, providing equitable community development, & prioritizing local residents for advancement opportunities.

Diversity 6 Increase ﬂexibility on types of home occupations allowed.

PILLAR III: PROSPERITY.

Prosperity 1 Promote hiring local residents, & recruit employees living in areas of construction projects.

Prosperity 2 Support continued funding for economic development.

Prosperity 3 Continue to protect the agricultural cluster & equine industry, & support existing agricultural uses, while promoting new innovative agricultural uses in the Rural Service Area.

Prosperity 4 Encourage installation of ﬁber-optic broadband infrastructure for high-tech & other industries.

Prosperity 5 Continue to raise awareness of farms & farm tours.

Prosperity 6 Promote Kentucky Proud & local Lexington products using uniﬁed branding.

Prosperity 7 Support & increase networking opportunities for career related institutions, organizations, & agencies.

Prosperity 8 Provide employment opportunities that match the graduating majors from local colleges & vocational training institutions.

Prosperity 9 Recruit professional services that utilize vacant ofﬁce space.

Prosperity 10 Encourage ﬂexible parking & shared parking arrangements.

Prosperity 11 Expand job opportunities through education & training to retain existing businesses & attract new ones.

Prosperity 12 Implement the Legacy Business Park Master Plan for the 250 acres of publicly-controlled economic development land at Coldstream research campus.

Prosperity 13 Promote increasing the supply of farm workers, & the availability & affordability of using agricultural technology, & agricultural equipment.

Prosperity 14 Create and implement mechanisms for low, moderate, and middle income residents to access affordable and equitable home ﬁnancing options to enable them to “get on the property ladder” and accumulate intergenerational wealth.

Prosperity 15 Collaborate with developers, commercial entities, and non-proﬁts to eliminate food deserts throughout the county and ensure that all residents have easy access to affordable and nutritious food.

Prosperity 16 Create a central coordinating function for all social services in the county, including non-proﬁt, faithbased, and governmental services.

THEME D: IMPROVING A DESIRABLE COMMUNITY.

PILLAR I: CONNECTIVITY.

Connectivity 1 Street design should reﬂect & promote the desired place-type.

Connectivity 2 Create multi-modal streets that satisfy all user needs and provide equitable multi-modal access for those who do not drive due to age, disability, expense, or choice.

Connectivity 3 Connectivity policy #3: Encourage Transit-Oriented Development, increase density along major corridors, and support transit ridership, thus reducing Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT).

Connectivity 4 Design street networks that provide alternative route options and reduce trafﬁc congestion.

Connectivity 5 Streets should be designed for the desired speed, using built-in trafﬁc calming measures such as roundabouts, narrower street widths, chicanes, medians, etc.

Connectivity 6 Develop a multi-modal transportation network and infrastructure; seek collaboration with regional transit partners for the commuting public.

Connectivity 7 Plan for the long-term land use and transportation impacts of connected and autonomous vehicles (CAV).

PILLAR II: PLACEMAKING.

Placemaking 1 Create development standards and best practices for land adjacent to shared use trails and trail corridors.

Placemaking 2 Activate built and natural environments to promote economic development and create safer spaces.

Placemaking 3 Establish design standards for placemaking.

Placemaking 4 Create quality & usable open space for all developments.

Placemaking 5 Review zoning ordinance & subdivision regulations to create more walkable places.

Placemaking 6 Promote a more resilient power grid while maintaining urban canopy and enhancing the visible characteristics of Lexington.

Placemaking 7 Cultivate a more collaborative predevelopment process by implementing the recommendations of the Public Engagement Toolkit.

Placemaking 8 Develop a tactical placemaking program within the Division of Planning to work with interested neighborhoods & aid in the organization of activities.

Placemaking 9 Honor Lexington’s history by requiring new development & redevelopments to enhance the cultural, physical, & natural resources that have shaped the community.

Placemaking 10 Coordinate with non-proﬁt organizations to designate public art easements on new development.

Placemaking 11 Update the adaptive reuse ordinance.

Placemaking 12 Analyze underutilized commercial property through corridor land use & transportation studies.

Placemaking 13 Update the Downtown Master Plan.

Placemaking 14 Develop a new citywide festival to entice visitors & provide additional draw during the tourism offseason.

Placemaking 15 Reduce/discourage vehicle-oriented development patterns, such as drive through businesses and gas stations, within neighborhoods and the urban core.

Support 1 Ensure school sites are designed to integrate well into the surrounding neighborhood.

Support 2 Incorporate natural components into school site design to further the goals of Theme B (Protecting the Environment), but also to provide calming elements that reduce student stress & anxiety.

Support 3 Support the maintenance & expansion of a robust wireless communications network creating reliable service throughout Lexington’s urban & rural areas.

Support 4 Provide equitable healthcare opportunities throughout Lexington to allow for the wide range of medical needs of everyone.

Support 5 Provide equity in social services by ensuring those in need are served by social service community facilities that address homelessness, substance abuse, mental health, & other signiﬁcant issues.

Support 6 Ensure all social service & community facilities are safely accessible via mass transit, bicycle, & pedestrian transportation modes.

Support 7 Protect and promote social services and take active measures to reduce homelessness.

Support 8 Build upon the success of the Senior Citizens’ Center to provide improved quality of life opportunities for the largest growing population demographic.

Support 9 Implement additional creative cohousing opportunities that are both accessible & affordable for seniors & people with disabilities.

Support 10 Incorporate street trees as essential infrastructure.

Support 11 Develop a climate adaptation plan.

Support 12 Support programs that protect the rights of tenants during the eviction process.

PILLAR III: SUPPORT.

PILLAR I: ACCOUNTABILITY.

Accountability 1 Complete the new process for determining longterm land use decisions involving the Urban Service Area and Rural Activity Centers.

Accountability 2 Develop growth benchmarks and determine best measurable methods to monitor them and report progress on a regular basis.

Accountability 3 Implement the Placebuilder to ensure development compliance with the goals, objectives, and policies of the Comprehensive Plan.

Accountability 4 Modernize the Zoning Ordinance to reﬂect the direction of the 2045 Comprehensive Plan.

Accountability 5 Redesign and retroﬁt the Lexington roadway network to safely and comfortably accommodate all users so as to encourage walking, bicycling and transit usage.

Accountability 6 Partner with other agencies and organizations to create public education and outreach opportunities.

Accountability 7 Establish a coordinating ofﬁce to advance climate action and sustainability planning efforts.

Accountability 8 Establish a coordinating ofﬁce to implement recommendations of the mayor’s Commission For Racial Justice And Equality.

Accountability 9 Enhance diversity in Lexington’s boards and commissions.

PILLAR II: STEWARDSHIP.

Stewardship 1 Uphold and modernize the Urban Service Area concept.

Stewardship 2 Capitalize on the diverse economic development, housing, and tourism opportunities throughout the Bluegrass region and engage in discussions to further connect regional economic hubs.

Stewardship 3 Increase regional transportation cooperation and pursue multimodal transportation options to facilitate inter-county connectivity.

Stewardship 4 Coordinate with surrounding counties to capitalize on the inherent tourism draws of the Bluegrass region.

Stewardship 5 Fully realize the development potential within Lexington’s Rural Activity Centers while avoiding negative impacts to surrounding agriculture, rural settlements, and scenic resources.

Stewardship 6 Identify new compatible rural land uses that would enhance Lexington’s economy and provide additional income-generating possibilities for local farmers.

Stewardship 7 Enhance regional collaboration for coordinated planning efforts.

Stewardship 8 Ensure future development is economically, environmentally, and socially sustainable.

Stewardship 9 Follow and implement the recommendations of the 2007 study of Fayette County’s small rural communities and the 2017 Rural Land Management Plan to protect and preserve Lexington’s rural settlements.

PILLAR III: GROWTH.

Growth 1 Modernize regulations that support inﬁll and redevelopment.

Growth 2 Identify and enhance opportunities for inﬁll and redevelopment in downtown areas.

Growth 3 Implement the recommendations of the 2018 Your Parks, Our Future Master Plan.

Growth 4 Promote the adaptive reuse of existing structures.

Growth 5 Identify and preserve Lexington’s historic assets, while minimizing unsubstantiated calls for preservation that can hinder the city’s future growth.

Growth 6 Address new development context along the boundaries of existing historic districts while encouraging inﬁll and redevelopment.

Growth 7 Ensure stormwater and sanitary sewer infrastructure is placed in the most efﬁcient and effective location to serve its intended purpose.

Growth 8 Identify catalytic redevelopment opportunities to proactively rezone properties, clear regulatory hurdles, and expedite redevelopment.

Growth 9 Support missing middle housing types throughout Lexington.

Growth 10 Establish Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) for new development and inﬁll along major corridors.

Growth 11 Imagine Lexington 2045 anticipates a variety of land use changes will occur throughout the Urban Service Area and recommends those that are in agreement with the goals, objectives, and policies within this comprehensive plan. Land use changes alone in an area are not sufﬁcient to constitute major changes of an economic, physical, or social nature as provided in state statute for the approval of a zone map amendment.

Growth 12 Adopt a Master Plan for the expansion of the Urban Service Area that addresses Lexington’s growth needs through sustainable and equitable development.

Growth 13 Establish minimum residential densities and commercial intensities for new growth areas so that development covers the cost of the provision of infrastructure, community services, and facilities.

Growth 14 Identify and provide mechanisms that produce affordable housing.

Appendix: Community Voices B

The On The Table database CivicLex and the Division of Planning created provides the Team with a better picture of what the public wants to see as the City grows. It effectively ties those desires to speciﬁc geographical locations within the City based on the respondents identiﬁed neighborhood. This creates a unique baseline for our understanding of the community’s needs and wants prior to any outreach being done.

In 2022, 2,416 unique individuals ﬁlled out the On The Table survey, which included more than 15,000 open-ended responses. After reading through and grouping these responses, CivicLex developed 32 codes that captured the major topics that people mentioned and then manually went through and applied the codes to the open response comments.

Walkability, Bikeability, & Accessibility

physical accessibility to walking or biking for people with disabilities (ie, sidewalk conditions, ramps, and curb heights).

The neighborhoods that mentioned this code the most frequently were Picadome/Pensacola (20% of comments), Woodland/Chevy Chase (20% of comments), Kenwick/Bell Court (19% of comments), Liberty (18% of comments), Lakeview/Chinoe (15% of comments), Cardinal Valley/Alexandria (14% of comments), and Northside (14% of codes). Most of the comments (37%) were mentioned in response to the question,

actually felt about it. Think about it this way – both “I want more bike lanes” and “We have too many bike lanes” would be tagged with the “Walkability, Bikeability, and Accessibility” code.

To better understand the sentiment included in each comment, we did a more robust analysis and deep dive into the “Walkability, Bikeability, and Accessibility” (WBA) code. Open comments with the WBA code were read thoroughly to identify recurring themes. The 7 themes, or subcodes, included: More Sidewalks, Better Sidewalks, More

“more bike lanes that are protected from passing vehicles” it would be coded as both More Biking Options and Better Biking Options. Every comment was coded twice–by a different coder each time. Data was coded in AirTable, a cloudbased collaborative spreadsheet. Upon completion of individual assignments, coders regrouped to review and resolve any discrepancies in their coding.

We then created a single column for each survey respondent that included the combined subcodes for WBA across

SUBCODE SUMMARY

1 - More Walking Options

2 - Better Walking Options

3- More Walkability/ Walkable Destinations

More sidewalks, add sidewalks, more walking connectivity, walking trails

Safer, better maintained, better protected, safer crosswalks, less barriers, with landscaping, ADA compliant

Businesses, parks, neighborhoods, “more walkability”

4 - More Biking Options More bike lanes, bike trails, bike paths

5 - Better Biking Options

6 - Negative/Anti

More protected, better maintained, with landscaping, more accessible/connected, “more bikeability”

Less/against any above codes, Prioritize other things over above codes

7- Not Applicable Response does not qualify for any other codes

List of subcodes for comments tagged as “Walkability, Bikeability, & Accessibility” concerns.

all six open-ended questions. Again, a total of 1,134 people commented on WBA issues. This means that the code counts used in this report represent individuals who mentioned this topic at some point in their commentary. For example, in the chart below you can see 472 respondents mentioned More Biking Options. This means that 472 people who took the survey mentioned More Biking Options as important in one or more of their open-ended responses.

During the initial coding, we used the terms “sidewalks” and “bike lanes” (e.g. More Sidewalks, Better Sidewalks, More Bike Lanes, Better Bike Lanes). However, after completing the coding, we changed these terms to “walking options” and “biking options” to reﬂect the sentiments of the respondents. Respondents highlighted the need for paths and trails throughout the city, which was not reﬂected in the initial terms of “sidewalks” and “bike lanes.”

Walkability, Bikeability, & Accessibility

RESULTS

Results from subcoding under Walkability, Bikeability, Accessibility are included in Figure 2 below. Overall, there was a lot of passion around more and better pedestrian infrastructure motivated by concerns of safety. Many respondents highlighted the importance of separation between sidewalks or bike paths and roads, improved visibility at crosswalks, increased number of crosswalks, and education for both drivers and pedestrians within their comments.

Biking comments were more common than walking comments, with many respondents articulating their desire to commute via bike but not feeling safe to do so or their view of biking as a form of exercise that they would like to do more of.

were against bike lanes on main roads, but included in their response they would prefer grade separated bike lanes to improve safety for drivers, bikers, and other pedestrians.

More Biking Options was the most popular response, representing 25% of respondents. This subcode focused on creating more biking options (either through additional bike lanes or bike paths) as well as connecting existing bike infrastructure together. Many respondents highlighted the gaps within the city’s biking infrastructure. Respondents also advocated for more biking speciﬁc trails throughout the community. A popular request was a rail trail along the Norfolk Southern and RJ

Corman train tracks that run through town.

Better Biking Options was the second most popular response, representing 19% of respondents. This subcode focused on the improvement of existing bike infrastructure or making new bike infrastructure better, and generally respondents were focused on safety. Comments included requests for gradeseparated bike lanes or mixed use paths along major roadways (e.g. the planned mixed use path along Alumni Drive). Some respondents also requested biking safety courses to enable residents to feel more comfortable commuting via bike instead of in their personal vehicles.

