Imagine Lexington 2045 Public Input Report

Public Input Report September 28, 2023

2

CONTENTS Introduction/Purpose ____________________________________________________________ 1 On the Table ____________________________________________________________________ 3 Methodology _________________________________________________________________________ 3 Participation _________________________________________________________________________ 21 Results_______________________________________________________________________________ 27 Building Successful Neighborhoods____________________________________________________ 30 Protecting the Environment ___________________________________________________________ 38 Creating Jobs & Prosperity____________________________________________________________ 45 Improving a Desirable Community / Transportation ____________________________________ 51 Urban/Rural Balance Section _________________________________________________________ 57 Overall Question _____________________________________________________________________ 64

Organizational Input ___________________________________________________________ 71 Commerce Lexington Roundtable Events________________________________________ 78 LFUCG Divisional Input Summary ________________________________________________ 82 Conclusion & Next Steps _______________________________________________________ 86 Appendices ___________________________________________________________________ 87 A. On the Table Survey & Host Guide B. On the Table CivicLex Data Set C. Community Organization Input Materials

1

Introduction/Purpose Comprehensive planning touches the lives of everyone in the community whether they are aware of it or not. It affects buildings, roads, open space, community facilities, the environment, jobs, and everything in between, so it is vitally important to incorporate as many voices as possible into its creation. Imagine Lexington 2045 is building on the original Imagine Lexington 2018 Comprehensive Plan, and its unprecedented public outreach strategy, with even more intentional public engagements.

On the Table 2017 was an incredible success for the 2018 plan, moving participation in the planning process from hundreds to thousands. This time On the Table has been incorporated yet again, but this time with a new collaborative partner in CivicLex and a more specific focus on the Comprehensive Plan. The results are a wealth of information that will live on well beyond the life of this planning process and will provide civic groups and interested organizations with a vast amount of data that is sortable and customizable to answer a wide variety of questions about preferences for Lexington’s future.

In addition to On the Table, outreach through Commerce Lexington solicited the opinions of the business community in Lexington through an intentional focus group process. This process provided staff the ability to hear directly from business leaders in the community.

Staff not only heard from businesses, but through an outreach to civic organizations, heard from ten different groups that focus on the environment, neighborhoods, renters, smart growth, and other topics. Additionally, input was received from internal Divisions within the LFUCG as well, as they were asked to lend their expertise to our future growth strategy.

Each of these important inputs have been summarized here in this document, to show what was said by the participants. What results is an immense amount of data that has been organized and summarized, but not yet analyzed. That is the next step in the planning process as staff, the Planning Commission, and the Council deliberate on forming the Goals & Objectives which will be the basis for Imagine Lexington 2045.

Plans are only as good as the foundation upon which they are built, and a good foundation for any comprehensive plan involves deliberate and earnest public engagement as a starting point for understanding the desires of the community - to truly make it a community vision.

2

On the Table Public Outreach

3

On the Table On the Table 2022 builds on the 2017 On the Table initiative that gathered thousands around Lexington to provide input for Imagine Lexington, the 2018 Comprehensive Plan. This year, led by CivicLex and a diverse advisory group of volunteers representing interests from across the community, residents from all over gathered to talk specifically about Imagine Lexington 2045 and the future of Lexington. Registration numbers suggest that 4,000 – 5,000 people participated this year and nearly 2,500 people filled out the accompanying survey. The following will discuss the detailed methodology associated with putting this project together and the extensive data collected as a result.

Methodology Introduction On the Table 2022 (OTT) was conducted by CivicLex and a 36-person advisory group from April 10 - 16, 2022. The theme of this year’s On the Table was how Lexington is growing and changing, and the program was specifically designed to serve as a source of Public Input for Lexington’s 2023 Comprehensive Plan, written by LFUCG’s Division of Planning.

The following describes the methodology of the program that is relevant to data collection and analysis for the 2023 Comprehensive Plan. It is designed to be reference material - you do not need to read every section to understand the data and findings of the report, but it will provide some helpful context if you do.

Program Methodology vs. Data Methodology For this methodology, it is important to separate the two major goals of On the Table 2022.

CivicLex and the OTT Advisory Group created On the Table with two major goals in mind, which we will refer to as Program Goals and Data Goals.

•

The Program Goals of On the Table were geared around the concept of community conversations, and the value that participants could find in participating in OTT. These include building community, educating the public about Lexington’s civic infrastructure, providing meaningful community engagement for Lexington-Fayette County residents, and participating in democratic discourse.

•

The Data Goals of On the Table are more directly related to the 2023 Comprehensive Plan, and the purpose of this specific methodology. These goals were to collect accurate, substantive, and representative data from Lexington-Fayette County residents, to be used as public input into Lexington’s next Comprehensive Plan and beyond.

4 This report deals mainly with methodology and evaluation of the Data Goals of On the Table.

A full accounting of the Program methodology, analysis, and evaluation is provided by CivicLex at ottlex.org. These two components are not separate - it is more accurate to think of them as an overlapping Venn diagram. For this reason, the following will summarize a few program components that are relevant to the collection and validity of the data set.

Timeline / Summary of Methodology Phase One: Data Collection 1. Decide the theme of On the Table - The Comprehensive Plan/How Lexington is Growing and Changing (Fall 2021) 2. Assemble On the Table Advisory Group (AG) and Working Groups (WG) (Winter 2021) 3. Choose method of data collection - a survey (November/December 2021) 4. Select survey format - combination qualitative and quantitative (December 2021) 5. Write survey questions (December 2021/ January 2022) a) Write draft questions with Data Working Group b) Beta test questions with random sampling c) Revise questions d) Send to full Advisory Group for approval e) Revise questions f) Final question approval 6. Plan, market, and execute On the Table program (Fall 2021 - Spring 2022) 7. Collect survey responses (April 2022) Phase Two: Data Processing 1. Close Survey (April 29, 2022) 2. Transcribe Paper Surveys (April and May 2022) 3. Translate Multilingual surveys (April 2022) 4. Input all survey data into Airtable Platform (April 2022) 5. Process and Anonymize Data (April - May 2022) 6. Develop Code Book (Two-week process, April - May 2022) a) Individual reflection b) Question group collaboration and brainstorming c) Full group code book draft d) Norming data (individual reviewers code data, check with cohort to see if the same conclusions were reached) e) Review inconsistent and new codes

5 f) Finalize Code Book with Glossary 7. Code Data (Four-week process, April - May 2022) a) Assign responses by questions b) Individual coders read and code responses c) Review flagged responses in small groups

Glossary •

Advisory Group - The team of 36 Lexingtonians who planned, marketed, and implemented On the Table 2022.

On the Table 2022 Advisory Group Members Adina Tatum, Julietta Market

Jill Barnett, LexTran

Andi Johnson, Commerce Lexington

Justin Handshoe, United Way

Andria Jackson, the Education Trust

Lisa Adkins, Bluegrass Community Foundation

Ashley Smith, Black Soil

Mary Cobb, Kentucky Refugee Ministry

Brittany Roethemeier, Fayette Alliance

Mercedes Harn, Fayette County Public Schools

Dr. Carlous Yates, Bluegrass Community and Technical College

Michelle Hollingshead, Imprint Coaching

Carly Muetterties, Newsela

Mizari Suarez, Arbor Youth Services

Craig Bencz, LFUCG Mayor’s Office Chris Ciarcia, University of Kentucky Chris Woodall, Division of Planning Dr. Deidra Dennie, Transylvania University Diaka Savané, The Plantory Dianet Valencia-Downs Dr. Iuliia Shybalkina, University of Kentucky Jamie Lucke

Miranda Scully, Fayette County Public Schools Paige Halpin Smith, Lexington Public Library Samantha Castro, Division of Planning Dr. Sharon Yam, University of Kentucky Stephen Davis, Land and Homes Realty Steve Kay, Vice Mayor Whitney Elliott Baxter, 9th District Councilmember Valerie Friedmann, Division of Planning

Jenna Shalash, Transylvania University

Walt Gaffield, Fayette County Neighborhood Council

James Brown, 1st District Councilmember

Yajaira Aich West, PNC Bank

•

Data Working Group - A subset of the Advisory Group tasked with designing OTT’s data protocols. Members of the 2022 Data Working Group were Richard Young, Kit Anderson, Chris Woodall, Valerie Friedmann, Dr. Sharon Yam, Dr. Iuliia Shybalkina, Brittany Roethemeier, Chris Ciarcia, and Walt Gaffield

•

CivicLex - a nonpartisan, nonprofit civic education organization based in Lexington, Kentucky. CivicLex administered On the Table for the first time in 2022. The CivicLex staff members involved in on the table were: o

Richard Young, Executive Director

o

Kit Anderson, Evaluation Manager and On the Table Coordinator

o

Megan Gulla, Director of Programs

o

Adrian Paul Bryant, Communications Associate

6

o

Gillian Stawizynski, Civic Journalism Associate

•

Qualitative Data - numeric data collected during On the Table via the multiple-choice segments and demographic segments of the survey.

•

Quantitative Data - descriptive and narrative data collected during On the Table via the open response segments of the survey.

•

Airtable - the database management software used by CivicLex and the OTT Advisory Group to manage and process the participant survey data. This is also the platform where the OTT data will eventually be published online for anyone to access.

•

Codes - the set of 31 key concepts that were tagged to each qualitative response to the OTT survey. The codes have a main theme (jobs, neighborhoods, etc.) but apply across all 7 survey questions.

•

Code Book - the list of codes used during this process, with a glossary definition of what each code does and doesn’t entail.

•

Norming Process - a set of steps the OTT Data Working group used to cross check and test our Code Book. In the case of OTT, norming entailed giving individual reviewers a random selection of qualitative data, having them code it, and then reviewing each code as a group.

Phase One: Data Collection Choosing a Data Collection Method One of the earliest program decisions made by staff and the Data working group was how to format the data we would collect. The last time that On the Table was used as a mechanism for public input to a Comprehensive Plan, the majority of the data was collected from notes taken during OTT conversations. This year, the OTT decided to try the strategy of including a survey component in all OTT conversations. This approach had several advantages, mainly that: •

The survey could be structured according to the organization of the Comprehensive Plan and have one question for each major theme.

•

A written survey helps capture input from all OTT participants, not just those who feel the most comfortable speaking in a group setting.

•

Individual surveys would give a more accurate tally of the number of participants we heard from.

•

For participants who were able to take the survey online, inputting the data into the processing software Airtable was extremely streamlined.

7 Survey Characteristics (See Appendix for Participant Survey) •

The OTT participant survey contained seven written questions and a demographics section. Six of the questions combined a quantitative (multiple choice) section and a qualitative (open response) section.

•

The first five questions were designed to mirror the five themes of Lexington’s Comprehensive Plan - neighborhoods, the environment, jobs and prosperity, community design (interpreted as transportation), and urban/rural balance. The sixth question asked about participants' overall opinion of Lexington.

•

The seventh and final question, designed to be taken after the conversation, was qualitative only.

•

The OTT survey was available in five languages - English, Spanish, French, Arabic*, and Swahili*. Starred languages were available to be taken online but not on paper.

•

The OTT survey was available online through the survey platform Qualtrics (provided through partnership with the University of Kentucky), and in paper format.

•

The survey was designed to be accessible to any Lexington-Fayette community member. It was written at a seventh grade reading level (as is the rest of public content that CivicLex produces).

Question Writing and Survey Design Probably the most difficult - and contentious - part of the OTT design process was writing the participant survey questions. There were nine formal iterations of these questions, and countless more versions that never made it to the approval stage. The questions were written by the Data Working group across four question writing sessions, then sent to the full advisory group for approval. Two rounds of beta testing on drafts of the survey questions were also conducted with a pool of 20-30 randomly selected individuals in public locations.

The defining tension of writing the survey questions was making them specific enough that people could answer them in a meaningful way, but general enough that they were not leading nor inaccessible for participants without a background in Urban Planning (which is of course most participants). The data working group decided that the best way to maintain this balance was to split each question into two sections- one qualitative and one quantitative.

Adding a multiple-choice question to each of the themes of the comprehensive plan provided several benefits.

First, the multiple-choice questions acted as a framing device for the open response. Also, having multiple choice options meant that part of the OTT data would be extremely easy to process and could be made quickly available. Finally, the thought was that including a multiple-choice option for participants would increase the accessibility and approachability of

8 the survey. If, for any reason, a participant didn’t feel able to write in their thoughts about Lexington’s neighborhoods, environment, or jobs, they could still give some concrete input through the multiple-choice questions. This was proven correct in the survey responses about 80% of participants completed a given open response question, but over 95% filled out the multiple-choice options.

Despite the benefits of multiple-choice survey questions, they couldn’t tell the full story of how people feel about Lexington. This is why an open response section was included in each prompt, where participants wrote in their answers to questions like “what do you think would make your neighborhood a better place to live?” and “what do you think should be done to improve transportation in Lexington?” While these qualitative open response questions were certainly harder to work with (processing the qualitative data took four weeks, instead of four hours), they were essential for providing meaningful, substantive input. The qualitative questions were intentionally designed to be extremely open ended and gathered input from a wide variety of topics.

Conversation Design (Programmatic) While the full methodology behind the OTT conversation design is not relevant to this report, it is useful to summarize how the survey fit into the broader conversation. All OTT resources (info sessions, host trainings, the host guide, and direct communications) encouraged a specific flow to each table. While it is difficult to say exactly how many private hosts followed this format, it appears to have been the primary method used.

OTT conversations were designed with the following flow: 1. Everyone gathers at the table (either physical or virtual), and the host welcomes all guests.

2. The host briefly describes the purpose and concept of On the Table, then instructs all participants to take the majority of the survey at the beginning of the conversation.

3. Participants take 5-10 minutes to fill out the survey, either on paper or digitally.

4. The host facilitates a ~50-minute conversation about the topics of the survey (and of the comprehensive plan).

5. After the conversation, the host instructs participants to answer the final survey question, which asks if they changed their mind, learned any new information, or have anything else they would like to share.

6. Participants submit their survey, and the table is dismissed!

7. The survey and table materials include a link to the OTT website, where participants could read more about the process and how their responses will be used.

9 Why was the survey conducted at the beginning of the table?

One of the most common questions we received about OTT this year was why everyone was supposed to take the survey at the beginning of the conversation - wouldn’t it be better if the data collected reflects the consensus of the group, and the value of the conversation that people had gathered to have?

There are several reasons why the conversation was designed this way: •

More people would take the survey if it was placed at the beginning. In any gathering, whether a college class, a concert, or a basketball game, people tend to trickle out over the course of the event. On the Table would not likely be an exception. Because the survey was such an important opportunity to give input into local government (a core goal of CivicLex as an organization), it needed to be available to as many participants as possible.

•

To give participants an opportunity to organize their thoughts. Participating in any group conversation can be intimidating, and adding different knowledge bases, identities, and technical expertise to the mix only adds to the problem. Putting the survey at the beginning gave participants an opportunity to familiarize themselves with the topics of conversation and think about what they might want to share.

•

To balance group consensus and individual concerns. No matter how tightly a conversation is facilitated, dominant personalities tend to take up more space, and can convey personal agendas through sheer force of will. Placing the survey at the beginning of the conversation, with a final question at the end, helped us hear from both individuals and groups about the issues they find to be most important.

Marketing and Access (Programmatic) One of the biggest jobs of CivicLex and the OTT Advisory Group was to market the program, so that as many people participated as possible, but also to make sure our data was representative and statistically significant. In brief, CivicLex and the OTT Advisory group deployed the following marketing strategies: •

Social Media content and ads on Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter. In addition to regular content on CivicLex’s social media profiles, we spent approximately $1000 on boosted posts and advertisements to users in the Lexington-Fayette County Area. The total spread of this content was approximately 110,000 impressions. Unfortunately, Facebook and Twitter do not offer information on what proportion of this overall “reach” was composed of unique users, but we estimate that number to be around 30,000 Lexington residents.