This created a unique overlap between “negative/anti” and “more biking options.” There were a number of responses that

More Walking Options was the second most popular response, representing 18% of respondents. This subcode focused on building more sidewalks, more walking paths, and connecting new or existing sidewalks together. A common theme in this subcode was having sidewalks along every road in the city. Speciﬁcally, along major transportation corridors that are currently missing sidewalks (e.g. Tates Creek Road and Richmond Road).

More Walkability/Walkable

Destinations represented 16% of respondents. This subcode highlighted the need for creating neighborhoods that are walkable. A common phrase within this subcode was the use of “15 minute city” meaning all basic needs (work, shopping, parks, restaurants, etc.) should be within a 15 minute walk from one’s house. In this subcode, many respondents highlighted the high quality of life experienced by residents living in areas like Chevy Chase and Southland and expressed a strong desire to have those beneﬁts replicated in other areas of the city.

Better Walking Options represented 14% of respondents. This subcode focused exclusively on safety, with respondents commenting on the need for improved pedestrian safety. This included more crosswalks, better signaling at crosswalks, improved ADA accessibility, and grade separation for sidewalks. Also included in this code was general improvements to sidewalks, highlighting needs like connectivity, wider sidewalks, and ﬁxing

broken sidewalks. Consider the following quotes:

• “I can walk all day long for exercise or recreation, but that choice is a privilege. District 2 needs more intentional neighborhood planning.” Female, White, 40-50, Masterson Station / McConnell’s Trace / Coldstream neighborhood cluster.

• “I think making a more walkable city, with more restaurants, lifestyle businesses, and stores of necessity in close proximity would be nice. It would shorten the time necessary to get from one place to another in the city.” Male, White, 20-30, Downtown neighborhood cluster.

• “I think the best way to improve transportation in Lexington is to encourage construction of buildings and services within walking distance of each other. By making everything closer, the need for cars is lessened. Another major issue is free/cheap meeting areas for socialization. Many of the younger generation are staying inside because places they can go with friends are expensive or unwelcoming. By creating more welcoming spaces people will be out and about more.”

No demographic information provided, Tates Creek neighborhood cluster.

Negative/Anti represented 1% of respondents. Though the smallest number of respondents, there was wide diversity in the opinions expressed here. Some respondents were more concerned about the safety of people

using bike paths. Other respondents articulated that Lexington is a car city and bike infrastructure should not be a priority. Particularly in the Old Richmond Road/Rural South neighborhood cluster, respondents were concerned about the safety of bikers on rural roads, with at least one respondent advocating for banning bikers on those roads. Consider the following quotes:

• “The Mayor has done well in promoting bike trails and lanes. Although bikes are a major hazard on rural roads.” Female, White, Age 6070, Old Richmond Road/Rural South neighborhood cluster.

• “The bike trails on the side of the road are completely inefﬁcient and dangerous. I wouldn’t put anyone I love on that. People text and drive and if we have bike trails they need to be through parks and for leisure. This is a car city.” Other Gender, White, Age 4050, Idle Hour / Woodhill neighborhood cluster.

• “Biking involves a minuscule minority of people, and is dangerous and divisive. Better walking routes would be good - including safe ways to cross busy streets full of distracted drivers, and walker- friendly amenities such as simple rest area (like a bus bench, but for walkers). Lexington should prioritize cars!” Female, White, Age 30-40, Stonewall neighborhood cluster.

Not Applicable represented 7% of respondents. This is reﬂective of the focus of our coding. Some respondents

Walkability, Bikeability, & Accessibility

commented on walking paths or bike paths, but did not give guidance on whether they wanted more, fewer, or safer options. Other respondents commented on the condition of pedestrian infrastructure, but did not include comments about ﬁxing the infrastructure. A few respondents were complimentary of the city’s efforts to increase pedestrian infrastructure through options like The Legacy Trail, but did not include if they wanted more options like this. Finally, some respondents included references to accessibility (e.g. ADA), which was not included in our subcodes.

ADDITIONAL DATA VIEWS

Another unique way to look at the Style of Development sub coded data is by age range, displayed in the ﬁgure to the right. Only 1,918 of the 2,416 respondents included their age, so this is not a complete data set. Any respondent with an empty value in their age range has been removed.

Overall, a desire for a more walkable community with better and more walking options and biking options is evident across all age groups. As respondents grew older, they tended to have more negative views of these subcodes.

An important piece of On The Table and CivicLex’s work is facilitating the master plan for the expansion areas to the Urban Service Boundary. The LFUCG city council approved the addition of ﬁve parcels in late 2023.

One question respondents could complete in the On The Table survey was their neighborhood. These neighborhoods were then combined into clusters. Utilizing information from LFUCG and CivicLex, we have studied the neighborhood clusters that are directly connected to the expansion areas. Any respondent that did not give their neighborhood was not included.

Parcel 1

• Beaumont

• Gardenside, Cardinal Valley / Alexandria

Parcel 2:

• Bryan Station / Eastland

• Hamburg / Greenbriar

Parcel 3/4/5:

• Old Richmond Road / Rural South

• Andover

• Hamburg / Greenbriar

For Parcel 2, Rural North is connected to the expansion area, but that was not a neighborhood code in On The Table. For Parcel 2 and Parcel 3/4/5, Hamburg / Greenbriar touch both parcels. Accordingly, their comments have been included in both parcels.

Again, more biking options is the most popular subcode in all three parcels.

Finally, grouped by race/ethnicity. Again, a desire for a more walkable community with better and more walking options and biking options is evident across all races/ethnicities.

However, these numbers are heavily skewed towards White respondents. 1,472 respondents categorized themselves as White. All other races/ethnicities had fewer than 100 respondents. This causes some skewing with the data. For example, in American Indian / Alaskan Native, it appears a large percentage of respondents were negative/anti. However, this represents one respondent of the total seven respondents for that race/ ethnicity.

Public Transportation

The protocol and subcoding for the Public Transportation code was completed in 2023, as a part of the On the Table Microgrants project. Lexington resident Krasi Staykov applied for an On the Table microgrant to perform a deeper dive into the public transportation code, and was given a $250 stipend for their work.

The second most popular code in the On the Table dataset was Public Transportation, with 1,744 comments tagged with this code (11% of all OTT responses). A total of 1,163 unique respondents mentioned Public Transportation, 48% of all survey takers. The neighborhoods that mentioned public transportation most frequently were Picadome, Kenwick, Woodland, and Cardinal Valley.

The subcoding process for Public Transportation is different and more detailed than the other On the Table principles. Each public transportation response was reviewed for mention of 6 broad subjects, and then coded with a more exact sentiment related to those subjects. This was accomplished by assigning the six major subjects a number, and each subcode a number letter combination. For example, “Bus” was code 1, with “add stops”, “upgrade existing stops”, and “increase frequency” as codes 1A, 1B, and 1C.

This methodology creates a speciﬁc understanding of what exactly residents are talking about when they mention Public Transportation in the On the Table survey. The six major topics were:

KEY FINDINGS

Favorability: Respondents were overwhelmingly supportive of greater public transit. 16 of the 1,587 coded responses advocated for a reduction or removal of bus infrastructure in Lexington (0.05% of all responses). 6 advocated for a reduction or removal of bike infrastructure in Lexington.

Improvements: The most popular suggestions to improve public transit were:

• Additional routes, particularly routes that would avoid downtown transfers.

• Additional stops along existing routes, particularly within New Circle.

• Improvements of stops and the transit center—seating, covered waiting areas, sidewalk access, lighting.

• Increased frequency of existing routes.

Environment: Many individuals suggested smaller buses due to environmental concerns, a low ridership rate, and the hopes that the savings on energy would allow greater route frequency or an addition of routes/stops.

Safety: Safety on the bus was a very low concern for individuals; only 14 responses noted safety as an issue on the bus, many more noted feeling unsafe due to the bus stops with low visibility and accessibility. Additional sidewalks and bike lanes were highly demanded, but safety of existing routes was also essential. Safe crosswalks, safe sidewalks, and protected bike lanes were common requests.

Other Public Transportation:

Respondents also expressed interest in public transportation beyond buses—4.35% of respondents mentioned either trolley, light rail, or both. These responses were concentrated in people who had high degrees of formal education; 48% had a master’s or more, and 36.5% had a bachelor’s.

SUBJECT SUBCODES

1A. Add stops

1B. Upgrade existing stops

1C. Increase frequency

1D. Increase reliability

1E. Add routes

1F. Add houses

1. Bus

2. Walkability

3. Cars

4. Biking

5. Parking

6. Other codes

1G. Access

1H. Efﬁciency

1J. Electricity

1K. Affordability

1L. Smaller buses

1S. Safety

1X. Other

2A. Add sidewalks or walking paths

2B. Connecting sidewalks

2C. Sidewalk maintenance

2D. Add crosswalks

2E. Safety pedestrian options

2X. Other

3A. Non-car centric

3B. Connecting sidewalks

3C. Trafﬁc management: speed limit, slowing, calming

3X. Other

4A. Add bike lanes

4B. Connect bike trails to bike lanes

4C. Safer bike lanes

4X. Other

5A. Limit parking

5B. Add parking

5X. Othe

6A. Trolley

6B. Light rail

6C. Road upkeep

6D. Scooters

6E. Electric vehicle charging stations/ incentives

6X. Other

List of the six major topics and subcodes for “Public Transportation” concerns.

Amenities & Quality of Life

In 2022, 2416 unique individuals ﬁlled out the On The Table survey, which included more than 15,000 open-ended responses. After reading through and grouping these responses, CivicLex developed 32 codes that captured the major topics that people mentioned and then manually went through and applied the codes to the open response comments.

The third most popular code was “Amenities and Quality of Life,” with 1567 comments tagged with this code (7% of the total 15,000 comments). A total of 1142 survey respondents spoke to this issue (some brought up the issue multiple times in response to the different openended survey questions). Amenities & Quality of Life refers to comments that mentioned neighborhood facilities, entertainment opportunities, restaurants and retail, cultural events, sense of community, and so forth. City parks and trails were NOT included in this code as there is a separate code speciﬁcally for these topics.

In response to the question, “What do you think would make Lexington a better place to live or spend time in?,” one third of the open-ended comments referenced Amenities & Quality of Life issues. In response to the question, “What do you think would make your neighborhood a better place to live?,” approximately one fourth of the comments spoke to Amenities & Quality of Life concerns. A small percentage (5%) of the responses to the question, “Where and how do you think new growth should happen in Lexington?” were also coded as “Amenities & Quality of Life.”

Importantly, however, coded responses only indicate that the theme or topic was raised in the comment – not how people actually felt about it. Think about it this way – both “I want more restaurants and shopping malls” and “We have too many restaurants and shopping malls” would be tagged with the “Amenities & Quality of Life” code.

To better understand the sentiment included in each comment, we did a more robust analysis and deep dive into the “Amenities & Quality of Life” (AQL) code. Open comments with the AQL code were read thoroughly to identify recurring themes. The 10 themes, or subcodes, included: More Things to Do, Commerce/Retail/Restaurant, Affordable/ Low Income/Free, Arts/Culture, Diversity/ Equity/Unity, Sense of Community, Basic Needs, Quality of Life (other), No Improvements, and Not Applicable. The ﬁgure to the right lists these codes and their criteria.

The team then went through and coded the 1567 comments using this list of subcodes. Note that each openended comment could be coded with more than one subcode. For example, if a response mentioned the need for more recreational activities, particularly those that are free to the public, it would be coded with “More Things To Do” and “Affordable/Low Cost/Free.” Every

SUBCODE

More Things to Do

Commerce/Retail/ Restaurant

SUMMARY

Advocating for more things to do, events, activities, festivals, entertainment, attractions, etc.

Asking for more retail/restaurant/commerce opportunities, including amenities such as shopping malls, local businesses, restaurants, retail, and nightlife options.

Affordable/ Low Cost/ Free

Speciﬁcally referencing free, affordable, or low-cost amenity options or speciﬁc places that are known to be free (libraries, community centers, playgrounds).

Arts/Culture

Diversity/ Equity/ Unity

Sense of Community

Basic Needs

Quality of Life (other)

Asking for more arts and cultural activities, events, and venues, including concerts, public art, theaters, and museums.

Responses that reference wanting to celebrate or increase diversity, equity, and unity.

Responses emphasizing the importance of increasing feelings of belonging or connection in their community.

Asking for more basic needs amenities, such as grocery stores, healthcare, or childcare options.

Covers QOL conditions not covered by other codes, including noise complaints, the need for better communication about events, etc.

No Improvements

Responses noting that everything is good and needs no improvement.

Not Applicable Responses that don’t qualify for previous subcodes.

List of subcodes for comments tagged as “Amenities & Quality of Life” concerns.

Amenities & Quality of Life

comment was coded twice–by a different coder each time. Data was coded in AirTable, a cloud-based collaborative spreadsheet. Upon completion of individual assignments, coders regrouped to review and resolve any discrepancies in their coding.

We then created a single column for each survey respondent that included the combined subcodes for AQL across all six open-ended questions. Again, a total of 1142 people commented on AQL issues. This means that the code counts used in this report represent individuals who mentioned this topic at some point in their commentary. For example, in the chart below you can see 183 respondents mentioned “Basic Needs.” This means that 183 people who took the survey mentioned basic need amenities as important in one or more of their openended responses.

First, of the 1142 participants whose comments were coded as “Amenities

& Quality of Life,” almost half (48%, or 542 respondents) were asking for “More things to do.” As one Heartland resident explained, “We need more attractions or something to do. There is nothing to do down here.” Another resident living in Bryan Station agreed, “More activities. More places to hang out with friends.”

While we did not have a subcode for comments that speciﬁcally referenced the need for “things to do” for young Lexingtonians, this did come up a lot. Take, for example, a comment by a Lexington teenager: “I think there could be things done to make it more fun and accessible for high schoolers and young adults. I feel like either entertainment is catered to adults or children and it’s either not safe enough or not mature enough for the middle, being high schoolers and younger adults below the age of 21.” In the words of another respondent, “We need more attractions that aren’t just for tourists but also for its citizens. Being a teenager in Lexington can be so boring because there is not much to do here.”