•

A physical marketing campaign, including:

10

o

525 large format posters (in all 5 OTT languages) placed throughout LexingtonFayette County in high traffic public locations like restaurants, laundromats, doctors’ offices, hair salons and barber shops, grocery and retail stores, pharmacies, plasma donation centers, markets, coffee shops, bakeries, office spaces, LFUCG buildings, gyms, and community centers. A list of physical

marketing locations will be available in the CivicLex On the Table report released this summer. o

o

o o

o

300 table tents with information about participating in On the Table placed at local restaurants, coffee shops, and breweries/bars.

500 multilingual door hangers placed in neighborhoods identified as “high social need”, as determined by data on voter turnout, median income, demographics (race and age), and past OTT participations.

300 fliers distributed at postering locations and community events.

150 fliers (in English and Spanish) displayed on LexTran buses and at the Downtown Transportation Center.

75 yard signs placed in high visibility locations across Lexington-Fayette County, including parking lots, busy intersections, windows, yards, and parks.

•

Five Information Stations with materials pickup stationed at all Lexington YMCAs and the Central Branch of the Lexington Public Library for the month of April.

•

Word of mouth and organizational marketing conducted by the OTT Advisory group.

•

Five tabling sessions conducted at community events by CivicLex staff and advisory group members.

•

Personal and organizational marketing by OTT Outreach Partners. Outreach partners were not a part of the full advisory group but signed up specifically to help with spreading the word about the program. 72 individuals and organizations registered as Outreach Partners, including AARP Lexington, Lexington Urban League Young Professionals, LFUCG Greenspace Commission and Trust, Central KY Council for Peace and Justice, the Lexington Philharmonic, The Nathaniel Mission, Lexington Children’s Theatre, Transylvania University, the Women’s Club of Central Kentucky, and the Community Action Council.

•

Media coverage by local news organizations, including: o

o o

Print and Digital coverage - The Lexington Herald - Leader, LexToday, Ace Weekly, Lexingtonky.gov, UKNow, LEX18, Smiley Pete, and the Kentucky Kernel Television Coverage - WKYT, LEX18, LexTV, and ABC 36 News Radio Coverage - WRFL 88.1, WUKY 91.3, 107.9 The Beat, WLAP 630, and RADIOLEX 93.9 and 95.7

11

o •

A press conference about participating in On the Table hosted in partnership with LFUCG and the Office of the Mayor

75+ Cold Calls to local organizations, primarily places of worship. Workplaces, and community groups.

Types of Tables (Programmatic) The On the Table survey data was gathered from a variety of contexts and types of tables.

These were •

Public Tables. Open to anyone and advertised on the OTT website. Typically hosted by an organization (as opposed to an individual) and in a public location. Examples include tables hosted by Nonprofits, Churches and Faith Organizations, Candidates for Local Office, and Restaurants.

•

Private Tables. Only open to participants invited by the host. Typically hosted by an individual, in a public or private location. Examples include tables hosted by groups of friends, family members, book clubs, neighbors, or coworkers.

•

FCPS tables. Approximately 350 Fayette County Public School students participated in On the Table through their English, civics, or history classes. The only difference between the Student Survey and Public Survey was that the student survey did not include a demographics section for the sake of confidentiality. Tates Creek, Frederick Douglas, Dunbar, Bryan Station, and Henry Clay High School all had classes participating in On the Table.

•

Detention Center Tables. The Fayette County Detention Center also hosted tables and responded to the OTT survey. The Detention Center paper survey included a statement about the purpose of On the Table and states that some of the questions would only apply to experiences outside the Detention Center - namely the neighborhood and transportation questions. The majority of participants were short term residents of the Detention Center - between 2 and 24 months.

Survey Responses Outside of Tables The OTT participant survey was open online for the majority of April, and paper surveys were stationed publicly for the same length of time. Although the program encouraged attending a table to take the survey, it was not required. We decided on this policy for a few reasons, one being that it would be impossible to enforce. Also, we wanted to make the survey accessible to as many people as possible - if a Lexington resident was unable or unwilling to participate in a table, they could still make their voice heard. We do not know the exact number of surveys that were submitted without attending a table, but based on our registration statistics we believe it is less than 10% of the total responses.

12 Phase Two: Data Processing Collecting Responses Digital survey responses (in all five languages) were collected by Qualtrics when participants completed the survey. If a participant did not complete the survey online, Qualtrics reported the partial results after a 72-hour waiting period. The digital survey was open until April 29, 2022, at which time all incomplete digital surveys were automatically submitted.

These responses were then input into our database software Airtable in one of 4 batches of the course of the program. The responses were input and tagged as a “digital” response. Any multilingual responses were translated inside Airtable with the assistance of Global Lex and a group of contract translators. All translated responses list the original text and the translated text side by side.

Paper surveys were either mailed to CivicLex, submitted at one of our six drop off points, or scanned and texted/emailed to CivicLex. Paper survey drop-offs were open until April 29, 2022. A small number of paper surveys were received after this deadline and incorporated into the data set.

Transcriptions Paper surveys went through an extra step of processing - transcription. Over 500 paper surveys were submitted and transcribed by a team of Planning administrators, CivicLex staff, and volunteers. Paper surveys were transcribed using a duplicated version of the Qualtrics survey to avoid confusion in IP address checking. Each paper survey is tagged in the database as “Transcribed”.

In some cases, it was difficult or impossible to decipher a participant's handwriting. For the difficult cases, the full team of transcribers met and worked together to reach a consensus.

When this was not possible, transcribers input a partial version of the response, for example “Farmland is good, utilize it in the ____ and work”. Usually, it was still possible to give partial responses a relevant code - in this example, “Rural Greenspace Preservation”. However, this was not always possible and approximately 20 responses were coded “Not Usable” due to handwriting issues.

Cleaning the Data Across all survey options, we received responses from over 2,800 survey takers. 300 of these surveys were excluded for being tests executed by program staff, completely empty, or

13 nonsense (“dklfjslkdjf”, etc.). This left 2,412 usable surveys for analyzing the data. The surveys included multiple questions, leading to over 15,000 unique usable question responses and 20,000+ codes tagged (see section below for more information on codes).

This amounts to over 50,000 data points which represent Lexingtonian’s thoughts on how their city is growing and changing.

Anonymizing/Processing the Data for Public Release CivicLex and the On the Table group are committed to data transparency and will be publishing the raw OTT data, codes, and insights online for anyone to review and use.

However, a few alterations were made to the raw data before publishing for the sake of anonymity and privacy. These are listed below in order from least to most substantive.

•

Removing the participant’s email address if one was provided.

•

Removing various other identifying or irrelevant information, including response date and time, response ID, latitude and longitude of submission, IP address, and duration of survey.

•

Converting the participant’s stated age into an age range. All OTT processing of data will use the year specific values, but the public data set will only list a 10-year range of a given participant (EG, if a participant wrote that they are 34, their response will be listed online as “30-40”. The age ranges are 0-20, 20-30, 30-40, 40-50, 50-60, 60-70, 70-80, and 80+

•

Converting participant’s self-reported neighborhoods into neighborhood clusters. o

o

In many cases, a specific neighborhood only received one or two responses.

For the sake of privacy, these neighborhoods were converted into larger clusters with at least 30 responses per cluster.

A full methodology of the Neighborhood Norming process will be released in the CivicLex On the Table report this summer.

Processing Quantitative Data To process the quantitative portion of the participant survey, the responses were uploaded into the Airtable database, cleaned of any empty cells, and tallied. This process was fairly straightforward, particularly compared to the qualitative processing. Results of the multiplechoice sections of the survey will be available later in this report.

Developing the Code Book Processing the qualitative (open response) data was significantly more involved. In consultation with data partners, a Code Book of important, frequently occurring concepts was developed that was then used to tag and quantify every open response. The code book (see

14 attached) is loosely organized by the five core themes of the Comprehensive Plan and contains 31 codes applied across all seven questions. Developing the final code book took about 10 days and involved several strategic iterations. In the end, the steps listed below were followed: 1. A randomized list of 50 responses to each of the five main questions was compiled.

2. Four coders received a printout of this sampling and individually wrote down what concept they thought applied to this question. Examples of these early concepts include terms like “housing”, “trees”, and “neighborhood activities”. At this point, there were no limits on how many concepts a coder could create - it was completely open ended.

3. After individually noting concepts, each group came back together to tally their top concepts, see what might be combined, and create a list of potential codes.

4. The full group (approximately 20 coders) then reconvened and combined all of the potential codes into a draft of the code book. This first draft contained 37 codes.

5. With the first draft in hand, each coder received a new batch of 50 random responses in their category and coded each question with the 37 options. a. During this process, each coder kept a tally of how many times they used each code, and what new codes might need to be added.

6. After coding all 50 responses, the question groups reconvened and cross-checked their answers. The groups kept notes of the most ambitious/inconsistent codes.

7. The full group reconvened to trim the code book down to the final 31 concepts, write glossary definitions of each code, and establish a baseline for inconsistent codes.

The process listed in steps 1-7 was completed by the full coding team over the course of an 8-hour day. After this “Coding Retreat”, a full draft of the code book was developed (see attached), and responses were assigned to be coded.

15 Code Book

Coding the Data With the fully developed code book, the process went as follows.

•

Individual coders were assigned responses in Airtable that matched the question theme they had been working on so far (neighborhood norms received neighborhood responses, etc.).

•

Responses were assigned to specific coders in batches of 100.

•

Every written response was read by a reviewer and tagged with relevant codes. Some comments only contained a single tag, and some touched on up to eight or nine themes.

•

There was also a “notes” column where coders could write in any questions or specific takeaways.

16 Sample coded responses To give a better understanding of the actual coding process, an annotated sample of actual survey responses and how they were coded is included below: •

Question: “What do you think would make your neighborhood a better place to live?” o

Response: “I don't have many problems with my neighborhood. The only thing I

would like to see improved are the streets (1). When turning to go to the Tates Creek schools, the road isn't very safe and needs to be redone (2).” o

Codes: 1. Infrastructure & Utilities 2. Traffic Calming/Safety

•

Question: “What do you think should be done to protect the environment in Lexington?” o

Response: “Continue bike friendly attitudes and projects (1). Stream testing for

pollutants (2), including non-point. More electric charging stations (3). More electric / powered vehicles (3), private and public.” o

Codes 1. Walkability/Bikeability/Accessibility 2. Water Infrastructure/ Quality 3. Environmental Sustainability & Resiliency

•

Question: “What do you think would help make Lexington a place where everyone can have financial success?” o

Response: “Creative solutions for rental and affordable housing assistance

(1,2). Improve Job training, internships, and work study (3) opportunities to train people for higher skilled jobs (3). Incentives for employers to increase wages (4) (perhaps a reduced occupational tax rate at certain thresholds). More drug/alcohol treatment options (5) to keep people healthy enough to work and raise families.” o

Codes: 1. Housing Affordability 2. Rental Issues 3. Workforce Training 4. Wages/Benefits 5. Social Services

17 Additional Codes There were two possible additional codes.

•

“Not Usable” o

o

o

•

A tag used for any response that was too generic (“My neighborhood is fine”), not relevant to the Comprehensive Plan (“Nicer people”), or otherwise not usable (“n/a”, “I’m not sure”, etc.)

The other situation where “Not Usable” tag was applied was when a qualitative response only reflected what was said in the multiple-choice response and did not add any additional information. This choice was made by the coding team at the beginning of the process for two main reasons. First, to cut down on the number of codes we needed to track (we were advised that anything over 5 per question would get unwieldy), and second to make sure that participants were able to speak for themselves on value statements about the themes of the Comprehensive Plan.

For example, if a participant selected the multiple-choice response “Yes, I like living in my neighborhood”, and then wrote in the open response section “It's pretty great already”, this response would be tagged “Not Usable”.

“Flagged for Review” o

A tag for coders to use whenever they were unsure about how to code a response. Question groups periodically met and reviewed the flagged codes to reach a consensus about how to tag them.

Limitations of the Coding Process The process described in this report is robust, transparent, and useful. However, no analysis is perfect (as the saying goes, “all models are wrong, but some models are useful), and this methodology is not without flaws. The most relevant limitations of the process are: •

The codes are inherently broader and more simplified than the responses they represent. o

The purpose of coding this data was to simplify it to a point that it can be usefully analyzed. This process inherently removes a layer of detail in the data.

Across the 2,412 responses received, there were hundreds of potential codes.

By necessity, each code is a trimmed and simplified version of a complicated concept. Some codes are extremely broad; “Environmental Sustainability and Resiliency” contains everything from electric vehicles to native plants to solar energy. Several of the codes require further analysis- “Growth Location” was used whenever a response mentioned a specific location for growth. The next step is to dig into where specifically those locations are.

18

o

•

There are concepts in the data set that did not receive a code. o

o

•

This is a limitation, but it is also an opportunity! As you will see in this report, several of the major codes are investigated on a more granular level. The initial coding process served as a useful organizational tool for deeper data analysis.

Some concepts were not mentioned frequently enough to warrant a code at all things like pest control, property tax issues, and public health, were mentioned more than once but did not cross the threshold to become a code.

However, this does not mean the end of the line for any of those concepts.

Because the full dataset is being published online for anyone to use, any individual or group interested in a certain concept not represented in the code book can process the data however they see fit. Airtable also contains a robust search function where users can spot check concepts they might be interested in by searching for certain keywords - like “taxes”, “litter”, or “minimum wage”.

A certain level of human variation is inevitable. o

o

o

Every individual coder had a different set of knowledge, personal experiences, and understandings of the concepts. The double norming process, glossary, and the flagging/ review process were all established to help eliminate subjectivity. However, it is still possible that some of the responses were coded differently according to who read them.

Luckily, the size of the data set gives some space for a certain percentage of error, where a handful of misplaced codes do not radically change the findings of this process.

Additionally, the conclusions of this dataset are not hard and fast referendums of the top policy decisions in LFUCG. Instead, the provide a broader understanding of some of the main ways that Lexington residents think this community can be improved, which is a valuable set of information.

Conclusion The purpose of this methodology is to detail the design and implementation of On the Table 2022’s data collection process. From the very beginning, the OTT Advisory group and CivicLex staff have placed a high priority on transparency and community drive input. The process as described above resulted in a substantive, useful, and valid dataset. This is also reflected in the following statements of validity, submitted by the University of Kentucky Faculty who consulted for this program, as seen below.

19 Validity Statements

20

21 Participation Overall, registration data suggests that 4,000 – 5,000 people participated in the On the Table process across the community, which resulted in 2,412 usable survey responses. Not every survey respondent answered every question, but all 2,412 surveys at least had some usable data attached to them. The response rates for every question can be seen in the “Results” portion of this report.

Race and Hispanic Origin Twenty percent of survey-takers did not list a race or Hispanic origin. Looking only at participants that did provide a response, the results skew somewhat toward over-representing White respondents. 79.4 percent of survey-takers identified as White as compared 73.7 percent of Lexington-Fayette County’s overall population, a difference of about six percentage points.

The American Indian / Alaskan Native and Native Hawaiian / Pacific Islander categories had more representation than the overall population, and 2.5 percent of survey-takers listed “Other”, a category that is not listed in the census data. The categories underrepresented in the survey responses are Black / African American (2.9 percentage points lower than the population), Hispanic / Latino (4.6 percentage points lower), and Asian (1.5 percentage points lower).

22 Age Of the 2,412 survey participants, approximately twenty-one percent (516 people) did not list an age. Of those that did, the majority reported the 30- to 40-year-old age bracket (398 people) followed by the 60 to 70 age bracket (337 people).

In comparison to Lexington’s overall population, the 60 to 70 bracket is the most overrepresented at +3.7 percentage points, followed by the 70 to 80 bracket at +3.1 percentage points, and the 30 to 40 bracket at +2.4 points. The 40 to 60 age range is the most representative of Lexington’s population age. The underrepresented age ranges are the 10 to 20 range at -8.5 percent percentage points followed by the 20 to 30 range at -6.3 points.