Commerce/Retail/Restaurant was the second most popular AQL subcode. Some residents asked for more bars or nightlife opportunities downtown while others wanted to see small retailers in their neighborhoods. Lexingtonians asked for amusement parks, bowling alleys, soccer stadiums, water parks, malls, international food, and so much more.

Consider the following quotes:

• “We need a waterfront but that’s not easily accomplished. Fun cities often have waterfront areas where people can dine & shop. We need things for teens & the new movie theater & bowling alley across from Rupp Arena is a great addition. It will also be great if the soccer stadium is added beside it & can be utilized for outdoor concerts. The Distillery District is wonderful & a great example of revitalizing what we have vs. building new, & incentives should be given to entrepreneurs to do so.” (Idlehour)

• “More opportunities (restaurants, entertainment) on my side of town.” (Masterson Station)

Other Quality of Life issues were included in the third most common AQL subcode, which 219 individuals spoke to. Many of these respondents wrote about their struggle to ﬁnd information about what was happening in Lexington. For example, one respondent explained: “Me encantaría mas información de dónde ir en ﬁnes de semana para mi familia y disfrutar de Lexington.” Translation: “I would love more information on where to go for weekends for my family to enjoy Lexington.” Others struggled with their HOAs or had noise complaints. Consider the following comment from a middleaged resident: “We need better reporting and enforcement of noise violations by neighbors especially in the late night and early morning hours.”

Basic Needs amenities were highlighted

Arts/Culture was the next most noted subcode, with 177 people writing about this amenity. Residents provided long lists of cultural amenities that they desired in Lexington, including museums, concerts, plays, public art, and so much more. Consider the following two responses:

• “Improve the arts! More galleries. Large/signiﬁcant outdoor concerts. More activities downtown and in parks.” (Old Richmond Road, 20-30 year old)

• “There needs to be more things for people to do, more plays to include people of color, gospel concerts, museums.” (Georgetown, 70-80 year old)

by 183 people, which is 16% of the respondents who spoke about AQL needs. Lexingtonians spoke passionately about their need for grocery stores near their neighborhood as well as other local basic need amenities such as childcare, healthcare, etc. As an older resident from the East End described: “Better parks (some are awesome; some, like Duncan

Park in my neighborhood, could be better), safer biking, more trees, less air pollution (coal heat generation is still happening in town??), more walkable neighborhoods with amenities like grocery stores in all neighborhoods.” Another resident noted his desires: “Closer proximity and access to essential services and stores for basic needs.”

Free/Low Cost amenities was another important subcode, with 174 respondents highlighting this issue. These were comments that referenced the importance of having things to do that were affordable and low-cost, so that all Lexingtonians could participate, regardless of income. One young (10-20 year old) resident from Cardinal Valley explained her needs: “I think it would be better if they had more activities to do that weren’t expensive or cost money. Maybe we could have stuff like free museums.” A 30-40 year old Glendover resident explained, “Build some indoor public activity centers for kids to support families during the winter. Not all of us have the means to ‘winter’ in Florida.” This code also included wanting more places that are widely known to be free,

• “Community involvement to take more pride in the city.”

Amenities & Quality of Life

such as libraries, community centers, and so forth. One resident asked for “A large new Village Branch Public Library!”

Sense of Community was mentioned by 166 survey participants. Many residents want opportunities to interact more deeply with others in their neighborhoods and across the city and to do so in ways that foster a sense of solidarity and community. Consider the following quotes from various neighborhoods:

• “More events where folks can meet their neighbors. I love that my neighborhood is racially diverse, but I think there is a feeling of in-group, outgroup.” (Castlewood)

• “In general, it’s been really difﬁcult to ﬁnd a sense of community. Even living in a dorm, I don’t feel like I know my neighbors. I wish there were more ways for me to get to know the people who live in such close proximity to me.” (UK Campus)

Diversity, Equity, and Unity was mentioned as important by 81 survey respondents. For these residents, it is imperative that Lexington provides equal access to quality amenities, especially for groups that have been historically marginalized on the basis of race, disability, sexual orientation, and so forth. For example, one respondent in Tates Creek noted, “This neighborhood is majority Black and Brown population and has been historically excluded and under-resourced. I believe neighborhoods like mine should be prioritized with investments towards revitalizing the people (e.g. easy access to culturally responsive mental health supports, education, and child care) and spaces (e.g. green spaces, clean/green energy investments, easy access to fresh food) that have existed there historically (not gentriﬁcation). A trickle up approach towards community.” A resident of Woodland provides her perspective: “Growth doesn’t have to mean ﬁnancial. Growth can mean environmental, (the city that has the most rooftop gardens in america or has planted the most trees), artistic growth (more sculptures, street musicians nights, theater in the park), empathetic growth ( crosswalks for the blind, parking for veterans, disabled and pregnant women, ramps for those in wheelchairs, benches for the elderly to take a break)With all growth, get the community involved including all ages,

races, and family styles.”

Finally, this code also captures those comments that highlight the need to increase and celebrate diversity in this community. For example, “Doing what it takes to keep Lexington friendly. One way is to increase the frequency of festivals celebrating ethnic and racial groups. Diverse activities that bring people of many different backgrounds and ages together.” and “Equity, inclusion and coming together of all communities. Analyze which events/festivals are most diverse and plan ways to bring more diversity to the ones that are EXclusive. Workplaces that are exclusive need diversity.”

The ﬁnal subcode captured the 38 respondents that indicated No Improvements are necessary. As one resident in the Old Richmond Road areas argues, “I think Lexington has enough to do if you get tired of the area you can always go vacation somewhere and then come back but overall Lexington is a clean safe town and a great place to live in.”

Environmental Sustainability & Resiliency

The fourth most popular code was “Environmental Sustainability and Resiliency,” with 1,224 mentions tagged with this code (6% of the total 15,000 comments). A total of 1000 survey respondents spoke to this issue (some brought up the issue multiple times in response to the different open-ended survey questions). Environmental Sustainability and Resiliency refers to comments that mentioned municipal recycling and composting, cleaning up litter and trash, construction and pavement sustainability efforts, protecting natural habitats and ecosystems, reducing emissions,

controlling harmful soil amenities, and education surrounding these topics. Comments concerning TREES were NOT included in this code as there is a separate code speciﬁcally for these topics. We also did NOT include comments about noise or light pollution as these topics are covered under a different code.

In response to the question, “What do you think should be done to protect the environment in Lexington?” one half of the comments spoke to Environmental Sustainability and Resilience concerns. A small percentage (5%) of the responses to the question, “What do you think would make your neighborhood a better place to live?,” were also coded as “Environmental Sustainability and Resiliency.”

composting” and “We are too focused on recycling and composting” would be tagged with the “Environmental Sustainability and Resiliency” code.

To better understand the sentiment included in each comment, we did a more robust analysis and deep dive into the “Environmental Sustainability and Resilience” (ESR) code. Open comments with the ESR code were read thoroughly to identify recurring themes. The 8 themes, or subcodes, included: General Environmental Protection, Air and Water Quality, Waste Management, Renewable Energy, Yards/Lawns, Negative/Anti, No Improvements, and Not Applicable. The ﬁgure to the right lists these codes and their criteria.

The team then went through and coded the 1,567 comments using this list of subcodes. Each open-ended comment could be coded with more than one subcode. For example, if a response requests wildlife protection educational

SUBCODE

General Environmental Protection

Air and Water Quality

Waste

Management

Renewable Energy

Yards/Lawns

Negative/Anti

No Improvements

Not Applicable

SUMMARY

Asking for more environmentally friendly practices; and education on climate change, wildlife protection, “going green”.

Asking for more protections against pollution and harmful materials and chemicals; waterway preservation; clean water and air; water runoff; stormwater management.

Responses that reference recycling, composting, litter cleanups, education on recycling/composting.

Asking for more solar panels, incentives for renewable energy (RE), electric vehicles (EV), investments in renewable energy, less fossil fuels.

Responses that reference pollinator friendly yards, eco friendly fertilizers, grass alternatives, gardens, native plants, landscaping.

Responses that ask for a decrease in efforts or are against previous subcodes.

Responses noting that everything is good and needs no improvement.

Responses that don’t qualify for previous subcodes.

List of subcodes for comments tagged as “Environmental Sustainability and Resiliency” concerns.

Environmental Sustainability & Resiliency

programs, particularly with a goal to preserve and increase biodiversity in residents’ yards, it would be coded with “General Environental Protection” and “Yards/Lawns”. Every comment was coded twice–by a different coder each time. Data was coded in AirTable, a cloudbased collaborative spreadsheet. Upon completion of individual assignments, coders regrouped to review and resolve any discrepancies in their coding.

We then created a single column for each survey respondent that included the combined subcodes for ESR across all six open-ended questions. Again, a total of 1142 people commented on ESR issues. This means that the code counts used in this report represent individuals who mentioned this topic at some point in their commentary. For example, in the chart below you can see 310 respondents mentioned “Renewable Energy.” This means that 310 people who took the survey mentioned renewable energy as important in one or more of their open-

ended responses.

First, of the 1000 participants whose comments were coded as “Environmental Sustainability and Resilience,” 47% (471 respondents) indicated “Waste Management” is a priority. As one Richmond Road resident explained, “Make sure the recycling programs are available in all neighborhoods. Our previous location had no provisions for recycling at all. Adopt a street, community service hours for high school students if they take on a neighborhood cleanup project.” A Landsdowne/ Glendover resident concurred, “Update recycling by making it more accessible to more people. Communicate the need for environmental stewardship.”

While we did not have a subcode for comments that speciﬁcally referenced the categories of recycling available in Lexington, this did come up a lot. Take, for example, a comment by a Hartland resident: “All numbers of recycling should be accepted.” Regarding the cessation of paper recycling because of machinery repair, a resident of the Gardenside neighborhood responded, “Ensure plant parts stay working. Over a year without paper recycling was unacceptable. Improve education around recycling & compost. Encourage community gardens and biocompostable materials.”

Another theme which did not have a subcode includes composting. At least 42 respondents mentioned composting or municipally managed composting

including the comment from this Picadome dweller, “Municipal or city run compost program. All food waste from restaurants and groceries, then for a small charge or free to taxpayers.”

General Environmental Protection was the second most popular ESR subcode. Within this code commenters listed priorities such as education about climate change, city-level changes or municipal investments, watersheds, emissions, and energy updates.

Consider the following quotes:

• “Educar y poner el ejemplo a los demás sobre todo a las nuevas generaciones Translation: Educate and set an example for others, especially the new generation” (Winburn/Radcliffe)

• “Lexington should set a Big Picture Vision for our city/county across all climate change + environmental + sustainability issues..... to be used in considering and addressing complex community-wide decisions with both short-term implications and longer view sustainability. How do we protect out families for now and into the upcoming future? How do we protect our water, our air, our land, our economy” (Wyndham Downs)

• “We need to get a handle on our water quality in urban streams that run through our neighborhoods. They become water features and amenities instead of polluted ditches if you plant trees, shrubs and perennial

plants along them. Also, public works projects operated by LFUCG need to do a better job of their construction pollution control. Those are usually a mess. They thumb their noses at their own rules, making it hard to maintain better standards.” (Southland)

• “To get more people being less car dependent start putting in other things that do not rely on gas. Seriously look into light rail, require new developments to plant street trees and improve their sidewalks, so people have shade and protection from cars. Have give back programs for resi. solar

Renewable Energy issues were included in the third most common ESR subcode, which 310 individuals spoke to. Many of these respondents wrote about their desire to see renewable, most commonly, solar energy embraced in Lexington. For example, one respondent suggested: “Clean energy - decentralized solar (meaning solar on every roof, not just in large scale solar farms)” Another respondent says, “Add solar collectors to all publilc buildings, including shelters at parks.”

Often times respondents suggest incentives to encourage the change, “Subsidize the installation of solar panels on low-income, senior, group housing.” and, “Give incentives private homeowners to install renewable energy sources. Incentivize small-businesses that are generally associated with being good for the environment, like vegan restaurants.”

panels. Install more elec. charging stations.” (Picadome)

Air and Water Quality concerns were highlighted by 246 people, which is 25% of the respondents who spoke about ESR needs. Lexingtonians spoke passionately about the need for better maintenance of storm drains and protection of waterways. As a Hartland resident explained: “Better stormwater management and larger greenways and buffers around our ﬂoodplains. Continuing education effort around the importance of keeping Lexington green. Work harder to increase tree canopy in our built environment. Continue the work on making our sanitary sewers sealed and prevent contamination of our streams from sewage overﬂows. Better management of private lawn fertilizer companies and the impacts of lawn maintenance. Encourage natural landscapes in neighborhoods.” To reduce emissions and air pollution, another Cardinal Valley resident suggested, “Adopt idle-free zones around businesses and schools to reduce exposure to vehicle emissions; pay more attention to zoning issues when neighborhoods butt up against industrial areas whose

Environmental Sustainability & Resiliency

practices impact residents living nearby.”

Speciﬁcally addressing the efforts of Lexington regarding this issue, and older Lakeview resident commented, “It is my understanding that Lexington now has a sustainability coordinator. That is a good step in the right direction. Lexington needs a clear, overarching vision of how we are going to protect the environment, and that needs to be central to all city decisions. For every decision, the Urban County Council needs to ask, how does this affect our water? Our trees? Our air quality?”

The ﬁfth most assigned subcode was Yards/Lawns, garnering mentions from 136 people. Numerous residents highlighted the potential ecological beneﬁts of encouraging residents to turn away from traditional frontyard landscaping to pollinator and native gardens. Consider the following responses:

• “Small yards that are being made into native plant gardens instead of labor

and resource intensive lawns.”

• “Educate homeowners as to what plants attract butterﬂies, birds, and other desirable species; encourage planting, subsidize rain gardens, rain barrels; bird houses, bird baths, and accommodations that foster Encourage wildlife.”