AGE OF SURVEY PARTICIPANTS 70 to 80

213

60 to 70

337

50 to 60

279

40 to 50

277

30 to 40

398

20 to 30 10 to 20

296 95

23

AGE RANGE COMPARISON Survey Participants 70 to 80

5.7%

60 to 70

Lexington Pop.

8.8% 14.0%

10.3%

50 to 60

11.6% 11.8%

40 to 50

11.5% 12.1%

30 to 40

14.1% 12.3%

20 to 30 10 to 20

16.5%

3.9%

18.6%

12.4%

Gender

The OTT Participant Data set is more female than Lexington-Fayette County’s population.

Sixty-two percent of survey respondents identified as female, as opposed to Lexington’s overall average of fifty-one percent. The survey set was also thirty-five percent male, 1.7 percent non-Binary, and one percent Other (write-in).

This is not an uncommon trend. Nationwide, women are more likely to be civically engaged and participate in community programs than men. A 2015 study by the Bureau of Labor found that 21.8 percent of the US male-identifying population spent time volunteering in the last year, while twenty-eight of women did. Similarly in 2017, Sixty-eight percent of AmeriCorps Volunteers identified as women, while just thirty-one percent identified as men. Female-identifying US residents—particularly those with a college degree or above—are also more likely to vote and to be politically engaged.

NonBinary 2%

Other 1%

Male 35%

Female 62%

24 Education Level The OTT Participant Data set is somewhat more educated than Lexington on average. Sixtyseven percent of survey-takers reported having a bachelor’s degree or higher, compared to Lexington’s average of forty-five percent. While only three percent of general survey-takers reported having less than a High School Diploma or equivalent, ten percent of the survey population is actual high school students, which put the total proportion of survey-takers without a high school diploma at 13.3 percent. This figure is higher than the average proportion of Lexington residents without a high school diploma, which is 8.1 percent.

More than Master's Degree 15%

Less than High School Diploma 3%

High School Student 10%

High School Diploma or equivalent 12% Master's Degree 23%

Associate's Degree 7%

Bachelor's Degree 30%

25 Neighborhood Clusters The first question of the OTT Participant Survey was “What do you call your neighborhood?”

This open response question yielded 2,400 unique responses. Both for the sake of data processing and anonymity, we condensed those responses into the following 30 neighborhood “clusters”. These clusters were drawn both according to what neighborhoods were listed in the response and existing data sets of census tracts, neighborhood associations, and Council Districts.

With this preliminary data, the Tates Creek Neighborhood Cluster, which includes Tates Creek, Gainesway, Waterford, and Armstrong Mill neighborhoods, was the number one most reported cluster, with 152 survey respondents. Next was the Woodland / Chevy Chase / Ashland cluster, followed by Lansdowne / Glendover / Gardenside. A full list of the Neighborhood Clusters, their likely Council Districts, and the methodology behind norming the qualitative neighborhood responses will be available in the CivicLex On the Table Report published this summer.

NEIGHBORHOOD CLUSTERS 152

144 127 101 101

72 70

Winburn / Radcliffe

Rural - Unspecified

31 31 30

Campus

Bryan Station

39 37

East End

47 46 45

Kirklevington

Castlewood / Loudon

Cardinal Valley / Alexandria

Meadowthorpe / Georgetown St.

Southland

Lakeview / Chinoe

Wyndham

Hamburg / Greenbriar

Veterans

Hartland / Squires

Downtown

Idle Hour / Woodhill

Masterson / McConell's Trace

Stonewall

Beaumont

Northside

Picadome / Pensacola

Old Richmond Road / Rural South

Gardenside

Kenwick / Bell Ct.

Lansdowne / Glendover

Woodland / Chevy Chase / Ashland

Tates Creek

58 57 55 52 51 51

Andover

83 83 83 82 80 78 78 76

General Lexington

105

26 Zip Codes The OTT participant survey contains responses from all 16 Lexington ZIP Codes, albeit at varying proportions. The chart below summarizes the response rates by ZIP Code. Positive values indicate over representation, and negative values represent under representation.

Cells in red represent ZIP codes that were largely (5% or more) over or underrepresented in the OTT survey. Yellow cells indicate slightly over or underrepresented ZIP Codes (between 2% and 5%) and green cells represent proportionally accurate ZIP Codes.

This indicates that 40502 was the most overrepresented ZIP Code in the OTT Survey (18% of OTT responses were from 40502, but only 8% of Lexington’s population lives in that ZIP code). 40503 and 40508 were also slightly overrepresented, by 3% and 5%, respectively.

The most underrepresented ZIP Code was 40517, with OTT responses 6% less frequent than population data. 40505, 40509, and 40511 were also slightly underrepresented, although all by less than 5%.

Lexington ZIP Code Population

OTT Response

Percent Difference

Lexington ZIP Code Population

OTT Response

Percent Difference

40502

8.66%

18.10%

9.44%

40510

0.65%

0.56%

-0.09%

40503

9.43%

12.58%

3.15%

40511

10.71%

7.18%

-3.53%

40504

8.64%

8.07%

-0.57%

40512

0.00%

0.06%

0.06%

40505

8.77%

5.46%

-3.31%

40513

3.70%

4.06%

0.36%

40506

0.94%

0.22%

-0.72%

40514

4.93%

3.67%

-1.26%

40507

0.59%

2.12%

1.52%

40515

11.31%

10.97%

-0.34%

40508

7.94%

12.86%

4.93%

40516

0.97%

1.34%

0.37%

40509

10.90%

6.79%

-4.11%

40517

11.86%

5.96%

-5.90%

27 Results Top quantitative answers TOP RESPONSES FOR EACH QUESTION 1950 1651

1629

1490

1435

1134

Yes, I like living in my neighborhood.

Yes, I think I think that only I think walking, I think growth in Yes, I like protecting the some people biking, and Lexington is a living/spending environment can succeed public transit are good thing, time in Lexington should be a high financially in more important depending on priority Lexington for the city to how it happens prioritize

28 Summary of qualitative responses Survey-takers recognize the cross-cutting nature of different planning topics and issues.

At the top of this graph, six themes are shown in a color-coded legend. These themes reflect the five themes of the Comprehensive Plan: 1. Neighborhoods, 2. Environment, 3. Jobs and Prosperity, 4. Transportation (Community), and 5. Urban/Rural Balance. There is also a sixth theme related to overall perceptions of Lexington. These themes were used to create the six survey questions.

In reviewing the responses to these themed questions, thirty-one codes emerged as the key topics found in the survey responses. These codes are listed here from top to bottom in order of most mentions. Walkability / Bikeability / Accessibility (W/B/A) is the most mentioned code in the entire survey dataset with 1,731 total mentions. As the graph shows, W/B/A was mentioned in survey responses to all six themed questions, but it was most frequently mentioned in the question on transportation (898 mentions) followed by neighborhoods (345 mentions).

The graph reveals a unique thumbprint for each code. Some codes have clearly dominant themes, for example the Economic Equity, Wages / Benefits, and Workforce Training codes are mainly listed as issues related to the theme of Jobs and Prosperity. However, many of the codes are mentioned in a more balanced way across all themes, inevitably with each response from a different angle or community interest.

The survey responses show how different topics and issues intersect across multiple aspects of city planning and people’s lives. This supports the organization of the Comprehensive Plan into cross-cutting themes that show the many reasons why a particular recommendation should be pursued.

29

FREQUENCY OF CODES ACROSS ALL THEMES Themes

Neighborhood

Environment

Jobs & Prosperity

Transportation

Urban/Rural Balance

All Lexington

Codes Walk / Bike / Access Public Transportation Amenities & Quality of Life Env. Sustainability & Resiliency Style of Development Urban Greenspaces Housing Affordabiilty Rural Greenspace Conservation Infill & Redevelopment Economic Development Traffic Congestion Infrastructure & Utilities Trees Safety Growth Location Economic Equity Wages / Benefits Diversity / Equity / Inclusion Traffic Calming / Safety Government Services Social Services Recycling & Composting Public Education Connectivity Water Infrastructure / Quality Urban Services Boundary Workforce Training Parking Government Education Gentrification & Displacement Rental Issues 0

200

400

600

800

1,000 1,200 1,400 1,600 1,800

30

Building Successful Neighborhoods Successful neighborhoods are the building blocks of a desirable community, and the logical starting point for a comprehensive plan. Lexington’s neighborhoods, and more importantly the neighbors themselves, make up the foundation of the city.

Key takeaways Respondent numbers were quite high for the questions on neighborhoods with eighty-three percent of survey-takers (1,997 respondents out of 2,412) weighing in. Respondents focused in on improvements specific to their neighborhood such as walkable access to goods and services, but overarching topics that applied to the whole of the city, such as the need for improved transportation, also emerged.

“I love Lexington's established neighborhood w/ parks, the art festivals, music, theater, libraries, natural areas & parks, farmer's market, Julietta Market, educational opportunities, the recycling program.”

Participants asked for many of the characteristics that define a 15-minute neighborhood – walkable access to groceries and entertainment, neighborhood parks, connected bike paths and sidewalks. Included in this was a desire reiterated many times of building a ‘sense of community.’ A clear statement throughout was a call for “More Diversity!” encouraged within neighborhoods, indicating a desire for a more diverse array of neighbors, and for everyone to feel included.

The topics varied widely in the responses to this section. The need for all scales of greenspace for all different uses was discussed. Related was ‘connectivity’ between neighborhoods and amenities by all modes of transport. Safety in neighborhoods also ranked high on the list. Traffic in and through neighborhoods was another big point, both from a congestion standpoint as well as speeding and safety. Infrastructure and utilities and government services were two tags of large concern that had overlapping ideas.

31 Quantitative question results Do you like living in your neighborhood?

DO YOU LIKE LIVING IN YOUR N E I GH B OR H O O D ?

1,651

663

66 Yes, I like living in my neighborhood.

32

I like living in my No, I do not like living in neighborhood, but it my neighborhood. could use some changes.

(Empty)

Sixty-eight percent of respondents (1,651 people) indicated that they like living in their neighborhood. Twenty-eight percent (663 people) like their neighborhood but feel there is room for improvement. Less than three percent of respondents do not like their neighborhood.

Qualitative question results and key takeaways What do you think would make your neighborhood a better place to live?

559

345 262

255

243

212 159

152

137

133

32 Top code categories 1. Amenities & Quality of Life (559 Tags) Discussion under this category varied widely from the increased need for a sense of community to the creation of neighborhood-serving businesses and amenities.

•

Events & Sense of Community - desire for events ranging from small block parties to large festivals, with an emphasis on inclusion of a broader number of groups.

•

Amenities – increase in the number and type in each neighborhood, particularly those that are walkable.

•

Food Access – consistent concern for a lack of healthy food and grocery stores within close proximity to one’s home.

•

Noise – ranging from concerns about loud cars to loud neighbors.

•

HOAs and Neighborhood Associations – the positives and negatives to membership.

“More places for children and BIPOC to gather, learn, build community...a community garden.”

2. Walkability / Bikeability / Accessibility (345 Tags) General neighborhood concerns ranged from discussions of trails to the need for pedestrian improvements.

•

Trails – people enjoy the trail systems that are in place but desire a vastly increased number of them distributed throughout the city.

•

Sidewalks – ranging from the installation of them where they don’t yet exist, to the maintenance of them.

•

Walkability – paired with amenities above, many people mentioned wanting amenities to be walkable from their homes or offices.

•

Bikeability – a consistent theme of wanting bike infrastructure for the casual rider all the way through those that depend on a bicycle as their primary means of transport.

"Improve the quality of life by reducing the amount of space allocated to cars and increase the amount of space dedicated to people."

33 3. Traffic Calming / Safety (262 Tags) Traffic calming mostly fell into two categories: •

Local and neighborhood streets – desire was expressed for slowing of speeds and calming of traffic that uses local, neighborhood streets. Items like speed bumps and speed tables were mentioned, but more often it was a blanket statement for traffic control.

•

Collectors and arterials – the vast majority of comments on the larger roads had to do with reducing speeds and speed enforcement.

“It would be a better neighborhood if the speed limit was lowered and traffic calming techniques were used to prevent drivers from going 5060 miles per hour in certain sections.”

4. Safety (255 Tags) Regardless of neighborhood or part of the city people lived in many expressed a concern for safety. There is an overall concern in the increase in violence, particularly gun violence and robbery across all parts of town. Many people discussed the involvement, or perceived lack thereof, of police in their community. On the flip side several respondents said that Lexington felt very safe.

•

Violent crime – fear of violence, in particular gun violence echoed throughout the responses.

•

Feeling safe – more ambiguous were the many responses where people either said that they “felt safe” or wished that they felt that way.

•

Police – comments on police presence and effectiveness were widely distributed from very good to very bad.

•

Small crime / non-violent crime – everything from vandalism and package theft to car theft and break-ins.

•

Drugs – people are concerned about the impacts increased drug use and/or dealing are having on their neighborhoods.

“I love my neighborhood, but my big concern is safety. We have had a few incidents of gun violence over the last two years. I want us to come together as a community to help attack the root issues of gun violence in our neighborhood and city.”

34 5. Urban Greenspaces (243 Tags) Greenspaces and parks are large on people’s minds and often go hand in hand with the discussion of increased access to amenities – in this case, particularly within one’s neighborhood.

•

Parks – while the government maintains numerous parks across the city it still seems that people want even more, and closer to where they live.

•

Dog parks – particular mention was made for additional dog parks.

•

Playgrounds – increase the number of small, safe, updated playgrounds within walking distance to everyone.

•

Programming – tied to building a sense of community is the space associated with programmed activities and gathering.

•

Greenspace – separate from the idea of intensive parks is a need for green space that exists either in its natural form (such as a greenway or naturalized planting) or as a small area of beautification.

“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.”

6. Infrastructure & Utilities (212 Tags) Much of this category deals with deferred maintenance or issues with specific utilities.

•

Sidewalks – a quarter of these responses specifically talked about the need for sidewalk repairs and who should be tasked with that maintenance.

•

Roadways (and streetlights) – the conditions of roadways and the impact that has on safe travel for cars and cyclists. Several respondents specifically called out the need for new or better maintained streetlights, particularly in areas of increased safety concerns.

•

Utilities – most of the concerns stemmed from maintenance of the utility lines and how that has affected people’s property (and trees).

“More attention to road conditions/ potholes and sidewalk maintenance.”

35 7. Style of Development (159 Tags) This category varied widely in how people viewed development, whether they wanted it at all, and if so what types.

•

Housing – an expressed desire for more types of housing, particularly those that fall in the ‘missing middle’ category, multi-family, rentals, and affordable housing. There were also a smaller portion of responses that were against many of these particular housing types and wanting to just maintain what exists today.

•

Mixed-use – allow for greater flexibility of mixing of uses, particularly neighborhood serving business and residential.

•

Agriculture – continue to use the land for agricultural practices.

•

Density – a dichotomy emerged of those that wanted increased density and a stop to sprawl, vs. those that are concerned about overbuilding and want to maintain the ability for large lots.

•

Land use – the list was long of land use types that people did not like either for their neighborhood or in parts of town they frequent.

•

Overlays – the effectiveness and implications of having an ND-1 or H-1, and concerns over maintain the neighborhood character/feel.

“Allowing 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.” [Ashland Park] 8. Government Services (152 Tags) Coming as no surprise, this tag mostly dealt with nuisance issues that fall under government services.

•

Trash – nearly a third of these responses had to do with trash collection or a desire to be on city trash rather than through a private service.

•

Enforcement – much of which fell under the umbrella of maintenance and upkeep of property, whether it was lawns or aesthetics to do with a building.

“Full service even if it does raise taxes. It is preferable to having 2 or 3 different waste companies coming through every week. Also, a better way of controlling poorly kept properties. The system doesn't seem to

36 work when people just ignore the notices they receive and let their mess impinge on sidewalks, streets, and other properties.”

9. Diversity / Equity / Inclusion (137 Tags) Respondents spoke out about a desire to increase the diversity and inclusivity of their neighborhood and the city. Diversity was mentioned on its own or as a qualifier with race, ethnicity, culture, socio-economic status, age, and religion. Several people tied this to a concern of seeing homogenous neighborhoods and schools. The exact term “more diversity” was said mentioned nearly 50 times.

“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.”

10. Connectivity (133 Tags) The term ‘connectivity’ seemed to encompass connecting people to goods and services to connecting one neighborhood to another.

•

Bike/ped connections – similar to walkability and bikeability much was said on being able to get to amenities and resources on foot or by bike, rather than by car.

•

Street connectivity – creating a better functioning street/circulation network with more through-streets and fewer cul-de-sac.

“Better bike connectivity to other neighborhoods/downtown.”

“Better street interconnectivity (less cul-de-sacs).”

37 11. Traffic Congestion (131 Tags) Discussion under this category varied widely from the increased need for a sense of community to the creation of neighborhood-serving businesses and amenities.

•

Traffic flow – improve the flow of traffic at all levels from local/neighborhood streets to collectors and arterials.

•

Road design – a number of respondents assumed that changing the width of roads would help decrease congestion.

•

Traffic lights – mentions varied from the addition of lights at intersections to the timing of lights.

“I would enjoy living in my neighborhood more if it was not such a commute to work. Making traffic in Lexington better would make my neighborhood better.”

38

Protecting the Environment The environment is part of every life: it is the air humans breathe, the food humans eat, the water humans drink, the open space where humans entertain, the land humans live on.

Key takeaways Data from this section reveals survey-takers’ understanding of environmental health and its immense impact on public wellbeing and quality of life. For the questions on the environment, ninetyseven percent of survey-takers responded to the multiple-choice question (2,351 people out of 2,412) and eighty-three percent of survey-takers (1,990 people) responded to the open-ended question. In general, respondents appreciate the beauty, cultural identity, and environmental benefits that Lexington’s urban and rural greenspaces provide, and they wish to preserve and enhance existing greenspaces.

“Environmental issues affect every part of our lives. And climate change will make it more important.”

“Increasing density via zoning changes will help me shop and errand local to my community, reducing emissions and my vehicle ownership.”

“Protecting the environment is very important & needs to be addressed in combination with our current housing crisis.”

Survey-takers are concerned about the health and resiliency of Lexington’s environment now and into the future. Responses reveal widespread interest in increasing tree canopy, protecting water resources, recycling and composting programs, and better enforcement and fines. There is interest in reducing single-use items, pollution, and emissions, and quickly moving toward renewable energy sources.

Issues related to transportation, connectivity, and style of development are common in the environment theme. Respondents spoke to the need for public transit and land use patterns that support walkability and bikeability. In the context of the environment section, this stems from the desire to reduce reliance on cars and therefore greenhouse gas emissions.

The data also captured the call for equitable, diverse, and holistic approaches to protecting the environment. Respondents recognized many of the complexities and interrelationships between planning, transportation, land use, development, and the environment.

39 Quantitative question results Do you think protecting the environment should be a high priority in Lexington?

D O Y O U T H I N K P R O T E C T I N G T H E E N V I R O N ME N T S H O U LD B E A H I G H P R I O R I T Y I N L E X I N G T O N ?

1,950

382 61

19 Yes, I think protecting the I think protecting the No, I don't think protecting environment should be a environment is good, but it the environment should be high priority shouldn't be a high priority a high priority

(Empty)

Eighty-one percent of respondents (1,950 people) indicated that protecting the environment should be a high priority in Lexington. Sixteen percent (382 people) believe that protecting the environment is good but should not be a high priority. Less than one percent of respondents do not think protecting the environment should be a high priority.

Qualitative question results and key takeaways What do you think should be done to protect the environment in Lexington?

892

438

390

361

259

254

233

210

210

202

40 Top code categories 1. Environmental Sustainability & Resiliency (892 Tags) This category contains several subtopics that require further exploration. In general, responses captured the need for decreasing litter, pollution, and emissions, and increasing renewable energy across Lexington. Respondents also support government programs and services to protect, restore, and provide education on natural resources.

•

Emissions and Carbon Footprint Reductions – Reducing fossil fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions (from both vehicles and industry) was a common theme as was support for electric vehicles and charging stations. Many responses noted that land use decisions and style of development impact vehicle miles traveled. Many respondents stated a desire for renewable energy sources including solar energy for homes and businesses.

•

Climate Change – Responses included reference to increasing urban heat island, extreme weather events, and flooding.

•

Litter and Pollution – Requests for litter/trash/pet waste clean-up was listed a combined 316 times. There were many references to reducing or eliminating single use items/plastics. Note that recycling and composting are covered in their own section.

•

Green Regulations & Incentives – Respondents were interested in regulations and incentives for private developers and municipal buildings and fleet vehicles.

•

Green Infrastructure – Street trees and rain-capturing landscapes were a common theme.

•

Native Plants and Ecological Landscapes – Many responses mention the need for more education around appropriate lawn chemical and fertilizer use, converting turf lawns to native plant species and pollinator habitat.

“Invest in infrastructure to mitigate the effects of climate change, such as storm and flood preparations, enhancing the power grid to handle heat waves and ice storms, and providing shelters for those without AC or heat in times of severe weather.”

“Encourage native plant gardens and reduce use of harmful pesticides and herbicides.”

41 2. Recycling & Composting (438 Tags) Generally, survey-takers are looking for additional education on what can and can’t be recycled as well as expanded options for what can be recycled via curbside service.

Respondents are interested in recycling programs and incentives for industries and businesses as well as for renters living in multifamily apartment complexes. Interest in curbside or community-based composting and/or incentives and education for at home composting was also frequently mentioned.

“Más información sobre los lugares de reciclaje.” / “More information about recycling centers.”

3. Trees (390 Tags) Generally, survey-takers see the many benefits that tree canopy and street trees provide, and they want more trees to be planted on both public and private land. They want better protection and maintenance for mature and existing trees as well as overall urban forest management. There were several comments related to trees and environmental equity.

“Preserve Lexington's urban tree canopy by strategically planting new trees and preserving and removing older ones as needed.”

“Work with formerly redlined neighborhoods to restore tree canopy, including street trees that make walking and biking safer in heat islands.”

4. Urban Greenspaces (361 Tags) This category includes subtopics such as parks, greenways, plazas, community gardens, and other urban open spaces, as well as naturalized areas and habitat. In general, people feel very positively toward Lexington’s urban parks and greenspaces and would like to see them preserved, improved, planned for and built during new development. Several responses noted the potential relationship between urban greenspaces, equity, and gentrification.

“More green space in both new development and established neighborhoods"

42 “Greenspace can be a driver for gentrification when not equitably implemented across the city.”

5. Rural Greenspace Conservation (259 Tags) This category includes many references to the Purchase of Development Rights Program (PDR), farm and agricultural land preservation, rural parks and nature preserves. The responses favor preserving and conserving rural landscapes to maintain Lexington’s cultural identity, resources for agricultural production, and environmental benefits. There are several comments related to land use decisions which reveal interconnections between rural greenspace conservation and population growth.

“Planning should recognize the importance of our region's soils and preserve them for existing agricultural and future agricultural use.”

“Protect green space but not at the expense of affordable housing.”

6. Public Transportation (254 Tags) It is notable that within the environment section, public transportation was mentioned almost as many times as rural greenspace conservation. Similar to the Walkability / Bikeability / Accessibility category, comments in this category are primarily aimed at seeking improved bus infrastructure in the hopes of reducing car reliance and therefore greenhouse gas emissions. If this category were combined with tags for the Walkability / Bikeability / Accessibility category it would total 463 tags, making it the second most mentioned topic under the environment section.

“Improve the bus system to reduce car usage.”

“Invest heavily in public transit. It helps people with less money and protects the environment at the same time.”

7. Water Infrastructure / Quality (233 Tags) This category includes topics such as stormwater quantity and quality, impervious surfaces and surface runoff, watersheds, floodplains, flooding, and sanitary sewers. In general, respondents support continued efforts to protect Lexington’s water resources including efforts

43 related to the EPA Consent Decree. Stream and riparian protection/restoration is a common theme, as is vegetative and green infrastructure approaches to managing stormwater.

“Restore the broken urban water cycle by focusing remediation projects in ephemeral drainages and infiltrating as much water as possible into the soil.”

8. Walkability / Bikeability / Accessibility (210 Tags) Similar to public transit, comments in this category are primarily aimed at seeking more connected, safe, and enjoyable walking and biking infrastructure in the hopes of reducing car reliance and therefore greenhouse gas emissions. If this category were combined with tags for the Public Transit category it would total 463 tags, making it the second most mentioned topic under the environment section.

“Lower our cities carbon footprint through mass transit and better walkability & bikeability.”

9. Government Services (210 Tags) This category was tagged for mentions of government programs for solid and hazardous waste disposal. Respondents wanted more drop-off events and more types of materials to be accepted. Fines and enforcement related to pollution and littering were a common theme.

“Love that recycling just rebooted! More options for disposal of hazardous household waste.”

10. Style of Development (202 Tags) This is a broad category, but its use in the environment section was mainly related to land use and development patterns that create compact, dense, walkable, mixed-use neighborhoods.

Respondents linked this style of development to reductions in vehicle reliance, especially for short trips, thereby reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Many comments expressed favor for infill and redevelopment that would increase the number of good and services in existing neighborhoods to cut down on emissions from vehicle trips. Respondents also expressed an aversion to car reliance and increased emissions associated with low density, single use, sprawling development patterns.

44

“More walkable neighborhoods to cut down on driving. “More parks, less parking lots. More walkable and bikeable development.”

45

Creating Jobs & Prosperity Lexington is a city with a diverse economy, providing many employment options. Many businesses choose to locate in Lexington for livability reasons, and Imagine Lexington seeks to capitalize on opportunities to build on these existing strengths.

Key Takeaways Seventy-seven percent of survey-takers (1,854 people) responded to the Jobs and Prosperity Section. It is notable that within the Jobs and Prosperity section how much overlap there is between many of the top categories. For example, education and workforce training are seen as vital components in economic development and serve to address issues of economic equity. Further, all these together are viewed as serving to help people acquire higher paying jobs.

The common theme that drove discussion of all these topics was the concern that housing was becoming too unaffordable. On the Table participants discussed how linked and intertwined all the related issues are and that they all need to be addressed in order ensure equitable growth.

Across the board, residents were also very supportive of public education, public/private workforce development partnerships, mass transit and the need to improve and expand social services. Survey respondents were primarily concerned with making sure that there is broad and equitable access to programs, education and opportunities to higher paying jobs that will make it easier to live in Lexington.

“Have to address racial & economic disparities in access to safe housing, strong education, public transportation, healthcare, and behavioral healthcare.

Lexington is extremely segregated and poor neighborhoods lack access to resources & amenities that middle & upper class neighborhoods have.

We need more affordable housing mixed into other neighborhoods and more mixed use neighborhoods.

Lexington is not a city, it’s a suburb designed for middle class people with cars & disposable income.”

46 Quantitative question results DO YOU THINK LEXINGTON IS A PLACE WHERE E V E R Y O N E C A N S U C C E E D F I N A N C I A LL Y ?

1490

663

158

I think that only some people can succeed financially in Lexington

I think everyone can succeed financially in Lexington

101

I think very few people can succeed financially in Lexington

(Empty)

Sixty-two percent of respondents (1,490 people) indicated that only some people can succeed financially in Lexington. Twenty-eight percent (663 people) think everyone can succeed. Less than seven percent of respondents think very few can succeed.

Qualitative question results and key takeaways What do you think would help make Lexington a place where everyone can have financial success?

440

426 340

306 266

234

224 165

47 Top code categories 1. Housing Affordability (440 Tags) Comments addressing this question call for wide-ranging solutions to address housing affordability issues. Responses include the need for more funding for subsidized housing programs as well as increasing production of market rate units, specifically rental units, to address the sharper increase in rental rates.

“Housing is an issue. It’s so expensive to live in Lexington. I can only afford it because I live rent free in a home my parents own. We need to reduce the cost of rentals and build more middle-class housing.”

“Improvements in affordable housing, including limiting predatory behavior by landlords and "homes for cash" speculators, as well as prioritizing the development of multifamily dwellings.”

2. Wages / Benefits (426 Tags) Overwhelmingly, respondents feel that the minimum wage is insufficient to support the cost of living. Additionally, people are looking for additional workforce development opportunities to transition into higher income careers.

“The minimum wage should be raised, or the cost of living should be more affordable to those who don’t make a lot.”

3. Economic Equity (340 Tags) Generally, people see the issue of wages, as noted above, as an economic equity issue.

Racial and Socio-economic barriers are viewed as significant limiting factors to upward mobility and the opportunity to create generational wealth.

“Lexington needs to address generation wealth in minority communities so that more people can succeed financially.”

48 “Like everywhere else, Lexington needs well-paying jobs, places to live that are affordable for all residents, and provide the training needed to fill the highest in demand job categories.”

4. Economic Development (306 Tags) Similarly, respondents feel that economic development efforts in Lexington need to be focused on efforts to improve economic equity. Additionally, they expressed a desire to provide more support to the smallest businesses in the community. Comments include calls for more and better government sponsored programs for grants and low interest loans. Others suggest that lack of equitable access to private capital is a barrier to business growth.

“More support and equitable access to loans, grants, technical assist, etc. for marginalized members of our community to own and grow their own businesses. City wide support for local businesses vs international companies in town."

5. Public Education (266 Tags) While many comments in this category speak broadly to improving/supporting public education, many do get more specific. Particularly, there are requests for a shift in resources to vocational and technical training as well as financial literacy. Suggestions include public/private partnerships to train and employ students and create employment pipelines to support local businesses.

“Create more awareness/educational campaigns of path to 2 yr, 4 yr degrees and how to pay for your education. Or, more awareness of trade professions and quality of life these jobs provide.”

“Strengthening partnerships between public schools, and higher education programs/community (trade, certification programs, internships, job shadowing opportunities, mentoring, etc.).”

49 6. Workforce Training (234 Tags) Comments regarding workforce development focused heavily on vocational training in support of upward mobility for better wages. Once again, public/private partnerships led by LFUCG are commonly called for to provide better coordination and to increase awareness.

“Continue to advance the education system. Vocational training made available to anyone interested. Advanced adult money management schooling.”

“Obtaining job skills and job search skills in Lexington is more challenging than it was a decade ago and prior to the pandemic.

Learning courses for technology job skills once available through Lexington Public Library are harder to obtain since the pandemic.

Options to learn digital/tech/computer software skills requested in many professions as Photoshop, Microsoft Office, etc. should be more accessible to local residents.”

7. Social Services (224 Tags) This category includes wide ranging responses and largely represents what people feel Lexington should prioritize in its efforts to improve the lives of the most at-risk residents.

Respondents touch on dozens of suggestions for programs to help people move out of poverty, find housing, and improve their mental and physical health as well as improving the safety of their neighborhoods.

“This requires a complex set of changes including living wage, a comprehensive homelessness support program, affordable housing, supported/sheltered employment, substance abuse rehab, mental health supports, and more.”

50 8. Public Transportation (165 Tags) Public transportation’s role as a significant factor in urban life is clear by how well-discussed the topic is throughout the On the Table prompts. Overwhelmingly, people feel that having a robust mass transit system is vital to Lexington’s continued growth. In this Jobs and Prosperity section, comments are focused on how important transit is to support employment.

Small business owners provide evidence that their staff rely on it daily and that improvement in LexTran is a critical economic development component.

“Mass transit that allows greater mobility for citizens within the region to access employment.”

“Make sure that all bus stops have a safe covered area for passengers to wait on their way to work or family.

All bus stops have paved sidewalks to the next street in two directions, cross walk lights at adjacent intersections.”