• “Education about alternatives to lawns, like moss or gardens.”

Conclusion

From the data set, it is apparent that the residents of Lexington are concerned about the environmental impacts within their community. There is a clear consensus among respondents regarding the need for proactive measures to address various environmental issues, ranging from litter cleanup initiatives to the reduction of single-use plastics and runoff pollution prevention strategies. Residents emphasize the importance of transparency in recycling processes and advocate for expanded recycling services.

As the urban service boundary expands, residents want the environment to be considered integral in urban planning and development. This includes prioritizing sustainable construction practices, energy-efﬁcent designs, and incorporation of renewable materials. There is a desire to instill environmental consciousness in future generations through education on waste reduction, recycling, renewable energy, and resource management.

Waste management is a signiﬁcant concern, with calls for expansion of recycling infrastructure and accessibility–residents express frustration with existing program limitations and suggest a need for supplemental efforts like coordinating neighborhood cleanups and recycling education efforts. The push for decentralized solar energy and incentivized renewable energy installations, and sustainable residential landscaping practices reﬂects a collective value for individual and communitydriven stewardship of the environment.

Disparities among Lexington neighborhoods raise questions about the distribution of responsibility for sustainability between individuals and city authorities. A comprehensive approach by the city council, one tailored to address neighborhood-speciﬁc needs, may be essential to effectively meet residents’ desires. This approach considers that some neighborhoods require minimal intervention while others may need more support. Environmental sustainability and resiliency issues are at the forefront of Lexingtonian’s minds when considering urban development and community engagement.

Style of Development

The ﬁfth most popular code was “Style of Development,” with 1,137 comments tagged with this code (7.5% of the total 15,000 comments). Style of Development refers to comments that mentioned any of the following:

• Density/Intensity

• Aesthetics

• Context

• Housing Options/ Types

• Sprawl

• Missing Middle Housing

• Mixed Use

• Low Density / Single Family

For each question in the On The Table survey, we can show a breakdown of how many open-ended comments were tagged with Style of Development. The question with the highest number of comments was related to new growth in Lexington, with 48% of the comments being coded as Style of Development.

• What do you think would make your neighborhood a better place to live?159 comments

• What do you think should be done to protect the environment in Lexington? - 202 comments

• What do you think would help make Lexington a place where everyone can have ﬁnancial success? - 50 comments

• What do you think should be done to improve transportation in Lexington?53 comments

• Where and how do you think new growth should happen in Lexington?548 comments

• What do you think would make Lexington a better place to live or spend time in? - 125 comments

Importantly, however, coded comments only indicate that the theme or topic was raised in the response – not how people actually felt about it. Think about it this way – both “I want more density” and

“I want less density” would be tagged with Style of Development. Respondents did not speak exclusively to the Style of Development they would like to see in the new areas of expansion for the Urban Service Boundary, but rather a guiding approach to development that would apply to the city as a whole.

To better understand the sentiment included in each comment, we did a more robust and detailed analysis of the “Style of Development” code. Openended comments with the Style of Development code were read thoroughly to identify recurring themes. The six themes, or subcodes, included: Increase Density, Decrease Density, Development for Equity, Environmentally Sustainable Development, Negative/Anti, and Not Applicable. The table to the right lists these codes and their criteria.

Each response was read by two coders who assigned a subcode to the response. Comments could receive more than one code. For example, a response could be coded as both “Increase Density” and “Development for Equity” if the response advocated for more housing and more housing that was affordable or lowincome. Anything that appeared unclear was ﬂagged for review later. Once the initial round of coding was completed, coders met to discuss any differences in their coding and resolve any ﬂagged comments.

SUBCODE

Results

Results from subcoding under Style of

1 - Increase Density

2 - Decrease Density

Any response advocating for more, denser development, such as inﬁll, redevelopment, using vacant areas, adaptive reuse, smart growth, and “building up.”

Any response with concerns about overdevelopment or overly dense development, including overcrowding, concerns about neighborhood character that speciﬁcally cite the need to decrease density (see note below about historic preservation), and decreasing high density housing such as apartments or multi-family homes.

3- Development for Equity

Any response referencing development with the purpose of increasing equity in Lexington; this refers to racial, income, and other forms of past inequality as well as disability access; also includes affordable houses with equity in mind.

4 - Environmentally Sustainable Development

5 - Negative/Anti

Any response referencing development that is environmentally sustainable/eco friendly, such as green building, concern for environmental impacts and maintaining natural spaces

Comments against the concept of development of any kind, regardless of location, characteristics, context, including speciﬁc mention of decreasing or slowing all development; also includes calls to prioritize other issues over the above codes

6- Not Applicable Response does not qualify for any other codes

Style of Development Code Book.

Development are included in Figure 2 below. Because comments could receive more than one code, a total of 1,141 open-ended comments were recorded. A total of 851 individuals had comments that were coded as Style of Development. Overall, there is also a lot

of passion around how Lexingtonians see development and how it affects their experience of the city.

Increase Density was the most popular subcode, representing about 40% of comments. Comments in this subcode

one area affects other areas.

Style of Development

identiﬁed walkable communities as a priority, but also proposed nuanced ideas of where and how density should be increased, and in some places, decreased. Across the board, residents advocated for dense and mixed use development within the existing Urban Service

Boundary as a way to increase housing supply, support positive environmental outcomes, promote social equity, and improve overall quality of life.

Few comments advocated for decreased density across the board, but many expressed sentiments about increasing density in some locations in Lexington so that open spaces (for green space, for example, or single family homes) could be maintained elsewhere. While this could be considered a form of NIMBYism (the idea that a certain kind of development should happen, but not in my area), our data could not support this conclusion and rather points to the need for a holistic approach to development and how growth or increased density in

“I think growth is good. It’s a sign that people are interested in living in our city because there is opportunity here. I do, however, think that part of the appeal of living in Lexington is that we have green space. Urban planners need to be more creative in the use of space. We need to have more single family dwellings that take up less space. Building upwards instead of outwards is an underused concept here. Also, we need to make more use of the multiple abandoned properties here. “ (respondent: 50-60 years old, 40508)

“Inﬁll. I always feel kind of horriﬁed driving through the sprawl of South Lexington. So much land is wasted in distance between houses and on expansive lawns. Some of Lexington’s historic neighborhoods show how people can live well in denser settings while still being able to create intimate spaces and maintain privacy. In 2022, there is no good reason for so much land in Lexington to be used as lawns that require obscene amounts of chemical fertilizer, or as impermeable surface parking lots.” (respondent: 30-40 years old, 40507)

“Infill, infill, infill. Quit allowing private

developers to tear down historical buildings, especially former private homes, without thorough investigation into how the structure could be utilized within the planned development. Quit allowing UK to buy private homes, rent them to students for a few years, never maintain them, then say they have to be torn down because they’re in too bad shape & too expensive to rehab. UK is the biggest, single cause of the destruction of historic neighborhoods!” (respondent: 60-70 years old, 40517)

Not Applicable represented the second largest subcode, with nearly 27% of comments. This is reﬂective of the focus of our coding. Many comments focused on green spaces and parks, which are being captured in other sub coding efforts. Others were comments that indicated a need for careful or deliberate planning, which is important, but did not give guidance on the particular style of development that should happen.

Historic preservation and maintaining the character of Lexington was a priority for many respondents, but because they do not speciﬁcally address the style of new development that should happen, we did not code historic preservation as either for/against increased density. Many respondents did speciﬁcally mention the outsized power they saw developers as having in decision making around styles of development.

Negative/Anti and Decrease Density

each represented about 13% of

comments. Both groups expressed strong sentiments regarding growth, with all being anti-growth in their comments. These comments represented a desire to keep Leixngton’s existing identity and historic preservation.

“Lex is starting to look like any over-built town in the country with poorly planned development along busy roads. The town was built on horses, charm and historic character is a huge pull but we’re on the brink of losing that because we’re pushing horse farmers out for Walmart. We’re doing a terrible job of planning, zoning, and preservation which is sad bc I know how much tourism is built around distilleries, horse tracks, horse farms. Outsiders are attracted to the charm we’re killing.” (respondent: 50-60 years old, neighborhood not speciﬁed).

“It needs to be planned carefully, with the expansion in Hamburg, south Lexington, brewery district, you see immediate impacts both positive and negative. Growth for growths sake will beneﬁt no one but land and building owners.” (respondent: 20-30 years old, 40504)

“Growth is good ONLY if contextual. Suddenly adding a multi-story apartment building next to single family homes is out of context. Adding ADU’s is out of context. Doing these would further crowd narrow streets, add to ground water ﬂooding problems, overburden sewer lines and electrical, leading to a reduction of home values and a reduction of tax revenue.” (respondent:

no demographic information, 40513, Beaumont neighborhood cluster).

In response to the question How should growth happen in Lexington, one respondent commented, “Very difﬁcult answer. Vacant land. Slowly. All kinds of factors are involved. I don’t know too many people who like being crammed on top of each other.” (respondent: male, 70-80, white, 40503, Picadome/Pensacola neighborhood cluster).

“I think the best ides would be towards working on renovations in the Tates Creek and Versailles areas of the city demolishing multifamily housing and creating better single family home options” (respondent: male, 40-50, other, 40515, Hartland/Squires neighborhood cluster)

“Stop over developing and over crowding already crowded roads like Nicholasville.” (respondent: female, white, 40515, Veterans neighborhood cluster).

“I don’t like the present “in-ﬁll” approach which rapes the integrity of older neighborhoods.” (respondent: female, white, 70-80, 40503, Southland neighborhood cluster).

Development for Equity subcode represented about 11% of comments. Many respondents articulated the throughline of race-based housing and planning policies of the 20th century to the current housing crisis in Lexington. Respondents advocated for affordable

Style of Development

parks, as these are coded for separately.

“...deﬁne strict sustainability requirements for new development to ensure green space is preserved/restored; increase public access to green spaces by creating and connecting more bike paths like the Legacy Trail, thereby increasing awareness/appreciation of natural spaces within Lexington; increase support to the city’s environmental services and education programs.”

(respondent: 30-40 years old, 40505)

of Development sub coded data is by age range, displayed in Figure 3. Only 730 of the 851 respondents included their age, so this is not a complete data set. Any respondent with an empty value in their age range has been removed from Figure 3.

In this view, it is clear that the desire to increase density within Lexington is shared among all age groups.

housing as part of addressing this legacy of inequality. This subcode also included comments about accessibility (such as ADA).

“New growth should be strategic and affordable. I am not for the gentriﬁcation of urban areas as it kicks out current residents. However, affordable housing is really important and it is also important to make “urban” spaces aesthetically and culturally/socially pleasing. New growth should occur within the lens of making Lex affordable for all and nice for all.” (respondent: 20-30 years old, 40515)

Environmentally Sustainable Development subcode represented about 10% of comments. We used a narrow definition of sustainability in this subcode, focusing specifically on the built environment, the environmental implications of certain building styles, and a specific mention of sustainable development. We did not include mention of greenspaces, tree cover, or

Additional Data Views

Another unique way to look at the Style

late 2023.

Parcel 1

• Beaumont

• Gardenside, Cardinal Valley / Alexandria

Parcel 2:

• Bryan Station / Eastland

• Hamburg / Greenbriar

Parcel 3/4/5:

• Old Richmond Road / Rural South

• Andover

• Hamburg / Greenbriar

Again, Increase Density is the most popular subcode in all three parcels.

In Parcel 3/4/5, Andover and Hamburg / Greenbriar favored increasing density more strongly, with 43% of comments advocating for increased density. However, Old Richmond Road / Rural South was more evenly split, with 38% of comments advocating for increased density and 41% advocating for

decreasing density or being negative/anti.

Conclusion

Lexingtonians’ opinions on the style of development that should happen in the city are overwhelmingly in favor of increased density, with creative ideas and nuanced perspectives on how and where development should occur. While the sub-codes categorize responses with distinct categories in favor or against density, the range of perspectives represents more of a spectrum. One commonality across this spectrum is a sense that development in one area of Lexington needs to consider what is occurring in others: a holistic approach to development that considers resident needs, aesthetics, environmental impacts, and equity, among other concerns. Some respondents expressed concern about the disproportionate power of developers over collective needs and priorities, wondering if priorities that do not yield monetary gains could win the day. Alongside this skepticism, however, is a strong sense of community, attachment, and creativity in suggesting ways to develop Lexington so that it retains its positive attributes and serves all residents equitably.

Urban Greenspace

Executive Summary: Urban Greenspaces (UG) is the sixth most popular concern that Lexingtonians have identiﬁed related to the future development prioritized within the City of Lexington. Within UG, which was mentioned in 907 of the gathered respondent’s comments, More Parks/Greenspaces, Protecting Existing Parks/Greenspaces, Better Parks/Greenspaces were the top three priorities mentioned by participants, respectively. Even though most people wanted more parks, there were many mentions of keeping existing parks better maintained and accessible. Additionally, many respondents commented on increasing the usefulness of parks and greenspaces through increased activities and events at parks to bring people and communities together.

The sixth most popular code was “Urban Greenspaces,” with 962 comments tagged with this code (4% of the total 15,000 comments). A total of 907 survey respondents spoke to this issue (some brought up the issue multiple times in response to the different open-ended survey questions). Urban Greenspaces refer to comments that mention parks and greenspaces, including an increase, improvement, protection, activation of them, and so forth. Concerns speciﬁcally about trees were NOT included in this code as there is a separate code speciﬁcally for this topic.

In response to the question, “What do you think should be done to protect the environment in Lexington?,” 15% of the open-ended comments referenced Urban Greenspaces issues. In response to the question, “What do you think would make your neighborhood a better place to live?,” approximately 10% of the comments spoke to Urban Greenspaces concerns. A small percentage (9%) of the responses to the question, “What do you think would make Lexington a better place to live or spend time in?” were also coded as “Urban Greenspaces.”

Importantly, however, coded responses only indicate that the theme or topic was raised in the comment – not how people actually felt about it. Think about it this way – both “I want more parks and greenspaces” and “We have too many parks and greenspaces” would be tagged with the “Urban Greenspaces” code.