51

Improving a Desirable Community / Transportation Lexington has long grown in ways that more greatly benefit single-occupancy vehicle drivers because there was no overriding need to do otherwise.

Connecting people by creating opportunities for Lexington’s citizens to interact with each other through better transportation infrastructure is a fundamental way to improve the overall community.

Key takeaways Seventy-four percent of survey-takers (1,783 people) responded to the Community/ Transportation Section.

In general, respondents want to see other modes of transportation succeed in Lexington. Seventy-nine percent (1,414 of 1,783) of those who answered this question mentioned either public transportation, or walkability/ bikeability/ accessibility (or both).

While these topics were generally mentioned with a desire to see them succeed, their current flaws were brought up frequently as areas for improvement.

Many cited the deficiencies of the current public transportation system, and recommended enhancements to the routing, service frequency, vehicle type/size, and even suggested taking transit to the next level with light rail, bus rapid transit, or similar enhanced transit models.

“Make public transportation make sense for everyone. It is more of a last resort now because of inefficiency.

“More urban infill, greater focus on walkability and bikeability.”

“We are already a car city and it will be hard to change.”

“Walkable, bikeable system should be city wide if possible”

Issues related to walkability and bikeability were largely focused on ensuring adequate facilities exist to provide safe options for people to access goods, services, places of employment, and amenities on foot or by bike. Walkable and bikeable neighborhoods were certainly top-of-mind for many respondents.

Though most participants agreed that these modes of transportation are important to focus on, there were still a handful that believe focusing solely or primarily on cars is important.

52 Quantitative question results and key takeaways OVER THE PAST 50 YEARS, LEXINGTON HAS BEEN DESIGNED MOSTLY FOR CARS. HOW IMPORTANT DO YOU THINK IT IS FOR LEXINGTON TO PRIORITIZE OTHER TRANSPORTATION OPTIONS LIKE WALKING, BIKING, AND PUBLIC TRANSIT VS CARS OVER THE NEXT 20 YEARS? 1134

1023

132

123

I think walking, biking, and I think it is equally I think it’s more important public transit are more important for the city to for the city to prioritize cars important for the city to prioritize cars, walking, prioritize biking, and public transit

(Empty)

Forty-seven and forty-two percent of respondents (1,134 and 1023 people) indicated that walking, biking, and public transit are more or equally important for the city to prioritize, respectively, while only five percent (132 people) thought cars should be prioritized.

Qualitative question results and key takeaways What do you think should be done to improve transportation in Lexington?

1000

898

196

179

167

130

86

66

53 Top code categories 1. Public Transportation (1000 Tags) “Public transportation” was the most mentioned code in the Transportation section – included in over half of the responses – and in fact, no other code received more responses to a respective question than this one. Overwhelmingly, the most common response among those who answered this question and mentioned “public transportation” was that they want more of it, or they want it to be better. While they may not have been specific in their ideas about how to improve it, it was a clear priority for the majority of respondents. However, there were quite a few other common topics that emerged from those who did have more concrete ideas and opinions to share, including: •

Better Routes – Inefficiency of routes was a common theme, specifically the length of time it takes when you must transfer at the transit center.

•

More Frequent Service – Respondents had a clear preference for increased headways to reduce waiting time at stops, and several mentioned a desire for expanded operating hours, even 24-hour service.

•

Smaller/More Efficient Buses - Smaller and more efficient busses, or even ride sharing and microtransit were mentioned as solutions to improved transit, many observing that the large busses they see around town are often not full or have very few riders.

•

Enhanced Transit Options - Bus rapid transit, light rail, street cars, trolleys, subways, park & rides, and shuttles were all discussed. Regional connectivity through transit was also a topic of conversation.

•

Improved Shelters & Infrastructure - Many suggested that current bus shelters (or lack thereof) are inadequate and serve as a deterrent for would be bus riders.

•

Improved Safety – Both on the buses and getting to the bus stops.

“I think it’s time for Lexington to boldly move forward in its commitment to a better mass transit system for Lexington and the surrounding counties.”

2. Walkability / Bikeability / Accessibility (898 Tags) Nearly half of all respondents to the transportation question mentioned walkability/bikeability/accessibility. Largely these responses were centered on a general desire for more bicycle and pedestrian facilities, but several of the common topics were:

54 •

More Bicycle Facilities – The consensus was a desire for more bike paths, lanes, and trails throughout the city.

•

More Sidewalks – Overwhelming desire for increased sidewalk coverage throughout the city – adding new sidewalks and ensuring adequate maintenance of existing facilities.

•

Safer/separated Bicycle Facilities - Many advocated for separated bike lanes, as opposed to on-road striped lanes, citing safety concerns as a major factor. This was mentioned throughout Lexington, but also with an emphasis along the major roadways, where facilities are inadequate or do not exist.

•

Connected Bicycle Network – Specifically, respondents indicated that they want their trail system to connect, and instances where bike lanes vanish, and cyclists are merged back into traffic. They expressed an overall desire for safe and connected routes.

•

Walkable Neighborhoods – A clear desire for the ability to get to goods and services without driving - walkable neighborhoods, areas, and districts was expressed.

“Encourage the development of walkable neighborhoods so that people can do more on foot, and without having to rely on cars.”

“Build more trails and protected bike lanes.”

3. Traffic Congestion (196 Tags) Traffic congestion is always a widely discussed topic among Lexingtonians but was a distant third in the top code categories for the Transportation question. Generally, there was broad frustration among respondents who mentioned long commute times, and poor traffic flow as the primary sources. Common topics included: •

Improve Traffic Signals – Traffic signals were the most frequently discussed topic under this code, with the consensus among respondents that their timing could (and should) be improved, and the number of them should be reduced.

•

Widen Roadways – Several comments suggested that widening roadways by adding lanes to existing facilities would alleviate congestion.

•

Add Express Lanes – Another recommendation was that adding express lanes, bypasses, limited access roads, and the like would also help reduce congestion.

•

Public Transportation/Biking/Walking – Some people suggested using modes of transportation other than cars to reduce traffic volume, while others did not believe that would have an appreciable impact.

“Synchronize traffic lights and engineer traffic flow to optimize a vehicle’s efficiency.”

55

“The roads cannot even accommodate the amount of car traffic effectively as is. Other transportation just makes the flow less sufficient. The roads and flow need to be redesigned before anything else is prioritized.”

4. Traffic Calming & Safety (179 Tags) Responses covered under this code were largely focused on how cars interact with bicycle/pedestrian modes of transportation, but also addressed vehicular safety and enforcement. Common topics included: •

Bicycle/Pedestrian Safety – Many of the same sentiments expressed under walkability/bikeability/accessibility relating to separated bike facilities and improved sidewalks, with a focus on keeping users safe from vehicles using the roadways.

•

Decrease Traffic Speed – Most comments were discussing traffic through neighborhoods, though some were talking about high traffic speeds along our major roadways as well.

Proposed solutions included redesigned roadways and speed tables.

•

Traffic Enforcement – This was seen as a primary issue for many, specifically citing red light running as a repetitive concern.

•

Automobile Safety – Safety of motorists was also mentioned, some related to distracted driving, but a handful specifically mentioned concerns about visible roadway striping during rain events.

•

Driver Education/Skill – This also related largely to bicycle and pedestrian safety, with respondents recommending more education for drivers to understand how to share the road with other modes of transportation.

“Reclaim portions of existing roads for traffic calming and create safe and enjoyable routes for walking, biking, or rolling.”

5. Infrastructure & Utilities (167 Tags) This category was heavily dominated with repair and maintenance requests for roadways, sidewalks, and in some instances bicycle facilities. Some common topics included: •

Repair/Fix/Maintain Roads – Potholes were the common theme here, along with general maintenance requests.

•

Repair/Fix/Maintain Sidewalks – Respondents were concerned with substandard sidewalk infrastructure that is not well-maintained.

56 •

Widen roadways – Several suggested that the City should widen some of the main roads.

“Adequate maintenance of the streets and roads we have is essential.

Sidewalks are only useful if they are continuous and maintained.”

6. Connectivity (130 Tags) The “connectivity” code covered connections to a variety of destinations from a variety of modes. Most were focused on access to these destinations from individual neighborhoods through non-vehicular means. Some common topics included: •

Access to Destinations/Amenities without Driving – Many respondents were concerned with walkable neighborhoods and connecting to local businesses, schools, work, etc.

•

Connected Bicycle Network – Again, survey-takers called for a more connected bicycle network.

•

Connected Streets – This was mentioned by a handful of respondents concerned with oneway streets, but also the efficiency of arriving at their destinations by vehicle.

“Lexington has an opportunity to improve connectivity between neighborhoods. This would require to regulate new developments to invest in infrastructure to connect roads with other subdivisions.”

57

Urban & Rural Balance At the heart of every discussion about the future of Lexington is the balance between urban growth and rural protection and preservation.

Key Takeaways Seventy-five percent of survey-takers (1,803 people) responded to the Urban/Rural Balance Section. In general, people expressed a very strong desire to see continued infill and redevelopment opportunities as the dominant way to accommodate future growth.

People are concerned about what continued suburban style growth would mean for Lexington.

Their concerns are focused on what it would mean for congestion, how it would fail to improve existing areas that need amenities, as well as what that type of growth would cost us in local identity.

Participants were strongly supportive of efforts to ensure walkable development that enables people to not have to drive as often for the basics of everyday living. Infill and redevelopment was not just heavily suggested downtown, but throughout Lexington to make every area more desirable. Obviously, there were a multitude of opinions provided on how that should be done in a way that doesn’t substantially alter existing areas or displace longtime residents.

“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.”

“We should prioritize redevelopment of lower density & under-utilized areas. New growth on the exterior should only happen when other space is utilized & adequate services and infrastructure exists.”

What is evident from the survey responses in this category, is how deep of an understanding Lexington residents have of how intricately linked many of these important topics are. Not only do respondents clearly state their preference, but they also state policy goals that support those outcomes.

58 Quantitative question results LEXINGTON IS GROWING, AND OVER THE NEXT 20 YEARS, NEW DEVELOPMENTS COULD BE BUILT DOWNTOWN, ALONG MAJOR ROADS, IN EXISTING NEIGHBORHOODS, AND ON FARMLAND. DO YOU THINK GROWTH IN LEXINGTON IS A GOOD THING? 1629

509 144

130 I think growth in Lexington I think growth in Lexington I think growth in Lexington is a good thing, depending is always a good thing is a bad thing on how it happens

(Empty)

Sixty-seven percent of respondents (1,629 people) indicated that that growth in Lexington is positive, depending on how it happens, and another twenty-one percent (509 people) think growth is always a good thing. Only five percent of respondents think growth is a bad thing.

Qualitative question results and key takeaways Where and how do you think new growth should happen in Lexington?

548

508

479 326 180

166

135

119

114

108

59 Top code categories 1-3. Style of Development (548 Tags) / Infill and Redevelopment (508 Tags) / Growth Location (479 Tags) Unsurprisingly, these three categories dominated discussion on this question. What stood out among the responses were how mutually inclusive they were. The vast majority of responses would touch on more than just one aspect of growth and development. Across all three categories, the following were the most noticeably discussed: •

•

Growth is Good – First and foremost, the community appreciates and supports continued growth. Growth was recognized as being essential for improving job opportunities, wages and the addition of new amenities to the community. Basically, Lexington residents desire the continued urban evolution and the benefits that it provides.

Increasing Density (“Build up, not out”) – Included in these calls for growth is that Lexington continues to build more densely. There was considerable overlap in some of the topics below as they serve as the motivations for why density is desirable. In large part, respondents view increasing density as how Lexington will achieve other desirable outcomes.

“Growth is good! People want to come to Lex! That’s awesome! We should be proud that we have created a great community! Let’s continue to make it better for more people by increasing density in our urban core.”

•

•

Sustainable Development – This was a common phrase used in many responses. This term can mean many different things to different people, and where additional context was often provided, it was defined generally as development that pays for itself.

Limit Sprawl – Another very broad sentiment expressed was a desire to limit sprawl and other congestion producing development patterns. Respondents view the impact of sprawl as the loss of other valuable community assets and that the benefit to the Lexington is not worth the cost.

“I would like to see more in-fill development (and) less sprawl. With aging population more multi-unit housing with in house services and close to activities & necessities.”

•

Infill Throughout the Entire Community – Overwhelmingly, respondents were supportive of continued infill development and policies to make that happen. There was a general sentiment that there is more than enough underutilized and undeveloped land to meet development needs at this time. On the other end of the spectrum, there were also

60

•

numerous comments about limiting the impact of infill development on historic areas and ensuring that new projects are compatible with existing surroundings.

Downtown Growth – Comments about downtown focus on filling in the large surface parking areas that used to contain buildings, building new taller buildings, growing the established downtown area, providing substantially more residential units in the area and beautifying the area through plantings and infrastructure projects.

“We should make Lexington more dense. Condos, high rise apartments are needed. The area inside new circle road is larger than Manhattan Island, so we have a lot of space to make dense. Make the city walkable. Put amenities within walking distance, like a large grocery store downtown.”

•

Underutilized Property – Many respondents felt that there was a substantial amount of property that should be more intensely developed with places for people to live as a component. Once again, comments reflect the belief that adding residential to areas where people work and can meet their basic needs will help ensure that growth doesn’t necessarily mean big increases in congestion.

“Focus on infill and redevelopment first. We have plenty of underutilized spaces in the city currently that could be transformed into housing and new businesses. Maintaining the urban service boundary needs to be a priority."

•

•

Intentional/Strategic/Focused Planning – This was a common phrasing of a very general sentiment regarding the way that Lexington handles proposed development. Most of these comments did not expand on what that means to them specifically, however the desire for a comprehensive view of development and decision-making was clear.

Thoughtful/Measured Expansion – While not nearly a majority sentiment, there was a noticeable number of comments in support of some sort of expansion of the current Urban Service Boundary. Primary reasons for this position were related to issues around housing affordability with a smaller number of responses regarding providing land to attract future major employers.

“We need a large new expansion of the Urban Services Boundary that would include plenty of space for commercial, residential, and industrial, and other uses (religious, utility, farming, schools, etc.).”

61 4. Rural Greenspace Conservation (326 Tags) This category was largely the corollary to comments about sprawl mentioned before. Again, respondents that place a high value on the preservation of rural greenspace expressed views that indicated that growth as Lexington has experienced in the past on its periphery is not desirable enough to lose what they feel makes Lexington unique and special.

“Subdivisions ruin our transportation grid... They should be made in a way to support transit of the whole city. We should also look at growing up instead of out, horse farms are a major part of our culture and beauty.”

“PDR has served its purpose to preserve viable farmland in Lexington.

I believe growth needs to happen for the health of our community."

5. Housing Affordability (180 Tags) This category includes primarily two topics of discussion; subsidized affordable housing and enough housing supply to ensure broad affordability. There is substantial concern on both issues with respondents offering a wide variety of policies and solutions. It is very important to point out that the concern does not just limit itself to single family housing, but to the broader issue of how much of a family’s income is spent on housing, whether it be a mortgage or rent.

“Growth should prioritize housing for low to mid income individuals and families. Continuing to build expensive and inaccessible homes only increases rental prices for others renting in Lexington and increases inequities around the city.”

6. Urban Service Boundary (166 Tags) Overwhelmingly, On the Table participants that mentioned the Urban Service Boundary support not just keeping the boundary but maintaining its current location. Even against the backdrop of broad affordability concerns, respondents express a desire to meet that need with new housing types and increased density.

“I would like to preserve farmland & respect/retain the Boundary! I'd like more in-fill development vs continued outward expansion.”

62 “The urban boundary should be expanded, within reason, to allow for more housing, with the stipulation that some of it should be affordable for people at or near median incomes.”

7. Urban Greenspaces (135 Tags) Comments in this category were largely about the desire to preserve existing greenspaces inside the urban area, but also about the need for new park spaces. Respondents state a preference for the addition of smaller, more walkable park amenities to serve neighborhoods.

The existing large parks in Lexington are desirable and respondents support those spaces but also wish to be able to have some of those benefits without have to drive to them. In addition, comments also mention that the provision of urban greenspace shouldn’t only be areas used for stormwater facilities.

“True greenspace should be planned in not just water retention basins, etc. Mature trees should be respected and when planned in to new development they must be required to care for the plantings.”

8. Amenities and Quality of Life (119 Tags) Similar to comments about the style of development, respondents said that creating better, more desirable neighborhoods with things to do and places to meet essential needs is a big part of improving quality of life in Lexington. Residents on the north side of Lexington are looking for more retail options while downtown residents continue to seek grocery establishments. Broadly, people enjoy and want more local parks and schools. Common themes across that board are that people want these amenities closer to where they live and at a neighborhood scale.

“More creative mixed use developments. Create opportunities for each neighborhood to live, work and play inside their community.

Building up.”

63 9. Economic Development (114 Tags) This category was tagged for mentions of government programs and efforts to attract new businesses and jobs to Lexington. In addition, it included comments regarding the need for local small business incentives to better support and grow local businesses to help them scale up and compete with larger firms.

“Attracting interesting, ‘new economy’ businesses and jobs. Support local small agriculture.”

“Make down town Lexington more dense with hot start up Ag Tech and Biotechnology Companies all supported by new workforce multifamily housing options with the objective of making Lexington a more vibrant walkable downtown community.”

10. Gentrification and Displacement (108 Tags) Respondents that mentioned gentrification and displacement felt that new development needed to provide a way for longtime residents to stay in the areas they currently live in.

Some felt that area residents should be a larger part of the development process to ensure those needs are heard and discussed. Other comments suggested that redevelopment should not occur at all if existing area residents couldn’t afford to live in the new projects.

Many comments in this category felt that Lexington needs to provide greater financial assistance to residents in areas that face displacement pressures.

“We should build up, not out. When we talk about not "changing the character" of a neighborhood, that shouldn't mean we don't allow apartments in fancy neighborhoods because the rich folks don't want poor or Black neighbors. Instead, it should mean we pay attention to gentrification and worry about changing the character of a poor neighborhood. New development in those neighborhoods must serve and employ the people who already live there, not push them out and replace them with somebody else.”

“Growth should take into consideration all Lexingtonians--right now, the city is growing, but at the expense of some of our most vulnerable citizens. Affordable housing, transportation need to be prioritized if we are going to grow.”

64

Overall Question Data from this section indicates that when asked to think about the city as a whole, respondents primarily focused on activities and things to do in the city.

Key takeaways Sixty-seven percent of survey-takers (1,612 people) responded to the Overall question. Fewer people responded to this question, as was expected since this was the last question on the survey.

The primary issue identified when sorting through the overall data was an indication that people would like more things to do and cultural events around town.

There was a significant push for supporting and increasing the arts and creating venues for live events. The category of “Amenities & Quality of Life” was the dominant code for responses to this question.

It is also clear that there is a segment of the population that finds safety, security, and crime to be their area of most concern. A small, yet significant, number of respondents cited this issue, specifically with gun violence and law enforcement improvement as common topics.

“Increased community events – street fairs, gatherings – anything that builds social and community ties.”

“We would like a more vibrant cultural and arts scene.”

“More access to the arts, more green spaces as well as areas for public concerts or festivals.”

“Decrease gun violence in our city.”

65 Quantitative question results Finally, think about Lexington as a whole. Do you like living or spending time in Lexington?

FINALLY, THINK ABOUT LEXINGTON AS A WHOLE. DO YOU LIKE LIVING OR SPENDING TIME IN LEXINGTON? 1435 722 161

94

I like living / spending No, I do not like living / spending time in time in Lexington, but it Lexington could use some changes

Yes, I like living / spending time in Lexington

(Empty)

Sixty percent of respondents (1,435 people) indicated that they like living/spending time in Lexington. Thirty percent (772 people) like live/spending time in Lexington but feel there is room for improvement. Four percent of respondents do not like living/spending time in Lexington.

Qualitative question results (Civic Lex) and key takeaways What do you think would make Lexington a better place to live / spend time in?

696

204

199

195

185

125

119

118

106

66 Top code categories 1. Amenities & Quality of Life (696 Tags) Respondents were very clear that they want additional things to do in Lexington.

•

More Community Activities – There was an overarching desire to see more public events, festivals, etc. that not only provide activities, but foster a sense of community.

•

Greater Diversity of Activities – In addition to wanting to see more events and activities, many respondents were more specific about what they were looking for, and diversity was the key. Many wanted to see more family-friendly events with activities for children, and a significant number also wanted to see more racial/ethnic/cultural diversity represented within the events. Additionally, several respondents remarked that costs of activities were a barrier for many, and so they’d like to see more of them be free or low-cost. A large quantity of respondents commented on a desire to see more opportunities to experience the arts, as well.

•

Additional Facilities & Venues – Museums, water parks, stadiums, and music venues were all listed as desired venues to host events and activities.

•

More Local Restaurants/Shopping/Grocery Stores – A common desire for these resources was expressed.

“Increase arts! Make public performance common and affordable.”

2. Urban Greenspaces (204 Tags) Common topics in this category included: •

More Urban Greenspaces – Though many responses did not include a lot of specificity, consensus was that the survey participants want more greenspace in Lexington. Some did specify that they have a desire to see more natural areas.

•

Additional Public Parks – Additionally, a desire for more parks in locations throughout Lexington was a common topic.

•

More Community Gardens – Several respondents also requested an increase in community gardens.

“Public spaces where families can enjoy the outdoors, the arts, and be physically active.”

67 3. Diversity/Equity/Inclusion (199 Tags) Common topics in this category included: •

More Diversity – Many respondents mentioned a desire for increased diversity within Lexington, from a race, age, socioeconomic, and ethnic perspective.

•

Acknowledge/Address Inequity – This was a common theme amongst respondents, with the request that the government acknowledge that some areas of town have been overlooked and disadvantaged, and the call to work towards finding solutions to this complex issue.

•

Increase Diverse Businesses – Themes here included looking for more job opportunities, as well as supporting ethnic and culturally diverse restaurants and businesses throughout Lexington.

•

More Culturally Diverse Events – Picking up on the common theme from the “Amenities & Quality of Life” tag, multiple respondents were interested in more events that were planned by and would appeal to people of color.

“We need to right our wrongs of systemic racism in planning through red-lining and segregation by growing in a smart way, funding affordable housing, and looking to make our workforce more equitable.”

4. Walkability/Bikeability/Accessibility (195 Tags) Common topics in this category included: •

More Walkability/Sidewalks – A general desire was expressed for more walkability throughout Lexington, but specifically within neighborhoods and downtown. Walkable access to amenities was also discussed significantly, and many people were in favor of the efforts already underway to make the city more walkable.

•

More Bicycle Facilities – Responses in this category were largely in favor of increasing Lexington’s trail network and overall bikeability in Lexington.

“Fewer cars, more pedestrians.”

68 5. Safety (185 Tags) Common topics included: •

Less Crime – A significant number of responses tagged with the “safety” code mentioned crime as a primary concern. Specifically, gun violence and violent crime were heavily mentioned, in addition to drugs, gangs, petty crime, etc.

•

Improve Law Enforcement – This was a common theme that was mentioned, but the suggestions about how to improve law enforcement varied. Several people suggested increasing police presence, while others suggested a lesser police presence, and yet others suggested other reforms such as better training and addressing the roots of crime itself.

•

Improve Safety & Security – Another discussion topic that emerged among some respondents was a general feeling that they feel unsafe or unsecure in certain parts of the city including downtown and parking garages at night.

“The recent uptick in violence in Lexington has caused me to think twice about some activities that I previously wouldn’t have paused about.”

6. Style of Development (125 Tags) Common topics included: •

Mixed-Use/Walkable Developments – The most frequently discussed common topic within the “Style of Development” code was a focus on having developments that did not solely focus on retail, office, or residential, but rather incorporated all of the land use types together. There was an expressed desire to have neighborhood-focused retail included in future developments/redevelopments.

•

Focus on Downtown Development – Several responses under this code encouraged more redevelopment in downtown, including residential options.

•

Provide More Housing Options – Housing options were specifically mentioned in many responses, such as missing middle housing, student housing, studio apartments, and single-family homes.

•

Increased Density – Adding more new developments/redevelopments that include increased density overall was mentioned specifically by a number if respondents.

“Promote neighborhoods not housing developments.”

69 7. Social Services (119 Tags) Common topics included: •

Address Homelessness – This was the most discussed topic within the “Social Services” code. Respondents wanted to address affordable housing, but also the root causes of homelessness as well. They were also concerned with panhandling associated with the homeless population.

•

Provide More Youth Services – Several respondents suggested providing more youth services to keep kids involved in positive activities.

•

Support for those Facing Poverty – There was concern expressed for those facing poverty in under-resourced areas of Lexington.

•

More Drug/Alcohol Treatment and Support – This was a desire of some survey-takers.

•

Additional Senior Services – A handful of respondents were also concerned about the need for more resources for Lexington’s senior population.

“Address affordable housing, homelessness, social services, so Lexington works for all citizens.”

8. Traffic Congestion (118 Tags) Common topics included: •

Too Much Traffic – Most responses coded under the “Traffic Congestion” code are related to concerns with the amount of traffic on the road in Lexington.

•

Need Better Traffic/Signal Control – Those who proposed a solution for the above issue mostly mentioned better traffic flow or signal control.

•

Utilize Alternate Modes to Reduce Traffic – Another solution that was proposed was utilizing public transit, walking, and biking to alleviate congestion.

“Better management of traffic, such as on New Circle and Clays Mill Road would make everyday tasks like driving to and from places much more enjoyable and less anxiety inducing.”

70 9. Public Transportation (106 Tags) Some common topics included: •

More and Better Public Transit – Most responses included under this code stated a general desire for improved mass transit as a whole to make the city a better place to live.

•

Enhanced Transit Options – Some respondents did suggest specific improvements, notably regional transit, a trolley system, light rail, bus rapid transit, and park & rides.

“More public transit. If you don’t have a car in Lexington, you have a poor quality of life. This shouldn’t be.”

71

Organizational Input The Division of Planning broadcasted an open invitation for agencies and special interest groups to sign-up for a timeslot the week of March 21, 2022, to meet with staff to solicit feedback on the Goals and Objectives portion of the plan. It was explained that feedback will be used to update the Goals and Objectives that will be crafted by the Planning Commission over the summer and later presented to the Urban County Council for adoption. Ten organizations provided input and a summary of each follows.

Pensacola Park Meeting Summary On March 21st, 2022, Planning Staff met with representatives from the Pensacola Park neighborhood to discuss transportation related issues identified in the Imagine Nicholasville Road corridor study. The corridor study called for encouraging development that would support future mass transit improvements through Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) infrastructure.

The neighborhood members provided materials to document the harm that single occupancy motor vehicles are having on the environment and their cost to the local economy compared to improved mass transit options. They point out that the significant growth of the region will only continue to exacerbate our congestion issues.

They provided a brief history on the rise and subsequent demise of the Lexington streetcar system and calling for a return of a similar scaled light rail project for the Nicholasville Road corridor. The group provided a list of potential funding sources and evidence from the federal government of emerging policies supporting mass transit improvements in cities.

In closing, the group shared a list of top 10 university cities ranging from 50,000 to under 1,000,000 residents that have significantly higher per capita transit ridership to indicate that there is significant potential for a shift in the transit habits of Lexington residents. They shared that there is a significant return on investment for communities that choose to invest in mass transit and that Lexington to be well-served to do the same.

Community Ventures Meeting Summary On March 22nd, 2022, Planning staff met with representatives of Community Ventures. They described the mission of Community Ventures within the communities they work in. They have focused their efforts in Lexington on the East End, trying to support a neighborhood that

72 is seeing displacement at a rapid pace. Before they even start to think about development they have extensive discussions with the community, to build their trust, and to try to fill some of their needs.

They are primarily focused on affordable housing, particularly multi-family and mixed use, but ideally would avoid having to use Low Income Tax Credits. One of the biggest challenges they are seeing is the lack of opportunity for someone to get into their first house – they are working to eliminate some of those barriers. As developers they are also facing the challenge of amassing enough developable land to create a significant development, title issues, easements, etc. that involve lots of time wasted in discussions back and forth with the City.

Having a more powerful and farther-reaching housing trust fund would help immensely to partner with. The Artists Village, which is a conglomeration of live/work dwellings for artists with a communal central green space is an alternative they are working on. Greenfield development would be a challenge due to the cost of land and the increased gap they would have to subsidize, plus it does not meet their goal of serving underprivileged communities.

They highlighted the need for better transportation for residents so they can get where they need to go, but also so people can come to them, to their businesses.

Commission for People with Disabilities Meeting Summary On March 23rd, 2022, Planning staff were provided the opportunity to attend a regularly scheduled meeting of the Commission for People with Disabilities. Much of the discussion focused on the need for Universal Design standards to be more greatly considered. This especially applies to housing for individuals with disabilities, where ADA compliance or Universal Design are rarely factored into construction (e.g., 36” doorways, zero grade entrances, 10’ clearance in ground floor of parking structures to accommodate taller vans, visual and audible access). Transportation is another concern – Lextran Wheels serves the community as best it can but has its limitations.

There is also a need for transportation between Fayette and the surrounding counties to get people with disabilities to job opportunities. In terms of accessibility, the Complete Streets movement helps to take into consideration a wider array of needs, for instance raised speed tables help to slow traffic but they can also accommodate an at-grade crossing.

Finding employment for people with disabilities is a challenge. The government needs to step up and set an example by hiring a full-time coordinator for, and to offer employment for, people with disabilities. This would help prevent unintended consequences like the improper

73 (but well-meaning) installation of curb delineators at intersections that now need to be replaced in nearly all instances, or the inclusion of more outdoor seating during the pandemic impacting mobility along sidewalks downtown.

This Commission handles a broad spectrum of issues facing Lexington’s aging community, and they posed several thought-provoking questions. For instance, how do we serve an aging population with disabilities who need affordable housing along with aging services? Across the board though there is a desire for people with disabilities to feel included in the Lexington ‘community’, at home, at work, and during events.

Fayette Alliance Meeting Summary On March 23rd, 2022, representatives from Fayette Alliance made a presentation to the Division of Planning staff on focus areas of importance to their membership. They proposed what they refer to as a ‘policy map’ to visually identify the Placetypes as currently identified in the Placebuilder element of Imagine Lexington.

Additionally, they reiterated support for creating new infill opportunities for missing middle housing. They suggested a zoning ordinance audit to assist in maximizing housing production within Lexington’s Infill and Redevelopment area, including creating new zoning classifications and proactively rezoning non-residential areas.

They also pointed out the economic impact of the agricultural economy in Fayette County both in terms of industry and tourism. They also called for implementing the recommendations from the Neighborhoods in Transition Task Force as well as the Mayor’s Commission on Racial Justice.

Regarding the future of the Urban Service Area, they called for the completion of the next steps of the Sustainable Growth Study and to develop tools to track growth and development annually to assist in a data driven approach to future expansion discussions.

Trees Lexington!

Meeting Summary On March 23rd, 2022, Planning staff met with representatives of Trees Lexington! to discuss a number of issues important to their organization. Trees Lexington! is a non-profit that seeks to encourage community members to take an active role in expanding and maintaining the local

74 tree canopy. Members of the Trees Lexington! Board communicated to Planning Staff that trees are an essential part of Lexington’s quality of life and sense of community.

They stated that a goal of Trees Lexington! is to provide education for the long-term benefits of trees. In particular, they shared that Lexington has an urgent need to preserve and enhance our urban forest, which will require a coordinated effort between government agencies, development professionals, members of the public, and local organizations (like Trees Lexington!).