To better understand the sentiment included in each comment, we did a

Ruth Toole and Reba Prather

more robust analysis and deep dive into the “Urban Greenspaces” (UG) code. Open comments with the UG code were read thoroughly to identify recurring themes. The 7 themes, or subcodes, included: More Parks/Greenspaces, Better Parks/Greenspaces, Protect Existing Parks/Greenspaces, Activation of Parks/Greenspaces, Expansion of Parks/ Greenspaces, Negative/Anti, and Not Applicable. The table to the right lists these codes and their criteria.

The team then went through and coded the 962 comments using this list of subcodes. Note that each open-ended comment could be coded with more than one subcode. For example, if a response mentioned the need for more parks, particularly those that have more activities, it would be coded with “More Parks/Greenspaces” and “Activation of Parks/Greenspaces.” Every comment was coded twice–by a different coder each time. Data was coded in AirTable, a cloudbased collaborative spreadsheet. Upon

SUBCODE SUMMARY

More Parks/Greenspaces

Better Parks/Greenspaces

Protecting Existing Parks/ Greenspaces

Activations of Parks/ Greenspaces

Expansion of Parks/ Greenspaces

Negative/Anti

Not Applicable

More parks and greenspaces, more play areas, requesting a speciﬁc type of park (ex: more running tracks, indoor play areas, etc.).

Better maintained, safer, more open, more accessible, better infrastructure, or adding features to existing parks.

Mentions protecting/preserving parks and greenspaces.

More activities, programs, events, music, utilization in parks.

Speciﬁcally references prioritizing parks/ greenspaces in new growth areas.

Against previous codes or prioritizes another area of concern.

Response does not qualify for any other codes

List of subcodes for comments tagged as “Urban Greenspace” concerns.

completion of individual assignments, coders regrouped to review and resolve any discrepancies in their coding.

We then created a single column for each survey respondent that included the combined subcodes for UG across all six open-ended questions. Again, a total of 907 people commented on UG issues. This means that the code counts used in this report represent

individuals who mentioned this topic at some point in their commentary. For example, in the chart below you can see 200 respondents mentioned “Protect Existing Parks/Greenspaces.” This means that 200 people who took the survey mentioned protecting existing parks and greenspaces as important in one or more of their open-ended responses.

Urban Greenspace

First, of the 907 participants whose comments were coded as “Urban Greenspaces,” almost half (47% or 429 respondents) were asking for More Parks/Greenspaces. A participant from the Wyndham area said, “A shared public space for the community to interact and gather. When we’ve gone out of our way to meet our neighbors we’ve found amazing people, but a shared public space like a small park would make that much easier and create more of a sense of community.”

Another resident from the Kenwick/Bell Ct. area shared that we should: “Have intentional parks / green space that is usable for all of the public…”

Protecting Existing Parks/Greenspaces was the second most popular UG subcode, being mentioned by 200 respondents. This subcode outlines those who mention protecting and keeping existing greenspaces in Lexington. For example, one resident from the

Cardinal Valley/Alexandria area stated: “I love the parks and green spaces in my neighborhood and I would like to see efforts to create and maintain these spaces continue.” Another participant from Landsdowne/Glendover voiced: “I love that there is green space and rural areas so close to the city and I would not like it if those were taken away due to developments or new construction.”

Better Parks/Greenspaces was mentioned by 160 respondents, making it the third most common UG subcode. This subcode dealt with increasing the quality of existing parks in one way or another. Many participants mentioned wanting an increase in park maintenance, improved park equipment, and better access to existing parks. A respondent from the Cardinal Valley/Alexandria area stated that: “I love the parks and green spaces in my neighborhood and I would like to see efforts to create and maintain these spaces continue.” Another resident, from the McConell’s Trace area, said, “Having a park within safe biking or walking distance, and greater walk/bike access to local shops - we’re pretty isolated as a subdivision off Georgetown Rd.”

Expansion

of Parks/Greenspaces was highlighted by 33 people, in which expansion of parks in Lexington’s new growth areas was speciﬁcally mentioned. In terms of expansion in Lexington, a participant from the Picadome/Pensacola area voices that: “Any construction should be offset with greenspace…” Meanwhile, a respondent from Castlewood/Loudon

shared that: “New growth should be with green spaces in mind.”

The sixth most mentioned subcode was the Activation of Parks/Greenspaces, where respondents wanted to see an increase in activities and events at their local parks. Many residents tell us that they already have existing parks, however, some want to see more activities available in those parks to bring people together and to have things to do.

Consider the following quotes:

“I would love to see more parks for children to play at aside from shilito. More family-focused activities and places to go as well…” (Wyndham)

“Community events at the park when our

park is rebuilt. A way to meet and know my neighbors.” (Gardenside)

“I think having…more things to do in the parks would be nice.” (Old Richmond Road/Rural South)

“Parks should…become the site of more activities and festivals which will make diversity less threatening and increase a sense of community and friendliness.” (Georgetown)

Negative/Anti, which meant a comment relating to being against parks/greenspaces in Lexington, wasn’t mentioned by any participants as seen in the graph above. This shows that many Lexingtonians want to prioritize parks and greenspaces.

Housing Affordability

The seventh most popular code was “Housing Affordability,” with 646 respondents explicitly mentioning housing affordability in their openended responses. Housing Affordability refers to responses that mention the need for safe, affordable housing, with many indicating how improved housing affordability would impact their quality of life. Additionally, responses in this category included those related to the quality of available affordable housing, commentary about the contributing factors or justifications for why housing affordability is so difficult for Lexingtonians, and specific ideas, policies,

or solutions that might increase housing affordability in Lexington.

The fact that Housing Affordability is the seventh most popular code within the dataset is important, as there were no specific questions within the OTT survey that asked directly about housing. While many codes correspond directly to specific survey questions, this theme “bubbled up” from the data as a significant number of respondents brought up the issue in their open-ended responses, most often in relation to questions asking about jobs or prosperity.

To better understand the sentiment included in these comments, we did a more robust analysis into the “Housing Affordability” (HA) code. Open responses with the HA code were read thoroughly to identify recurring themes. The six themes, or subcodes, included: More Affordable Housing, Better Affordable Housing, Contributing Factors/ Justiﬁcations, Solutions/Ideas for making

housing more affordable, Negative/Anti, and Not Applicable. The table to the right lists these codes and their criteria.

It is important to note that each openended comment could be coded with more than one subcode. For example, if a respondent mentioned wanting more affordable housing and paired this with ideas for how increasing affordable housing could be supported by local government, the comment would be coded as “More Affordable Housing” AND “Solutions/Ideas.”

Every comment was read and coded by two different coders. Then, all coded items were reviewed by the research team and they resolved any discrepancies, ensuring intercoder reliability.

“MORE AFFORDABILITY”

Within the Housing Affordability subcode, respondents overwhelmingly indicated

SUMMARY

1 - More Affordable Housing

2 - Better Affordable Housing

Any response about how more affordable housing would improve neighborhood/make ﬁnancial success easier/ etc. Includes comments related to: more affordable housing, lower cost housing, more units, “housing is too expensive,” cost of owning/renting/buying

Responses about the quality of affordable housing available and the need to improve the quality or characteristics of existing affordable housing stock. Includes comments related to housing condition, location, accessibility, walkability (Note: only when speciﬁcally asking for walkable affordable housing, not just walkability in general), and safety

3- Contributing Factors/ Justiﬁcations

4 - Solutions/Ideas for Making Housing More Affordable

Any response referencing other topics that make housing affordability more difﬁcult (wages, cost of childcare, cost of living) or comments about why more affordable housing is important (would help someone live in Lexington, would help them hold a job, etc)

Any response referencing speciﬁc ideas, policies, or solutions to increase housing affordability. Includes comments related to: “Capital A” affordable housing, zoning, tax assistance/subsidies, rent control, Airbnb regulation

(Note: no need to assess how effective the policy might be - just if some speciﬁc idea is being suggested)

5 - Negative/Anti

6 - Not Applicable

Less/against any above codes, prioritize other things over above codes

Response does not qualify for any other codes

List of subcodes for comments tagged as “Housing Affordability” concerns.

Housing Affordability

in existing areas if anything that is built new is priced so far out of their range that they can no longer afford to live there. I see many new and nice constructions and that’s great, but then you look up the rent and it’s like $1600.

• “It seems like Lexington has a large

population of privileged, white, upper to middle-class folks. This population has gerrymandered their way into lower-class neighborhoods and pushed less privileged folk out. Rent rates are ridiculously high, especially inside New Circle, making it harder for folks to stimulate the economy or

that they feel as though housing costs in Lexington are too expensive, with 78% of responses sub-coded as “More Affordability.” This concern stretches across the political and social class divide and affects both renters and homeowners.

Consider this range of worries:

• “I’ve lived here in Kenwick for almost 12 years. My partner and I rent. We would love to make this neighborhood our permanent home, but the price of houses has skyrocketed and now we cannot afford to stay. Our landlord will be selling our house soon and even rent here has gone up so much we will have to ﬁnd somewhere else in town to live. We are both well paid professionals and it is still too expensive. Like most of Lexington.”

• “I think growth is a good thing, both in existing neighborhoods and expanding out into farmland, but it does nothing for the people living

participate in their community.

• “Assistance for long-term residents with low incomes to care for their property, so they aren’t displaced by predatory developers and investment property owners, and we need to keep some of the housing affordable.”

• “UK has a crisis in AFFORDABLE student housing. Grow student housing ON CAMPUS LAND at rates that do not push students to overcrowd the established residential subdivisions.”

• “The price of housing is insanely high. To even afford rent in most areas of town, people need to have a partner or roommate. My partner and I are both college educated, and work higher than entry level jobs, and we cannot afford to purchase a house, or live in our own. I have colleagues at UK who have had to take on second jobs in order to live by themselves. The city should pass an ordinance keeping private ﬁrms from purchasing homes, to allow citizens the opportunity to purchase.”

• “With very little housing inventory, especially homes for sale under $300,000, Lexington is in danger of losing an entire generation of young people (and its future workforce) who will not be able to afford to live here - whether its buying or renting. There must be a more balanced approach to growth that includes both inﬁll/ redevelopment and the addition of land for more housing and jobs in

strategic locations that will meet the needs of its residents.”

With such a stark housing affordability crisis, many survey respondents describe how they (or those they know) have been pushed out and are forced to commute from surrounding counties, even though they work and prefer to live in Lexington.

For example, consider the following:

• “I am answering this survey as a COMMUTER because I cannot afford to live in Lexington. I would love to live close to my workplace. The number one thing Lexington can do to improve is to lessen car dependency. Car dependent urban sprawl makes living more expensive for residents, hurts the environment, and makes infrastructure costs more expensive for the city. Building more roads or widening roads actually makes trafﬁc worse and increases car dependency. Please avoid this!”

• “The cost of housing in Lexington is ridiculously high. For homeownership as well as for renters. It’s hard to get ahead ﬁnancially when so much of your income goes to keep a roof over the heads of your family. We do seem to have plenty of jobs available, but it alarms me at how many people are choosing to live outside of Fayette County.”

“SOLUTIONS/IDEAS”

Of those comments tagged as “Housing

Affordability,” the second most common sub-code was “Solutions/Ideas” for solving the affordable housing crisis, with 178 comments. Lexington residents spoke with remarkable clarity and detail about the wide variety of options on the table to address the housing affordability crisis.

Suggestions included ideas such as: reducing gentriﬁcation, focusing on inﬁll development, regular inspection/ monitoring/controlling of rents, expanding the urban growth boundary to build more homes, cracking down on speculative buyers, providing incentives to small business owners and landlords to maintain property and keep it affordable, reduce property taxes, increase housing subsidies for low-income residents, build a mixture of housing types (with a certain percent earmarked as affordable), decrease lot sizes, balance the need for green space and affordable housing, grow the affordable housing fund, prioritize affordable housing in zoning ordinances, and raise wages so that people can afford housing.

To illustrate the thoughtfulness that went into their responses, consider these quotes:

• “Housing needs to be dramatically cheaper. We need city-owned public housing, an expansion of housing held in community land trusts. Vacant property should be taken into a cityowned Land Bank that has a preferred relationship with a Community Land Trust designed to ensure permanent affordability. Lexington needs to

Housing Affordability

• “Allow more multi-family housing! I could never have afforded a house in this lovely neighborhood, the only reason I’m able to live there is because of the four-plexes. They haven’t changed the character of the neighborhood at all, many of them look just like houses.”

end it’s Opportunity Zone that only increased housing speculation and gentriﬁcation.”

• “Some rentals have increased as much as 30% over the last year (according to a few of my friends). Owning a home in Lexington has become less of a reality for many working class folks since 2020. Meanwhile, property management groups and individuals with multiple rental properties such as AirBnB are buying homes to make a proﬁt. I believe there should be a cap on the # of homes one can buy.”

• “Inﬁll is great if it still provides opportunity for people of all economic backgrounds and experiences. But right now, it’s just straight up gentriﬁcation. If Lexington can’t get a handle on the affordable housing issue, then expansion of the urban service boundary is something that should be explored without those against it vilifying those in favor of it.”

• “My neighborhood as is too restrictive on the types of buildings allowed in it. Our zoning code should allow for R-2 or MU-2 zoned properties in any neighborhood in the city as by-right. More families that desire to live in the sort of neighborhood I live in should have access to this community if they desire. Additionally, we should reduce the minimum lot size and eliminate the parking requirements on the aforementioned zoning codes, as this drives up the cost of housing for everyone.”

• “Protection from conversion of housing to cookie-cutter rental housing. We do need rental housing, but I hate to see large companies sucking up properties and doing slap-dash renovations to provide high-rent apartments. Assistance to small landlords to keep up their properties, or incentives for folks who inherit property to be able to make it available for rental at affordable prices, would be great in transitioning older neighborhoods like mine.”

“CONTRIBUTING FACTORS/ JUSTIFICATIONS”

How do Lexingtonians understand what is causing the housing affordability problem? The third largest sub-code are comments that speak to “contributing factors” or “justifications” for why the housing crisis is a problem that must be dealt with (115 entries). The main contributing factors identified include: rise in living costs, low wages, the wealthy class moving into Lexington, property owners driving up rental costs to increase profits, the affordable housing stock that remains is unsafe, rising property taxes, retail areas eating up space for housing, etc.

For example, one homeowner explained: “Our home prices are skyrocketing and not only is that preventing folks from moving in, but for our family, we could not afford to move if we wanted to! Rental homes are going for twice our mortgage payment, which I know is the norm.”

In the words of a Lexington renter, “To start with, there should be more places with affordable rent. As a single person who is considered to be making a living wage, most 1 bedroom apartments are still out of my price range. I couldn’t imagine having children and having to rent a 2 or 3 bedroom apartment on one income. Also, we need a higher minimum wage and more decent paying opportunities. No one can afford to live on $9 and hour. And there needs to be universal childcare so all parents have the opportunity to work.”

Another Lexington resident reflected on the affordability problems facing their neighborhood: “I love that the Castlewood neighborhood is mixed income, that’s important. I have noticed that rent in that area is going up a lot and I think it reflects other trends in the North Limestone area. Gentrification is a huge problem in Lexington. I do eviction prevention, and every week we have 3+ non-renewal of lease cases, people who pay their rent and are good tenants, but who aren’t offered a lease renewal when their house is bought by a new company. House is flipped and rent goes up $200.”

“BETTER AFFORDABILITY”

112 comments referred to the need for “better” affordable housing, the next most common sub-code. For these respondents, they highlighted common issues with current affordable housing stock.

Safety was an important consideration, with Lexingtonians concerned about drug abuse and gun violence located in and around affordable housing. For example, “I think we should expand affordable and sustainable housing. With more people and a lot of college students, having housing that is affordable is important, but also keeping it looking nice and sustainable is also just as important. A lot of the cheaper housing is either run down, not in a safe area or not sustainable, we need to solve this.”

Residents also pointed out the importance of ensuring that affordable housing was accessible for those who are disabled and that it is located in areas where people can access basic needs, such as walking to a grocery store. Lexingtonians hoped for affordable housing options in a variety of different locations and many wanted mixed housing, with single family homes alongside affordable duplexes or apartments. They also wanted affordable housing that was not falling apart. For example, consider this illustrative quote: “Inﬁll development in existing neighborhoods should be carefully designed to ﬁt into the context of the neighborhood. Better oversight of rental property would be particularly helpful

in our neighborhood--a licensing and inspection program could avoid some issues with dilapidated rental homes and on-going maintenance issues.”

“NOT APPLICABLE”

Finally, eight entries were for coded as “Not applicable”, where the participant’s comments did not say anything about Housing Affordability in particular. Only two comments were coded as “Negative,” with residents remarking that they felt the housing situation in Lexington was okay, but that people were complaining and should just get a job.

C Appendix: Conceptual Plans for Key Sites

As part of the Design Workshop held in April/May the team created a series on Concept Plans based on the existing conditions anlalysis, a series of early frmeowrk studies (which would later be reﬁned as the Regulating Plans), and developer/stakeholder feedback.

While these Concept Plans look similar to development plans used during the application process, it is important to note that these were used by the Team to test the initial frameworks and conﬁrm assumptions about how much density and the types of development that could work for each area to build a sense of community and optimize the land. They were also a tool to use with the Planning Commission, developers, and the public to help translate the vision.

It’s important to remember that these Concept Plans were used for illustrative purposes only for outreach in the Spring and Summer. The current Regulating Plans are considered the next step in the evolution of the process and corrected some of the issues found from the development of the Concepts. These are not to be considered within the regulatory process.

Area 1

ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY

Area 3

ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY

Area 4

FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES ONLY

This page left intentionally blank

Appendix: Market Analysis Data D

Data related to Chapter 3 - Market Analysis.

Market Analysis Data

Note: 1 Lexington-Fayette Metro Area definition includes the following counties: Bourbon, Clark, Fayette, Jessamine, Scott and Woodford.

Source: Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics (LEHD), Census, 2024; Partners for Economic Solutions, 2024.

Note: 1 Lexington-Fayette Metro Area definition includes the following counties: Bourbon, Clark, Fayette, Jessamine, Scott and Woodford.

Source: Woods & Poole Economics, Inc., 2024; Partners for Economic Solutions, 2024.

2021-2045

Notes: 1 Lexington-Fayette Metro Area definition includes the following counties: Bourbon, Clark, Fayette, Jessamine, Scott and Woodford. Source: U.S. Census ACS 2022 5-year estimates, 2024; Partners for Economic Solutions, 2024.

Note: 1 Lexington-Fayette Metro Area definition includes the following counties: Bourbon, Clark, Fayette, Jessamine, Scott and Woodford.

Source: Woods & Poole Economics, Inc., 2024; Partners for Economic Solutions, 2024.

Table A-1. Lexington Employment Trends, 1970-2020

Table A-2. Lexington Employment Projections,

Table A-3. Lexington Workers by Age, 2011-2021

Table A-4. Tenure by Householder Income, 2022

Table A-5. Tenure by Age of Householder, 2022

Notes: 1 Lexington-Fayette Metro Area definition includes the following counties: Bourbon, Clark, Fayette, Jessamine, Scott and Woodford.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 2017-2021 American Community Survey (ACS) provided by Esri, 2024; Partners for Economic Solutions, 2024.

Notes: 1 Lexington-Fayette Metro Area defnition includes the following counties: Bourbon, Clark, Fayette, Jessamine, Scott and Woodford.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2017-2021 American Community Survey (ACS) provided by Esri, 2024; Partners for Economic Solutions, 2024.

Median Year Built

Notes: 1 Lexington-Fayette Metro Area definition includes the following counties: Bourbon, Clark, Fayette, Jessamine, Scott and Woodford.

Source: ACS 2017-2021 provided by Esri, 2023; Partners for Economic Solutions, 2023.

Table A-6. Commuting Time to Work for Lexington Residents, 2021

Commuting Time in Minutes

Table A-7. Means of Transportation to Work, 2017-2021

Means of Transportation

Table A-8. Lexington Population and Household Projections Based on Existing Trends, 2023-2045

Table A-9. Housing Units by Year Built, 2021

Lexington Lexington-Fayette Metro1

Units in Structure

Market Analysis Data

Note: Data do not add to the totals due to rounding.

Source: HUDUser.gov, CHAS Dataset 2024; Partners for Economic Solutions, 2024.

Table A-12. Lexington Households by Tenure and Housing Problems, 2016-2020 One or More Housing Problems No Housing Problems Owner Households

Renter Households

facilities; unit that lacks complete plumbing facilities; household is overcrowded with more than 1.0 person per room; and household is cost burdened (spending more than 30 percent of income for gross housing costs).

Source: HUDUser.gov CHAS Dataset, 2024; Partners for Economic Solutions, 2024.

CoStar, 2024; Partners for Economic Solutions, 2024.

Table A-10. Lexington Multifamily Housing Trends, 2010-2023 Units

Table A-13 . Lexington Households by Severity of Housing Problems, 2016-2020

Table A-14. Lexington Households by Severity of Housing Problems by Tenure, Race and Ethnicity, 2016-2020

Renter Households

Note: Columns may

Note: Columns may not total due to rounding in source data.

Source: HUDUser.gov, 2024; Partners for Economic Solutions, 2024.

Owner Households

Market Analysis Data

Table A-15. Lexington Owner Households by Tenure, Housing Problems and Presence of Elderly Persons, 2016-2020

Table A-16. Lexington Renter Households by Tenure, Housing Problems and Presence of Elderly Persons, 2016-2020

One or More Housing Problems No Housing Problems

Renter Households

All Incomes

Note: Housing problems include housing unit that lacks complete kitchen facilities; unit that lacks complete plumbing facilities; household is overcrowded; and household is cost burdened (spending more than 30 percent of income for gross housing costs).

Source: HUDUser.gov CHAS Dataset, 2024; Partners for Economic Solutions, 2024.

Note: Housing problems include housing unit that lacks complete kitchen facilities; unit that lacks

plumbing facilities; household is overcrowded; and household is cost burdened (spending more than 30 percent of

Source: HUDUser.gov CHAS Dataset, 2024; Partners for Economic Solutions, 2024.

Elderly Family (Two persons with either or both age 62+)

Small Family (2 persons, neither age 62+, or 3 or 4 persons)

Large Family (5 or more persons)

Elderly Non-Family

Other (non-elderly, non-family)

Note: Columns may not total due to rounding in source data.

Source: HUDUser.gov CHAS Dataset, 2024; Partners for Economic Solutions, 2024.

Market Analysis Data

A-22. Lexington Affordable Ownership Units by Occupant Income, 2016-2020

Source: HUDUser.gov CHAS Dataset, 2024; Partners for Economic Solutions, 2024.

Table A-19. Lexington Households

Table

Note: 1 Full-service rent.

Sources: CoStar, 2024; Partners for Economic Solutions, 2024.

2014-2023 Change

Note: 1 Lexington-Fayette Metro Area definition includes the following counties: Bourbon; Clark; Fayette; Jessamine; Scott and Woodford.

2 Full-service rent.

Sources: CoStar, 2024; Partners for Economic Solutions, 2024.

Note: 1 Lexington-Fayette Metro Area definition includes the following counties: Bourbon, Clark, Fayette, Jessamine, Scott and Woodford.

Sources: CoStar, 2024; Partners for Economic Solutions, 2024.

Table A-23. Lexington Office Market Trends, 2012-2024

Table A-24. Lexington-Fayette Metro Area1 Office Market Trends, 2012-2024

Table A-25. Average Annual Net Construction (Net Changes in Office Space Inventory)

Market Analysis Data

Note: 1 Lexington-Fayette Metro Area definition includes the following counties: Bourbon; Clark; Fayette; Jessamine; Scott and Woodford.

Sources: CoStar, 2024; Partners for Economic

Note: 1 Full-service rent.

Sources:

Table A-28. West Lexington Submarket Industrial/Flex Market Trends, 2012-2024

Table A-26. Lexington-Fayette Metro Area1 Industrial & Flex Market Trends, 2012-2024

Table A-27. Lexington Industrial & Flex Market Trends, 2012-2024

Lexington Hotel Trends, 2015-2023 2015-2023 Trends

Source: CoStar, 2024; Partners for Economic Solutions, 2024.

Note: 1 Full-service rent.

Sources: CoStar, 2024;

Table A-29. Lexington Retail Market Trends, 2012-January 2024

Table A-30. Lexington-Fayette Metro Area Retail Market Trends, 2012-January 2024

Table A-31.

EFunding Mechanisms

Facilitating development in the Expansion Areas will require a range of new infrastructure and other capital investments. Our initial discussions with Fayette County Commissioners suggest the major needed capital improvements will include wastewater and stormwater collection and storage. road and intersection improvements for adjacent arterials. entry roads and internal spine roads. police and ﬁre stations and equipment, parks and open space, schools and libraries, and transit enhancements.

The challenge lies in devising funding mechanisms that ensure that the costs of those investments are borne by the new development rather than Fayette County taxpayers.

Funding Resources

Ideally, the funding mechanisms would:

• allow predictability of costs;

• be easy to administer and update;

• require developers to bear the cost of infrastructure required by new development;

• support new development in time to respond to market demand;

• support development of quality infrastructure;

• open up interior properties lacking frontage on a major arterial;

• minimize overall costs;

• treat property owners equitably;

• protect LFUCG from risks that the anticipated development does not occur as expected;

• result in reasonable costs and risks so as not to prevent or delay development due to extraordinary costs and/or risks; and

• not force property owners who prefer to keep their properties in their current state to pay for new improvements.

Given the multiple objectives and challenges, few jurisdictions have found solutions that are fully satisfactory.

State and Federal Revenues

State and Federal grant programs support local governments’ costs of developing infrastructure. Of greatest relevance to the expansion areas are the Clean Water State Revolving Fund capitalized by grants from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Highway Trust Fund, School Construction and Land Conservation. They have the funding to do both the pumping station and the tank. From time to time, new funding becomes available such as the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, which is funding $1.2 trillion in infrastructure improvements across the country. LFUCG should continue to take advantage of these outside funding sources to offset some of the costs associated with the expansion areas’ infrastructure.

The Kentucky Infrastructure Authority operates the Clean Water State Revolving Fund, originally funded by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), to provide low-interest loans to localities for water and wastewater improvements. Most funds are awarded based on a set of criteria that include project type, water quality, community economic levels and response to court mandates; others are awarded on a ﬁrst come, ﬁrst-served

basis. This external fund allows local governments to borrow the funds at favorable rates for 20 years.

LFUCG Revenues

Some of the infrastructure needed to support new development in the expansion areas is also needed to address deﬁciencies in infrastructure serving existing development. The Capital Budget should continue to cover the costs of improvements that serve existing development, for example, expansion of wastewater storage facilities at existing pump stations to reduce water contamination in response to the consent decree. Any new school, library or community park is likely to serve other county residents who do not live in the expansion areas. Where the beneﬁts of these investments do not accrue completely to the new residents and development, LFUCG, Fayette County Schools and the Lexington Public Library should fund a share of the costs from general fund or other revenues.

User Fees

Wastewater collection and treatment are typically funded through user fees based on water usage with tap fees helping to contribute to the cost of

line extensions. Prior to the exaction fees imposed on the 1996 Expansion Areas, the Outer Perimeter Sewer Study (OPSS) established a sewer assessment lien on property that would have to be paid before it could be approved for development.

Precedent of Expansion Area Exactions

The Expansion Areas Master Plan for the 1996 expansion of the Urban Services Boundary introduced a series of exactions to fund key infrastructure. The Plan identiﬁed a series of required infrastructure improvements (sewer transmission and sewer capacity, roads, parks, stormwater and open space) for each expansion area, allocated them by type among the number of units of developed served by the infrastructure to arrive at a per-unit exaction fee for each type. The initial developer could construct and ﬁnance the improvement, scaled to meet the needs of the entire service area or expansion area. The developer then received credits based on documented construction costs (or 80 percent of the scheduled exaction fees) that were to be applied to offset current or future exaction fees and/or be repaid by subsequent developments.