They provided a listing of the 2018 Comprehensive Plan Goals and Objectives, Policies, and Placebuilder Criteria which reference the importance of trees. In addition, they suggest four areas for improvement as 1) tree loss and removal practices, 2) tree care, 3) new tree installation, and 4) information and progress tracking. The meeting ended with a discussion of how Trees Lexington! might contribute to these areas.

FoodChain Meeting Summary On March 25th, 2022, Planning Staff met with representatives of FoodChain to discuss comprehensive plan related policies that impact their organization. FoodChain’s mission is to get the community more connected to and involved with local food systems. It was explained that often transportation is one of the largest barriers to accessing food, particularly healthy food and fresh produce. People don’t often consider that stocking up with staple items can be incredibly difficult without transportation. Home delivery is a solution, but it requires a tremendous number of resources.

The Mayor’s Commission called for a mobile food market to try to counteract food deserts in marginalized communities, the planning of which seems to have stalled. Other transportation related issues they have seen within the community are: bus stop locations that move; unexpected changes of routes; lack of clocks at stops; unsafe or inaccessible stops; inconvenient timing and length to transfer downtown; 2nd and 3rd shift workers unserved; and, transit routes that only skirt the edges of low-income neighborhoods.

The expressed support for corner stores and convenience stores serving as potential locations to host fresh foods and produce in the short term. They indicated there are very few parcels of land available for growing food on a small scale within the community. In addition to their outreach to the community, FoodChain provides hot meal hand-outs three times a week at their location in the Northside. They would like to do more but are limited by resources.

75

Climate Conversations Meeting Summary On March 25th, 2022, Planning staff met with representatives from Climate Conversations to discuss a number of items they felt were in need of greater emphasis in the next Comprehensive Plan. Their team led the conversation and posed questions about how Lexington and the next Comprehensive Plan will address climate mitigation and adaptation.

The representatives asked, “what does a climate resilient Lexington that we can all survive and thrive in look like?” They drew a relationship between climate change and community building by focusing on public transportation and more human-scaled, walkable development and land use patterns. The groups seek better public transportation options and noted that Lexington’s bus system has a stigma that needs to be changed. They also pointed out the need for better interconnectivity between neighborhoods and offered that infill development can create more connectivity as opposed to keeping areas separate.

There was a discussion of the missed opportunity in the way that the Hamburg area was developed with a lack of human scale, greenspace, and low walkability. Drawing a comparison to the Hamburg area, they stated that many current development patterns in Lexington work against human interaction—they say that these developments lack the community focused feel that comes with sidewalks and active storefronts where people can meet and build community. The group stated that the rhetoric around climate change can be doomsday-ish, but they want to foster more hopeful community conversations around climate action.

Bluegrass Climate Action Team (BCAT) Meeting Summary On April 5th, 2022, Planning staff met with representatives from the Bluegrass Climate Action Team (BCAT). They introduced their organization, a group that formed two years ago with the goal of bringing people together to present a unified voice on government policies on climate change. They stated that several councilmembers were involved with their organization.

BCAT Presented their research on the status of climate change using various sources including the latest IPCC Report and NOAA predictions.

They discussed the importance of land use decisions in climate change mitigation. BCAT shared concerns about proposed expansion of the Urban Service Boundary and Lexington’s future plans for growth. They shared multiple findings on the negative impacts of urban

76 expansion/sprawl including increased greenhouse gas emissions, increased cost to city governments and residents, and increased cost of transportation and decreased access to services for those who would live in areas of expansion. They stated a desire for Lexington to pursue affordable housing focused on densification and access to services.

BCAT made three “asks”: (1) Make all feasible efforts to maintain the current Urban Service Boundary in the next Comprehensive Plan; (2) Evaluate future development in our city in terms of Greenhouse Gas Emissions; (3) Lead Lexington in the direction of densification and “people-first” city planning.

Fayette County Neighborhood Council Meeting Summary On April 1st, 2022, Planning staff met with representatives of the Fayette County Neighborhood Council (FCNC) on topics of importance to their membership. Their starting point for guidance is that all land used for development should be held to the highest review standard possible to ensure compliance with the goals and objectives of the comprehensive plan due to how finite a resource land is to Fayette County.

Of particular importance to FCNC is that development should be in context with its existing built area. They wish to see compatibility standards that govern height and setbacks as well as unique characteristics of individual neighborhoods. Additionally, FCNC stated concerns with planned efforts to increase density along major corridors where there are existing neighborhoods in those areas.

The group also brought up a need for the government to improve non-planning related activities in several areas. Concerns regarding crime and violence were mentioned and suggested the Comprehensive Plan should step up its data analysis regarding crime data.

Also, they stated a desire for a rental licensing and registration program for landlords to incentivize improved maintenance and upkeep of rental properties.

FCNC also brought up a need to more substantively address affordable housing funding and programs to boost the number of affordable housing units in Lexington. Lastly, FCNC called for the Comprehensive Plan to include an implementation item to study stormwater facilities and their associated costs. They recommend additional policies and enhancing language around existing policies to step up the sustainability of future development as it relates to climate change.

77 Kentucky Tenants Association Meeting Summary On March 24th, 2022, representatives from the Kentucky Tenants Association made a presentation to Division of Planning staff on a few issues of particular importance to their constituency.

Of particular concern was the sharply increasing rental rates and what that means in terms of the numbers of Lexington residents that now lack secure housing. Their data indicated that over 46% of Lexington renters are now paying more than 50% of their income to rent. Further, among those making under 100% area median income (AMI), 51% of renters are paying over half of their income to rent. At the same time, many of those same tenants are also dealing with more units being in substandard condition.

The KTA had also undertaken a listening project involving 30 volunteer and paid phone bankers to canvas Fayette County resident by phone and text to ask about housing costs and unit conditions. 68.8% of respondents felt that rent in their area was unaffordable.

The group had strong recommendations for improving the existing equity policies of Imagine Lexington as well as guiding principles for implementation. They suggest prioritizing permanently affordable housing models that places those residents in a position of decisionmaking authority in those communities.

78

Commerce Lexington Roundtable Events Commerce Lexington hosted a series of business engagement roundtables to gather the perspective of the business community during the Goals & Objectives public input phase of Imagine Lexington 2045. These conversations were centered on different segments of the local economy and included the development sector, major employers, small businesses, signature industries, commercial property owners, the Commerce Lexington Board, and Minority Business Owners.

Methodology During the roundtable the participants were asked for their feedback on the business climate in Lexington and how city policies may be helping or impeding future jobs and prosperity. The sessions generally followed this agenda: 1. Welcome from the facilitator/host, Carla Blanton, Commerce Lexington’s 2022 Public Policy Chair.

Commerce Lexington Events & Dates Development Sector – 4.6.22 Major Employers – 4.7.22 Major Employers, pt.2 – 4.7.22 Innovation/Small Business – 4.8.22 Hospitality, Tourism, Signature/Visitor Industries – 4.12.22 Commercial Property Assoc. of Lexington – 4.13.22 Innovation/Small Business – 4.13.22 Commerce Lexington Board – 4.25.22 Minority Business Owners – 5.2.22

2. Business Climate Questionnaire that included some personal/business demographic questions, as well as four feedback questions: a. What are the strengths to Lexington’s business climate and policies? Please list the top three strengths. b. What are the greatest challenges to your business? Please list the top three challenges. c. What city policies or other issues may be impeding your ability to grow jobs in Lexington? Please list up to three concerns or issues. d. What can local policymakers do to help your business succeed in Lexington?

Please list up to three suggestions.

3. An overview video prepared by the Division of Planning was shown that explained what the Comprehensive Plan is, why it is important, and why people should get involved.

4. Roundtable discussion based on the four survey prompts, led by Carla Blanton.

Planning staff attended of all of the meetings, but did not participate in the discussion.

5. Wrap-up Comments

79

Key Takeaways Based on Planning staff’s observation of the roundtable conversations, the following common themes emerged:

POSITIVES •

Highly Educated Workforce – This was a common theme that was seen as a positive.

•

Good Location & Interstate Access – Many saw Lexington’s geographic positioning, location relative to other cities, and interstate access as beneficial to their business needs.

•

Downtown Revitalization/Tourism/Convention Center – Some participants were pleased with the new developments downtown and specifically the convention center as a facility to draw people to Lexington.

•

Strong Chamber/Business Relationships – Many were complimentary of Commerce Lexington and their efforts to build relationships with local businesses, and of the close relationships forged between business leadership within the community.

•

High Quality of Life – This was a common theme where participants lauded Lexington’s improvements in amenities, but also mentioned that there is a lot of room for improvement. They noted that this is a primary driver for attracting young talent to the area, and that Lexington is competing with other cities in this regard.

•

Healthcare & Higher Education – The healthcare industry and universities, which are primary employers in the city are noted to be strong and a benefit to the overall economy.

80 CHALLENGES / SOLUTIONS •

•

Employee Attraction/Retention – A very common theme during the roundtable discussion were staffing issues. Some of the issues noted were: •

Difficulties with returning to the office after COVID.

•

Competing with large corporations based in other cities for employees that can work remote from anywhere.

•

A large percentage of the workforce being retirement age and leaving the workforce.

•

It is challenging to find reliable entry-level workers who can pass drug screen and will arrive on-time.

•

University students are largely leaving the market upon graduation and finding employment elsewhere.

•

Employers need more generally trained entry-level employees, and some find the recent graduates to be too specialized.

Transportation Barriers – Concerns about employees’ ability to get to work were mentioned, as well as a desire to have a walkable/bikeable city to help attract young talent. Some of the issues noted were: •

Current public transportation is inadequate, so if employees do not have a car they cannot work.

•

Improve traffic on major roadways to assist with commute reliability.

•

Housing is Increasingly Expensive – Several were discussing how Lexington’s housing affordability has decreased recently, and the lack of housing options make it difficult for entry-level employees. Additionally, the low real estate inventory was discussed.

•

Childcare is Increasingly Expensive and Limited – Many participants noted that since COVID, childcare options have decreased since those facilities have also faced significant staffing shortages. They remarked that this has led to a marked departure of employees from the workforce – many of them female.

•

Supply Chain Issues – Many participants had issues with supply chain reliability.

•

Crime and Safety are Quality of Life Issues – Several remarked that safety, particularly downtown has become more of an issue lately.

•

Concerns with Air Travel Availability – This was mentioned by a couple of participants, particularly with the small number of non-stop flights.

•

Difficulty for Minority Businesses to Access Capital/Loans – Several of the minority business representatives remarked that it is challenging for them to secure funding without the generational wealth, business history and relationships that some other non-minority businesses have.

•

More Trade School Training – Several participants mentioned a need for more trade and skilled workers.

81 •

Land Availability – Primarily single-family home builders remarked that there is not enough available land for them to build on, and that they are increasingly constructing in other adjacent counties. They also said that the land that is available is too expensive.

•

Manufacturing and Warehousing Jobs Locating in Adjacent Counties – Participants mentioned that these facilities and jobs are locating in adjacent counties due to the cost of land.

•

Infill & Redevelopment Projects are Challenging – Neighborhood opposition, the City’s process, and costs for these projects were mentioned as reasons why.

•

Urban Service Boundary – The Urban Service Boundary was mentioned as an obstacle to some of the goals of the development community. Some suggested that it is being used to constrain population, and that it is the source of several issues faced by development professionals.

82

LFUCG Divisional Input Summary The Division of Planning emailed LFUCG Division Directors on March 29, 2022, to request written feedback on the Goals and Objectives portion of the 2018 Comprehensive Plan. It was explained that feedback will be used to update the Goals and Objectives that will be crafted by the Planning Commission over the summer and presented to the Urban County Council for adoption later this year. Additional opportunities will follow for these agencies to provide input for the more detailed portions of the plan including policies and implementation items recommendations. A summary of divisional input follows.

Traffic Engineering Jim Woods, P.E., PLS, Deputy Director, Division of Traffic Engineering Deputy Director Woods posed a general question about how the Comprehensive Plan Goals and Objectives are quantified, measured, and tracked. He stated that being able to show that objectives have been achieved is very important. He also stated that it is very important that acceptable roadway capacity is provided where new travel demand is placed upon the roadway system. New/Re-development and more population without additional roadway capacity results in added traffic congestion, lost time, and more air pollution. Mr. Woods provided suggestions to several Objectives related directly to Traffic Engineering: Under Theme A Growing Successful Neighborhoods / Goal 4 / Address Community Facilities at a Neighborhood Scale, Mr. Woods provided the following suggested objective: Protect the character and future residential neighborhoods by maintaining the integrity of the city’s transportation infrastructure.

Under Theme B Protecting the Environment / Goal 2 / Reduce Lexington-Fayette County’s carbon footprint, Mr. Woods suggested setting an objective to reduce certain emission pollutants by “X%” by a certain date. He asked if there is an objective to increase percentage of mass transit riders in Lexington, and if so, what percentage increase in ridership might be achieved. He asked the same with regards to cycling and walking, and would like to know if there are metrics to measure effectiveness of goals/objectives.

Under Theme D Improving a Desirable Community / Goal 1 / Work to achieve an effective and comprehensive transportation system Under Objective A / Support the Complete Streets concept, prioritizing a pedestrian-first design that also accommodates the needs of bicycle, transit and other vehicles, Mr. Woods was unsure how to measure the complete street concept other than considering the number of complete street projects added to the roadway system during a given period of time. He noted that complete streets projects often overlap

83 with multi-modal initiatives, including mass transit. Under Objective D / Improve traffic operation strategies, he asked for clarification on if this means engineering strategies or traffic flow strategies. He wondered if the effectiveness of the transportation system could be determined via origin-destination studies for strategic areas of development in the vicinity of complete street projects.

Water Quality Charles H. Martin, P.E., Director, Division of Water Quality Director Martin responded with input from two perspectives—sanitary sewers and stormwater.

For sanitary sewers, Mr. Martin reports that capacity for infill and redevelopment is less of a concern than fundamental asset management. He stated that the Consent Decree has focused on increased capacity including large tanks, pumping stations, and trunk sewer pipes. However, a problem which remains is that over 83% of the sanitary sewer system is 8inch collector pipe and 33% of that 83% is vitrified clay pipe (VCP) likely dating from before 1964. The physical condition of that VCP is a concern, and from the Division of Water Quality’s perspective, it is something that should be replaced as part of infill and redevelopment. Mr. Martin also reports that sanitary sewer service for an expanded urban service area has challenges because the Consent Decree improvements did not provide capacity for an expanded boundary, with one primary exception being Athens-Boonesboro extending to Blue Sky. For stormwater, Mr. Martin stated that building up creates less impervious square footage than building out, so building up is the best outcome for stormwater management. He shared that there is no system-wide model for predicting the impact to changes in imperious area, and that the grasp the Division has on sanitary sewer capacity doesn’t exist for stormwater. In terms of streams, he states that urban stream segments are very difficult to bring back to water quality standards, and that efforts are better spent on conservation easements for downstream rural stream segments and a more robust means to collect and control the discharges that visually degrade those segments such as sustained water velocities, trash and floatables.

Social Services Kristina Stambaugh, Director, Aging & Disability Services Director Stambaugh replied that the Goals and Objectives are still relevant, however COVID slowed some progress. Ms. Stambaugh would like more specific language or incentives for the creation/development of more Accessible Housing (Universal Design, ADA compliant, visitable), and stated that both the Commission for People with Disabilities and the Senior

84 Services Commission would support these changes. She stated that the Reimaging Home group is eager to assist Planning with zoning amendments, and they would like zone flexibility to convert abandoned retail spaces to residential uses with housing that is affordable. Director Stambaugh is interested in any kind of tax relief that could be provided, in addition to the Homestead Exemption Act, which would help home owners in areas that are experiencing gentrification. She also would like to include Dementia Friendly Lexington and Age Friendly Lexington in the Comprehensive Planning process.