In other cases, the developer could pay the exaction fee, and the LFUCG would construct the improvement. The credits were transferable across expansion areas and among types with the exception of sewer exaction fees that could not be applied to other costs (e.g., parks). The Department of Finance maintains an Exaction Credit Statement for each developer detailing credits issued and used over time.

Designed expecting a relatively quick development (e.g., 10 years), the system did not hold up well when development extended over a 25-year period. The plan was to update quarterly for actual costs, materials cost changes and zoning changes to make sure that the full costs were covered. However, the Exactions Rate Table has not been updated since 2010. The update is very time-intensive, and there was no staff capacity. Tracking developer use of the credits also required an intensive monitoring effort. In some cases, developers had negative credit balances, indicating that they had not paid all the required exaction fees.

The exactions policy originally assumed that one-half of the infrastructure costs would be paid by developers and one-half by future homeowners and commercial

property owners. However, the policy was adjusted to place all the costs on the developers.

LFUCG continues to pay for improvements that beneﬁt the general public, such as funding two lanes of a four-lane expansion on a key roadway.

Potential Funding Options

Funding options reﬂect alternative mixes of developer and County responsibility with different tools.

Developer Construction and Dedication of Infrastructure

Today, developers outside the 1996 expansion areas are generally required to construct infrastructure made necessary by new development. Their efforts are guided by an Infrastructure Development Assessment between the LFUCG, the developer and the developer’s engineer. The developer constructs the infrastructure to be owned, operated and maintained by LFUCG. The Procedures Manual for Infrastructure Cost directs the process. The developer hires the engineer and construction contractor and provides performance/warranty surety to the Division of Engineering. The engineer prepares the plans in accordance with the detailed standards in the Division of Engineering’s Technical Manuals and conducts weekly inspections. The improvements are subject to a three-year warranty for wastewater improvements and a one-year warranty for stormwater improvements.

Developer Construction with Internal Reimbursements from Other Developers / Property Owners

Outside of expansion areas, LFUCG policies require the developer to fund and construct all road, wastewater and stormwater infrastructure improvements. Development agreements could be written to require appropriate pipe sizing to accommodate future growth on properties further from the existing infrastructure. As noted above, the developer is required to design, construct and warrant the improvements in accordance with the Division of Engineering’s technical manuals, which helps ensure that the infrastructure will meet quality standards that minimize future maintenance costs. Reimbursement fees from other property owners could be scaled to increase with interest in the intervening years.

Impact Fees

Nationally, the most common mechanism for funding growth-related infrastructure improvements is impact fees. Courts have typically required that impact fees have a “rational nexus” between the fee and the infrastructure needs generated by new development as

well as the benefits of new development. In practice, this typically requires a technical analysis of the demand generated by new development as quantified by vehicle trips, gallons of wastewater, school children, park usage and other measures. The analysis nets out the share of the infrastructure benefits that accrue to the general public (e.g., less traffic congestion, school attendance from other areas) to arrive at a net cost attributable to growth. They also net out any costs covered by Federal or State funding. The remaining cost is allocated among future development based on the number of units or square feet of development, trips generated, wastewater generated, etc. Each developer pays the impact fees associated with his project at the time of building permit issuance. Most often, the infrastructure is constructed by the local government, drawing funding in part from deposited impact fees.

This mechanism raises issues as to the timing of improvements. The market may be ready for one developer to proceed, but the single project’s impact fees cover only a portion of the costs. Either the local government advances the funds and is repaid by impact fees on later development, or the improvement is not constructed until accumulated impact fees will cover the costs. Waiting

for the improvements, particularly in the case of roadway improvements, can impact congestion. During the waiting period, construction costs are typically escalating, reducing the share of the total costs covered by impact fees. Some jurisdictions require that impact fees not spent or committed within ﬁve years of receipt be refunded.

Allocation over a projected level of development introduces uncertainties in scaling the impact fees, particularly as that development is phased over time. There are no guarantees that development will occur in the form currently anticipated or that it will maximize the density allowed by zoning. The impact fees are based on best information available at the time and should be updated as more information becomes available.

Typically, an affordable housing development is treated like other development with impact fees based on its share of the public infrastructure costs and cannot be exempted from those fees; however, some states do allow fee waivers. Because impact fees can increase the costs of developing affordable housing, many jurisdictions have provisions to pay the fees on behalf of affordable housing developments from other revenues.

EXAMPLE

Wastewater Treatment and Collection Impact Fees VERSAILLES, KENTUCKY

The City of Versailles imposes impact fees (also known as system development charges or development fees) for wastewater treatment and collection. The onetime fees are charged for new developments and/or significant increases in wastewater flows. Fees are based on Equivalent Residential Units (ERUs) (with a townhouse or an apartment expressed as a percentage of the ERU) for existing and planned development and charged based on water meter size. The fees are set to cover capital costs, including the debt payments associated with repaying indebtedness for existing treatment facility costs and the anticipated costs of wastewater plant expansions and additional sewer line capacity (reflected in the Capital Improvements Plan). The fees are recalculated every five years at a minimum. They do not include any costs of operations and maintenance. The impact fee is not a tap fee, which is a separate fee that covers costs of

inspecting and installing connections.

A developer can earn credits by constructing and dedicating public improvements to the City with capacity beyond that required for the speciﬁc development. The credits can be used in later phases of the project, but they are not transferable to another development. They also cannot be transferred between systemwide fees and growth-related fees. All credits must be used within 10 years. The Council may waive the impact fee for tax-exempt organizations.

Potential Funding Options

In most states, impact fees are not used to reimburse local governments for existing infrastructure (e.g., existing wastewater treatment plants).

There has not been speciﬁc legislation adopted in Kentucky that authorizes local government use of impact fees, so it is not clear that impact fees are allowed in Kentucky. The City of Berea cites the general police power granted to cities as its authorization for impact fees under the Kentucky State Constitution and KRS 82.082, which states:

“82.082 Power for public purpose only and not in conﬂict with Constitution or statutes. (1) A city may exercise any power and perform any function within its boundaries, including the power of eminent domain in accordance with the provisions of the Eminent Domain Act of Kentucky, that is in furtherance of a public purpose of the city and not in conﬂict with a constitutional provision or statute.

(2) A power or function is in conﬂict with a statute if it is expressly prohibited by a statute or there is a comprehensive scheme of legislation on the same general subject embodied in the Kentucky Revised Statutes.”

EXAMPLE

Development Impact Fees BEREA, KENTUCKY

The City of Berea levies a variety of development fees to assure that new development pays its fair share of growth-related capital facility costs, including:

■ sewer development charges;

■ water development charges;

■ electric, natural gas and other utility development charges;

■ park and recreation expenses;

■ drainage expenses;

■ police and ﬁre expenses; and

■ transportation improvement expenses.

The impact fees are set annually and calculated to show “a reasonable, and roughly proportional, relationship” between the type of development, the need for the public facility and the cost of the public facility or portion thereof attributable to the development. Each applies to a specific benefits area and reflects an identified list of specific

improvements identified in the Capital Improvements Program adopted annually by the City Council or Sewer Commission. The fees are collected at the earlier of development approval, issuance of a building permit or issuance of a certificate of occupancy with the exception of utility fees, which are collected at the time of utility connection. The City may require security to guarantee payment. The fees for each capital improvement are deposited in separate accounts. The fees are refunded if not used within five years unless City Council determines the need still exists.

Developers can receive credits by donating land, agreeing to participate in an assessment district, or otherwise contributing to the costs.

System Development Charges

System Development Charges are very similar to impact fees, identifying speciﬁc improvements, estimating their costs and often the costs of existing facilities, and spreading those costs across the number of new units and square feet of building space expected to be developed. At times, they encompass a wide geography (e.g., citywide) rather than a very focused district of properties that directly beneﬁt from the new infrastructure.

Transportation System Development Charges

LOUISVILLE-JEFFERSON COUNTY, KENTUCKY

Louisville-Jefferson County Metro Government adopted system development charges in 2006 to help offset the cost of transportation system costs associated with new development. The provision was adopted subject to a 10-year sunset clause. Transportation Beneﬁt Districts were deﬁned geographically to fund improvements to roads designated in the ordinance. A

EXAMPLE

Systems Development Charge Oversight Committee (SDCOC), comprised of the System Development Charge Administrator and representatives of the Department of Planning and Design Services, the Department of Public Works, the Home Builders Association of Louisville, the Louisville Apartment Association, Greater Louisville, Inc., and the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet as well as a neighborhood resident, reviewed the designation of roads and the calculation of charges, and could set priorities among improvements.

The developer of any newly built housing unit within the Transportation Beneﬁt District had ﬁrst to pay the Systems Development Charge for the unit, calculated at:

■ $1,000 for a single-family detached unit, a detached condominium or a mobile home;

■ $500 for an attached condominium; and

■ $250 for a multi-family rental apartment.

Offsets to the charges included:

■ all non-site related roadway improvements required as a condition of plan approval;

■ contribution of land (not including frontage dedications), money, or services for the undertaking of construction or related activities for non-site related improvements;

■ cost of a roadway realignment, where such realignment was required as a condition of plan approval; and/or

■ the cost of roadway improvements paid for as a result of the commercial component of a mixed-use development.

These offsets could not result in a refund of systems development charges or be carried over or transferred to another development.

Metro government was required to devote new property taxes of at least as much as the systems development charges paid each year by district. Funds not spent within 10 years would be refunded to the payor.

Potential Funding Options

EXAMPLE

Systems Development Charges

SALEM, OREGON

The City of Salem assesses systems development charges for parks, transportation, water, wastewater and stormwater. A new methodology for calculating the charges was developed in 2019 under an SDC Methodology Committee that included Councilors, a representative of the development community, a member of the Home Builders Association, a Planning Commissioner, a member of the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board, and a citizen as well as City staff and consultants. Fees were adjusted to assure that fees would fund 100 percent of growth-related costs and park fees were extended to include non-residential developments. In 2020, the typical new single-family home would incur a total of. $17,800 in systems development charges.

The charges include a reimbursement fee of the costs of capital improvements already constructed or

under construction, an improvement fee that reflects the projected costs of capital improvements identified in an adopted plan to support increased capacity, or a combination of both fee types. Rates are indexed for inflation. A capital improvements program must include a list of the improvements intended to be funded with improvement fees along with the estimated timing, cost and eligible portion of each improvement. Required improvements and anticipated growth units are based on a 20-year period for parks and transportation. Reimbursement fees are limited to water and wastewater infrastructure due to a lack of adequate information for parks, transportation and stormwater. Growth costs are calculated based on the infrastructure to serve property within the Buildable Lands Opportunity Boundary (similar to Lexington’s Urban Services Boundary). Planned park

improvements were estimated based on the current level of service (LOS). For transportation corridor improvements, the growth share to be paid from systems development charges reﬂect the existing volume-to-capacity ratio. Water and wastewater fees are calculated based on a detailed list of speciﬁc required improvements and charged on meter size.

Conservancy Partnerships

Conservancy or Friends of Parks is a nonproﬁt conservancy option for building natural infrastructure improvements, such as parks, outdoor events and public art, and activating space with targeted programming. These types of mechanisms supported by current government efforts could enhance park funds with targeted fundraising and volunteer cleanup, landscaping and maintenance.

The most famous example of a privatized park, the Piedmont Park in Atlanta, consists of 189 acres and is run by a non-proﬁt organization, the Piedmont Park Conservancy (PPC). PPC has two agreements with the City of Atlanta, a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) and an operating agreement. The Conservancy maintains the park and makes improvements, investing an estimated $66 million in private funding since 1989. The City of Atlanta maintains ownership of most park structures with the exception of newly constructed restaurant space and other out-buildings constructed by PPC. Piedmont Park Conservancy boasts using more than 2,000 volunteers annually who work an estimated 7,500 hours.

Special Assessment Districts

When the benefits of specific infrastructure investments accrue to development in a specified geographic area, a special assessment district or special benefits district can be an appropriate tool to facilitate private financing. Typically, special assessment districts require property owner approval, which makes them most feasible in newly developing areas with a limited number of property owners, who have a financial interest in supporting the costs of infrastructure necessary to develop their properties.

The required improvements are identiﬁed and their costs estimated. Those costs are then allocated across new developments. Costs can be recouped through lump-sum payments from the developer as building permits are issued, or the costs can be bonded and then recovered through an annual payment from the then-current property owner. The charges are typically levied based on acreage, units, square feet or other related measures. For wastewater treatment improvements, equivalent residential units (ERU) are the preferred allocation unit. This distinction is valuable in incentivizing smaller units and not burdening smaller, more affordable

housing units with unrealistically high beneﬁt assessments.

As with impact fees, developers can accelerate infrastructure improvements by constructing and then dedicating the infrastructure to the local government. The improvements are built to public standards and speciﬁcations. If they are designed to beneﬁt other properties, the developer can recoup a portion of the investment from the developers of those other properties.

Special assessments are a known entity for developers but less familiar to homeowners. Some communities have found it difﬁcult politically to explain to a small segment of the population why they are paying a higher property tax than other residents.

Potential Funding Options

EXAMPLE

White Flint Special Taxing District MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLAND

Montgomery County’s White Flint Area, now known as the Pike District, is a well-developed auto corridor (Rockville Pike) served by the North Bethesda Metro station. The vision developed by the County, the community and local property owners for the 2010 White Flint Sector Plan called for a major transformation to a walkable urban mixed-use district. The Plan include an extensive package of transportation and other improvements to handle both existing and future transportation needs in this heavily congested corridor. The County’s requirement for adequate public facilities ordinarily would require that each developer pay for roads, sidewalks, bike facilities and other public infrastructure in order to be approved for development.

The County entered into an innovative public/private partnership with developers and property owners using a special taxing district.

Each property owner committed to pay an additional property tax, limited to no more than 10 percent more than the current mileage rate to fund a large program of major transportation and other infrastructure improvements. At the time, development was expected to proceed rapidly; however, the pace of development was signiﬁcantly slower than anticipated. Factors affecting the development pace included an economic slowdown associated with Federal budget sequestration, slowing job growth, construction cost increases that outstripped the growth in rents, a lawsuit that delayed redevelopment of the former White Flint Mall for ﬁve years, lagging residential demand, and the fact that the envisioned street and public realm improvements had not occurred as anticipated. Individual projects moved ahead including the successful Pike & Rose mixed-use development.

Improvement costs were divided into three buckets: County/State bucket; Taxing District bucket; and the Developer bucket. One of the key transportation improvements was the White Flint West Workaround that would open up properties and relieve traffic congestion. By 2021, its costs had escalated to $74 million but the special taxing district had collected only $15.7 million in revenues in its first 10 years, far less than the $45 million in revenues forecast for the first 8-10 years. The County advanced $49 million from the General Fund with the requirement that the loan be repaid within 10 years before it needed to be recognized as an unfunded liability on the County’s balance sheet.

The formulation of the special assessment with a strict cap on its upper limit provided valuable protections and certainty to property owners, but it made little provision for revenue shortfalls. More often, the share of the funding required from the developers and property owners would be split among the properties with no cap on the potential assessment fees.

EXAMPLE

Special Assessment Districts

LINCOLN, NEBRASKA

The City of Lincoln uses special assessment districts to fund paving, water, wastewater, ornamental lighting, sidewalks and other improvements requested by one or more interested individual. The request is forwarded to the City Engineer’s office and notices are sent to all affected property owners in advance of a public hearing. The Council has a Special Assessments Revolving Committee that recommends whether the district should be approved. On approval by Council, the City Engineer’s office calculates a proposed cost allocation across the district’s properties. Assessment levies are filed against individual properties and an interest rate is established at the prevailing rate. Costs are amortized over a 20-year period for paving, water, wastewater and repaving districts;

ﬁve years for ornamental lighting and sidewalk districts, and three years for grading and graveling districts. Special assessment district ﬁnancing is used for both new subdivisions and improvements in older, existing neighborhoods.

Potential Funding Options

Value Capture

Value capture pays for public improvements from the tax revenues generated by the associated private development. The jurisdiction earmarks the new tax revenues to pay debt service on bonds issued to fund public infrastructure. Kentucky law authorizes the use of Tax-Increment Financing (TIF) for new development areas with previously undeveloped land and for development areas in need of redevelopment. The City may commit up to 100 percent of its incremental property and occupational taxes. No more than 1,000 acres in the county can be designated as a local development area in any 12-month period. Local development areas cannot exceed 20 percent of the total assessed value of all its taxable real estate. Public school tax revenues are not eligible for inclusion in TIF. The authorizing legislation appears in Appendix G. To date, Lexington has generally focused its TIF activity on economic development projects, such as Coldstream Research Campus.

Value capture is most effective when associated with a speciﬁc project that is ready to begin construction with its funding all secured and some of its space pre-leased. That makes it less appropriate for funding early infrastructure expenditures for residential

developments. Up-front spending 18 to 24 months before the first home is finished and 30 to 36 months before new tax revenues begin to flow means that borrowing costs and interest payments need to be capitalized into the bond and netted out of the bond proceeds available for infrastructure funding. Additional reserves of one year’s worth of interest payments, which further reduce the net bond proceeds, provide protections for the bondbuyers in case theproject is delayed for any reason.

Communities typically guard against the risk of revenue shortfalls by requiring the developer to enter into a taxing agreement whereby the developer agrees to pay additional property taxes to make up any shortfall in the revenues needed for debt service payments. TIF funding is often accompanied by Federal grant funding and other funds.

Depending on the use of TIF revenues (e.g., local roads), some jurisdictions have pledged backup revenues from non-ad valorem sources, such as utility taxes, in order to make the TIF bonds saleable at an acceptable interest rate.

EXAMPLE

Transportation Reinvestment Zone

HAYS COUNTY AND CITY OF SAN MARCOS, TEXAS

Hays County, located between Austin and San Antonio, has experienced rapid growth far in excess of the carrying capacity of its transportation network. The County took advantage of Texas’s Transportation Reinvestment Zone (TRZ) to use tax-increment ﬁnancing to fund major road construction. To build farm-to-market (FM) road 110, the County’s top transportation priority, the County entered into an advance funding agreement with the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT). The County paid forthe project planning, land acquisition, utility relocation and preliminary engineering using general obligation bonds. TxDOT built the road and through the Texas State Infrastructure Bank loaned the County for 100 percent of the construction costs. The County committed one-half of the incremental property taxes to repay the loan within 22 years. Incremental

tax revenues in excess of the year’s debt service payment were used to prepay the loan. Though not used for this project, Texas allows capture of both incremental sales taxes as well as property taxes to repay TRZ loans. TxDOT allowed Hays County to treat the TRZ ﬁnancing as an “off-balance-sheet” transaction.

One consequence of the TRZ ﬁnancing was that Hays County had limited capacity to abate taxes or offer other incentives to prospective businesses because of the commitment of 50 percent of revenues.

The TRZ was struck down by the Texas attorney general on the grounds that it violated the “Equal and Uniform Taxation” clause in the Texas State Constitution, which requires that all county property owners must contribute the same share of their taxes to the general fund. The TRZ was dissolved and replaced with a County commitment to continue the payments, passing them through the County General Fund.

EXAMPLE

Tax Increment Financing

NASHVILLE AND DAVIDSON COUNTY, TENNESSEE

For 46 years, the Metropolitan Development and Housing Agency (MDHA) has used Tax-Increment Financing (TIF) to support redevelopment in Nashville in 11 redevelopment areas across the City of Nashville, including many in the city’s core. Tennessee law allows cities to define TIF districts that include multiple properties and cross-subsidize new development with the incremental tax revenues from nearby properties. While most jurisdictions “sweep” property tax increment across an entire district in order to fund district-wide improvements, MDHA has historically taken a conservative approach of making loans based on future TIF revenues only for a single development at a time. MDHA typically works with a local bank to borrow the funds and the property owner guarantees repayment of the cost of the specified public improvements in the event that the TIF revenues are insufficient to cover the costs. Each application for a TIF project is subject to due diligence review as to the need for TIF funds to achieve financial feasibility, what public benefit is being achieved and the project’s ability to repay the loan. TIF funds can

be used to pay the costs of public infrastructure, site acquisition and preparation, utility connections, site landscaping, stormwater facilities and bond ﬁnancing.

TIF investments have catalyzed extensive development elsewhere in the redevelopment districts, responding to new attractions, public amenities and enhanced quality of life. The values of properties in blocks adjoining the TIF projects have increased rapidly over the last two decades, exceeding the growth rate of values citywide and in comparable areas.

In the past, MDHA used all of the TIF revenues received each year to repay the loan, accelerating repayments and reducing interest expense.

Restructuring of TIF ﬁnancing by Metro Council in 2020 introduced new guidelines that recommended limiting TIF revenues to 75 percent of the incremental tax revenues and that loans should be placed on ﬁxed payment schedules for a period of 15 years.

Potential Funding Options

EXAMPLE

Atlanta BeltLine ATLANTA, GEORGIA

Under development since 2006, the City of Atlanta is redeveloping 6,500 acres surrounding the Downtown with a transportation loop built on a historic 22-mile rail corridor. The redevelopment encompasses 33 miles of trails, a streetcar, 45 miles of streetscape alterations, 2,000 acres of parks and extensive development of new housing, particularly affordable housing, to revitalize under-invested neighborhoods.

The City designated the area as a Tax Allocation District (TAD), its mechanism for TIF, with the intent of funding almost all of the local investment. The City, Fulton County and Atlanta Public Schools committed TIF funds. Atlanta BeltLine, Inc. (ABI) pledged to make Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILOT) to the Atlanta Public Schools. A lawsuit brought by a local attorney challenged the package based on diversion of public education funds to

non-education purposes in violation of the Georgia State Constitution. The lawsuit paused collections from the schools for several years until the State held a referendum to revise the Constitution to allow TADs to use educational purpose revenue. With the economic slowdown of the Great Recession and the schools lawsuit, TAD revenue projections were halved in 2012.

When ABI fell behind on its PILOT obligation, the City stepped in and used funds from sale of a civic center to make the payments. Property owned by the Atlanta Housing Authority was transferred to the Public Schools in exchange for lowering the PILOT.

In 2021, the City approved a supplemental Special Service District (SSD) to ﬁll the funding gap in order to ﬁnish the 22-mile loop. An additional two-mill property tax was

imposed on commercial and multifamily properties to generate $100 million to complete the BeltLine trail. Additional funding was provided by major philanthropic foundations.

County Funding with Developer Reimbursements

County funding of infrastructure improvements that is then reimbursed by the developers as building permits are pulled assures that the developer who beneﬁts from the improvements ultimately pays for them. This approach relies on the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) to set funding priorities and the timing of the improvements, though the Council has the authority to change the CIP annually as conditions change. Reliance on the Capital Budget means that the timing of the infrastructure improvements is not particularly responsive to market timing.

Another option could involve capitalizing a revolving loan fund as a self-sustaining enterprise fund that would fund improvements and collect repayments over time outside ofthe Capital Budgeting process. That would be a more nimble funding tool, able to respond more readily when development is ready to move ahead. The challenge lies in ﬁnding the funds for the initial capitalization.

Utility Reservation Fees

Anne Arundel County, MD imposes fees for water and sewer capacity that help fund capacity expansions and encourage developers to move ahead with their projects. Under the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance, proposed developments apply for an allocation of rights to tap into the systems. From that point on through the ﬁrst ﬁve years, the developers pay an allocation reservation charge equal to 40 percent of the fees for water or wastewater service that would be paid if the development on the property were complete and the property was receiving water or wastewater service from the County. In Years 6-8, they pay the fees plus interest. At the issuance of the building permit or the end of eight years, whichever is earlier, the developers pay the full amount of capital connection charges and any deferred reservation allocation fees plus interest. These allocation reservation charges help to fund system investments.

Potential Funding Options

Matrix Evaluation of Infrastructure Funding Tools

Not always

Yes, if required

Typically the most efﬁcient cost but higher borrowing fees

No, initial developer bears much higher risks

Yes, initial developer bears the risks

Yes, if included in base fees

Dealys inﬂate costs; administrative costs

Yes, with tax-free ﬁnancing

Yes, with taxfree ﬁnancing; administrative costs

Not always

May be too onerous to front-end costs for other properties

Yes, if wait for all fees before proceeding; no, if pre-fund improvements Depends on infrastructure costs

completely if prefund improvements Depends on infrastructure costs

Can entail high bonding costs and reserves No, later developer has less risk of needing to make up shortfall Yes, if additional property tax in case of shortfall

on infrastructure costs

with tax-free ﬁnancing

Recommendations

The range of infrastructure funding needs associated with the ﬁve Expansion Areas calls for a mix of funding approaches and vehicles.

USE FEES

One of the major issues is the pot of initial funding. Wastewater collection and treatment projects eligible and competitive for the Kentucky Infrastructure Authority’s Clean Water State Revolving Fund can take advantage of Federal and State funding, particularly projects that respond to the consent decree. KIA funding is generally repaid over a 20-year period from use fees. That could fund a major portion of the overall infrastructure costs.

PARK BONDS

If the voters approve the referendum for a property tax increase to bond for park capital improvements, a portion of the bond ﬁnancing could be set aside to create a Revolving Loan Fund to provide up-front funding for new neighborhood and community parks in the Expansion Areas to be reimbursed by the developers as they pull building permits.

DEVELOPER CONSTRUCTION AND FUNDING

Most of the internal roads and wastewater and stormwater collection systems are

integrated into the site preparation and construction activities and should be the developer’s responsibility. Funding the turn lanes from the major arterial should continue to be the developer’s responsibility. A developer who over-sizes infrastructure so as to service additional properties should be compensated for the incremental costs by future developers of adjoining properties beneﬁting from the excess capacity at the time of development approval.

When providing capacity for future development is costly and the timing of that development is unsure, it may make sense to minimize risks and defer any extension of the spine road or wastewater collection mains until the later phase.

SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CHARGES

Capacity improvements to the major arterial itself will typically include an element that beneﬁts other travelers from beyond the development site itself. As such, LFUCG should fund the portion not related to the immediate development, making the timing more dependent on the Capital Improvements Program priorities and budget capacity. In that situation, a system development charge could be appropriate with developers contributing the share of costs related to Expansion Area development by the unit or 1,000 square feet at the

time of building permit application. The same logic would apply to interstate highway overpasses or underpasses necessitated for regional connectivity rather than the traffic generated by the Expansion Area development. The cost of transit enhancements attributable to Expansion Area development could be difficult to disaggregate from other costs. A citywide system development charge for transit could be useful. The specific projects would need to be identified and cost estimates prepared as the basis for the charge rates.

IMPACT FEES

LFUCG could adopt impact fees for schools, libraries, police and fire capital costs necessitated by growth. These fees could be specific to individual Expansion Areas or applied citywide. However, these fees can represent a significant increase in development costs and the ultimate cost of new housing. Provision would need to be made to waive fees for affordable housing or fund them from other City resources.

VALUE CAPTURE

Value capture techniques are not well suited to funding the initial infrastructure investments for large speculative developments that may take multiple years to develop. The extensive lead time

between development approvals and the receipt of the ﬁrst tax revenues greatly reduces the net funding available from TIF or other value capture tools. Most jurisdictions making TIF loans require that the project be ready to proceed to construction immediately following TIF approvals with the TIF dollars as the last dollars to be contributed to the development funding. Newly developed subdivisions are unlikely to meet the “but for” clause that many governments impose to assure that they are using tax revenues that would not otherwise be generated without the TIF funding.

If not needed until much of the development is complete, value capture could conceivably work for a portion of the capital costs for a new school, library or police and ﬁre facilities.

However, residential developments pose particular fiscal issues due to the costs of providing services to the new households. Capturing even a portion of the property and occupational tax revenues for TIF financing makes it difficult to fund those costs from the remaining revenues.