Public Safety Patricia Dugger, Director, Emergency Management Director Dugger’s suggestion is for the Comprehensive Plan to include considerations for the impact of climate change issues related to the design and location of natural and manmade hazards. As an example, Director Dugger cites concern for Veterans Park Elementary School being in the wind hazard area of a chlorine release from West Hickman Waste Water Treatment Plant, as well as concern over construction techniques and materials being safe in tornado zones.

Environmental Services / Energy Initiatives James Bush, Program Manager Senior, Energy Initiatives Mr. Bush provided several specific suggestions and additions to the Goals and Objectives that would support the city’s energy initiatives. In particular, this would assist with “beyondcode” energy efficiency and renewable energy requirements in buildings. He states that the challenge, however, is that legislative action is needed to give Lexington the ability to supersede state energy code(s).

Under Theme B Protecting the Environment / Goal 2 / Reduce Lexington-Fayette County’s carbon footprint, Mr. Bush provides several suggestions for reframing the objectives to achieve a more cohesive purpose by structuring them to address specific emission sources.

These sources include direct emissions from owned or controlled sources (“to transition to electric vehicles”), indirect emissions from the generation of purchased electricity, steam, heating and cooling consumed by Lexington-Fayette County (“to support a utility provider program that encourage energy efficiency and increased renewable energy sources”), and all other indirect emissions that occur in Lexington-Fayette County’s value chain (“to prioritize reducing, reusing, and recycling as part of sustainable development.”) Also under Theme B, Mr. Bush suggested the need for an objective to support locally-sourced food.

In Theme C, Creating Jobs & Prosperity, Mr. Bush stated that the Goals and Objectives are missing the importance of high speed internet and low-carbon energy sources that are

85 necessary to attract companies and talent to Lexington-Fayette County. He also suggested that “adaptive reuse” be explicitly included under Theme D, Improving a Desirable Community.

Environmental Services / Natural Resource Protection Demetria Mehlhorn, Program Manager Senior, Natural Resource Protection & Kristan Curry, Environmental Planner Senior Ms. Mehlhorn and Ms. Curry provided several proposed edits to the existing Goals and Objectives, suggestions for new Objectives, as well as related action items to be considered as the Comprehensive Plan process proceeds. Suggested edits, new Objectives, and action items relate to the following.

Theme A – Growing Successful Neighborhoods: Minimizing disruptions to historic and archaeological features during development, including stone fences not within the right-ofway; Maximizing usability of available open space on new development; Incentivizing community gardens, expanded tree canopy and urban tree protections; Incorporating the Urban Forest Management Plan into the Comprehensive Plan; and Encouraging green infrastructure in neighborhood design Theme B – Protecting the Environment: Improving city stormwater and sanitary sewer infrastructure; Continued implementation of the Consent Decree programs; Cost sharing program to assist homeowners with lateral sanitary sewer replacement; Reforesting areas within the Coldstream Supplemental Environmental Project (SEP) and improving educational and aesthetic experience along the Legacy Trail; Sustainable and energy efficient street lighting; Electric Vehicle (EV) charging stations; Completing a full natural resource inventory in Lexington-Fayette County; Promoting native plants and gardens; Planning and funding for green infrastructure projects; and Regional planning for wildlife corridors Theme C – Creating Jobs & Prosperity: Creating internship programs to support arboricultural, environmental science, sustainability, and hydrology education and job training; and Creating public information and education content to foster a capable and skilled workforce within the environmental sciences.

86

Conclusion & Next Steps The robust dataset that is laid out in this report and was collected through an extensive multipronged process, provides an excellent springboard into the recommendations for Imagine Lexington 2045’s Goals & Objectives. The Division of Planning, in conjunction with our civic partners, has asked the public for their opinion on how they want to see Lexington grow in the future and they did not disappoint in their response. With the estimated 4,000-5,000 people who participated in On the Table conversations, the nearly 2,500 surveys taken, the ten community organizations who provided feedback, the dozens of local businesses that were represented over nine Commerce Lexington meetings, and the inputs from the various city governmental Divisions, the Planning staff, Planning Commission, and Council now have the basis they need to start making decisions.

The public input, along with the existing conditions and trends data presented to the Planning Commission in March of 2022, and industry best practices, will be applied in the coming months to arrive at recommended Goals & Objectives. This recommendation will be grounded in fact, reflective of best practice, and take the public input into consideration. In short, it will be a community vision for the future that is informed and tailored specifically for Lexington.

The recommendation will come from Planning staff this summer and will culminate in a public hearing in early 2023. This will be the next opportunity for the public to weigh-in on the direction of Imagine Lexington 2045. From there it will be forwarded on to the Urban County Council for action within 90 days of the Planning Commission’s recommendation.

The balance of the comprehensive plan, which is the policies and implementation strategy for the Goals & Objectives will be completed by the conclusion of 2023, and data collected and reported here will be useful for that exercise as well. In fact, the data from this report is intended to not only inform planning efforts, but to be a resource for the entire community in any other visioning exercises or general curiosity.

87

Appendices A. On the Table Survey & Host Guide B. On the Table CivicLex Data Set C. Community Organization Input Materials

Appendix A On the Table Host Guide and Survey

CivicLex

Host Guide On the Table

2022

Access the Digital On the Table Survey

We need your voice at the table!

What is On the Table?

On the Table is a city-wide conversation that helps us get to know each other better and discuss what is and isn’t working in Lexington. This year, feedback from On the Table will be used to provide input to Lexington's Comprehensive Plan, which will guide how Lexington grows and changes over the next 20 years!

If you are reading this guide, you have likely signed up to be a table host. As a host, your job is to pick a time and place for people to meet, recruit participants, and guide the conversation.

This guide provides an easy-to-follow script for your table(s). Each conversation will start with a short survey that asks about five core pieces of life in Lexington. Data from this survey will be anonymized and given to Lexington's Division of Planning to inform the Comprehensive Plan. We will also publish the raw, anonymous data online for the public to use. After the survey, you'll guide a structured conversation about the survey topics. Finally, everyone will answer one last question about their table experience. Make sure to encourage your guests to stay for the whole process!

On the Table wouldn't be possible without table hosts like you, so thank you!

The Comprehensive Plan Imagine Lexington, our community's Comprehensive Plan, is an important long-range planning document for the city of Lexington that is updated every five years. It governs how the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government makes policy around five key topics: neighborhoods, the environment, jobs & prosperity, transportation, and how we balance use of our rural and urban land. It affects everything from the cost of housing to parks, from what kind of jobs are available to where we put sidewalks and bike lanes.

Survey data from On the Table and other inputs will be used to inform the Comprehensive Plan, which will shape how Lexington grows and changes over the next two decades!

Want to learn more about the Comprehensive Plan? Check out this video from Lexington's Division of Planning!

2

Planning your table Step 1: Register as a Host Register by visiting our website ottlex.org/register or by calling 859-536-1334. The process should only take 2-3 minutes. Registering ensures that you will be kept in the loop, sent materials and information, and allows us to send you follow-up resources.

There are two hosting options — public and private. If you want your conversation to be open to anyone, register as a public table. We'll list it on our website for anyone to find and we'll work to match 4-10 participants with your table. Because these tables are public, more or less people may show up.

You can also host a private table for conversations between groups like your family, friends, book club, or others.

Step 2: Plan a time and place Table conversations can happen anywhere - homes, restaurants, places of worship, coffee shops, schools, libraries, offices, parks, and other locations. They can be in-person or virtual. If you are planning to host your conversation in a public place, make sure the space is available and accommodates your expected attendees before the day of. OTT conversations typically take just over an hour. If you are planning to host your conversation virtually, we have some tips to make that the best experience possible at ottlex.org/virtual.

Step 3: Invite your guests Generally, it’s hard to keep conversations with more than 8 people on track. If you want to host more people, consider hosting more than one table. While it can be easy to stay inside your friend or family group, consider inviting people you don’t know as well, or ask someone in your group to bring someone new!

Registration for guests/participants isn't required, but we encourage everyone to register at ottlex.org/ register. This will enable them to stay up to date with results when they are released and it gives us a more accurate understanding of how many people are participating. The survey process is a big part of this year's On the Table. If your guests won't have smartphone or internet access, make sure to either contact us for printed materials or print them out yourself from ottlex.org/materials. You should also provide pens/pencils if you are using the paper surveys.

3

The conversation This year's On the Table conversation is about a specific topic and follows a specific format.

Following the steps below will help you keep the conversation on track and will help us get more survey participation!

Step 1: Start by welcoming everyone to the conversation and doing a round of introductions.

To make it easy, we recommend using the script on the next page, which explains how On the Table works, what the purpose is, and what will be done with the information afterwards.

Step 2: Invite everyone to fill out the survey. We have both digital and physical versions available, but we prefer that people fill out the digital version (available through the QR code on this document's cover) in the interest of data privacy.

Step 3: After the survey, start the conversation! While your conversation can take whatever direction seems most natural, we suggest following the script and prompts included.

Step 4: Close out the conversation by asking people to fill out the final survey question and thanking people for attending you conversation!

A note on facilitation Being a facilitator in these conversations can sometimes be tricky. In a normal facilitator role, you would not provide your opinion, but for On the Table, we encourage you to participate fully in the conversation. If disagreements come up, try to keep the conversation comfortable for everyone and the discussion on track and moving forward. Remember, this is a dialogue, not a debate!

Try to pay attention to the group dynamic — some people may feel more or less comfortable talking due to a variety of factors, including their personality, expertise level, race, class, age, political affiliation, gender, nationality, or religion. Invite others to be respectful of everyone in the group when sharing their opinion and be aware if anyone is taking over the conversation. Make sure that everyone at the table has a chance to speak. For more tips on facilitation, visit ottlex.org/facilitation.

4

The Script

= Read these parts aloud

Start by welcoming everyone to the table. Let your guests introduce themselves. If you want to add an icebreaker question, you can find some samples questions at ottlex.org/host.

"Welcome, everyone! By participating in this year’s On the Table, you are part of a citywide discussion about how Lexington should grow and change over the next 20 years.

Before we get too far into it, let's go around the table and introduce ourselves. Let's start with first names, and where you live."

"Great! We're all here today to talk about Lexington. Here's how this will work: First, we're going to take a quick survey about your vision for the future of Lexington. Next, we'll have a conversation about our responses. After our conversation, we'll wrap up with one last survey question that will ask if the conversation changed your thinking.

Then we're done! This should take about an hour and it's important to stay for the entire length of our conversation. Does this make sense to everyone?"

Answer any questions that your guests may have. If you have trouble answering any questions, you can refer to our FAQ page at ottlex.org/faq.

"OK - time for the survey! Your responses will be used to inform Lexington's Comprehensive Plan, a document that guides how Lexington will grow over the next 20 years. Each question in the survey relates to a different theme of the Plan. Your answers will always be anonymous. If you have your phone or an internet device, you can find the survey online at ottlex.org/survey. We have around eight minutes to take the survey, but don't worry if it takes longer!"

If you are using paper surveys, this is the time to distribute them alongside pens/pencils.

You'll collect these once the conversation is over. Set a timer for 8 minutes or keep an eye on a clock. Once the time has passed, let people know that it's time to start wrapping up. Of course, they can have more time if needed, but don't let it go on for too long.

5

Once everyone is done, it's time to move into the discussion!

"Okay! Now that we're done with the survey it's time to move into the conversation. A few ground rules before we begin. First, remember we are all here for the same reason - we care about Lexington's future! So, be kind and respectful of everyone's opinion. Some of us may come from a different perspective or set of experiences. Let's all agree not to interrupt each other and give everyone here a chance to speak. This is a dialogue, not a debate!"

Use any or all of the prompts below to guide your conversation. Consider asking your group which topics they'd be interested in discussing, and select the corresponding prompt(s). Here are the topics: Lexington in 20 years, neighborhoods, environment, jobs, transportation, and growth.

Prompts Prompt 1: Lexington in 20 years How do you want Lexington to change over the next 20 years? What do you want to be the same? What do you want to be different?

Prompt 2: Neighborhoods Think about your neighborhood and its features like housing, schools, amenities, and safety.

What do you like and dislike about your neighborhood? How would you like to see it improve?

Prompt 3: Environment Lexington's environment is impacted by everything from recycling to our tree canopy and parks. What do you think should be done to protect the environment in Lexington?

Prompt 4: Jobs & Prosperity A number of factors contribute to a person's financial success, including education, jobs, and a community's cost of living. How can Lexington make it easier for everyone here to financially succeed?

Prompt 5: Transportation Getting around Lexington can be challenging whether you are driving, biking, walking, or using public transit. What do you think would make it easier to get around our city?

Prompt 6: Growth Lexington will grow and change significantly over the next 20 years, and new developments could be built downtown, along major roads, in existing neighborhoods, and on farmland. Where and how do you think new growth should happen in Lexington?

6

Take as much time as you need to have the conversation, but we find that anything longer than an hour gets tiring. Throughout the conversation, consider inviting people who have spoken less to jump in. The conversation might be difficult or challenging for some people, so try to make sure everyone is respectful of others.

When you are ready to wrap up, continue on below.

"Thank you all so much for that conversation! Now it's time to fill out the final survey question. If you're using a paper survey, it's at the bottom. If you took a digital survey, you can go to post.ottlex.org to complete it. As

Scan for the final survey question

you respond, think about if our conversation changed your mind or if you learned anything new."

Participants should now fill in the last question on the Participant Survey or navigate to post.ottlex.org on their smartphones. Once everyone has done this, it's time to thank everyone for coming and reminding them of the next steps.

"Thank you all again for participating in On the Table! Try to hold on to the things that were shared today. Remember, the input you provided will be used to inform Lexington's Comprehensive Plan, which will guide how Lexington grows and changes over the next 20 years. There will also be additional opportunities for input as the Comprehensive Plan is built and adopted by the city over the next two years.

As a reminder, all of the survey answers from today are anonymous. If you provided your email address, it will be unpaired from your survey responses. If you have any questions about On the Table you can reach out to the team who organizes it at info@ottlex.org. If you have any questions about the Comprehensive Plan, you can reach out to Lexington's Division of Planning at imagine@lexingtonky.gov.

7

What happens next?

If you used paper surveys, the next step is getting them turned in to our data team. To return them, you can send a photo of each page to info@ottlex.org or 859-536-1334, or you can find a handy drop-off point at ottlex.org/drop-off. Please return your survey by 5:00pm on Friday, April 22.

Once all the surveys are returned, our team will begin analyzing the data. For more information on what this means, visit ottlex.org/data. After the data is anonymized and processed, it will be sent to the Division of Planning for incorporation into the Comprehensive Plan. It will also be made public for anyone to access.

About On the Table & CivicLex On the Table is a project of CivicLex and is organized by a 36 person Advisory Group representing a variety of Lexington community organizations, educational institutions, and neighborhoods.

CivicLex is a non-partisan, non-profit civic organization that helps Lexington residents connect with and understand local government. Find out more about our work at: civiclex.org.

Want more info?

Powered by:

On the Table is supported by:

Visit us online at: ottlex.org

Call or text us: 859-536-1334

En español: es.ottlex.org

Kwa kiswahili: sw.ottlex.org

En français: fr.ottlex.org

ar.ottlex.org

On the Table 2022 Participant Survey Thank you for joining us for On the Table 2022!

On the Table is a week of conversations about Lexington's future and we need your voice at the table!

Your responses to this survey will be used to inform Lexington's 2023 Comprehensive Plan, an important city document that

Want more info?

Visit us online at: ottlex.org Call or text us: 859-536-1334

impacts everything about how Lexington grows - from housing to parks, traffic to local businesses.

Survey Process & Anonymity Each paper survey that we receive will be hand-typed into our digital database. If you can, we’d love it if you filled the survey out online at ottlex.org/survey.

Your responses provided will be anonymized and made part of our public data set. Your personal information will always be confidential and will never be shared.

If you use this paper survey, you'll have to return it to our data team. To do that, you can either send a photo/scan of each page to info@ottlex.org or 859-536-1334, or you can find a handy drop-off point at ottlex.org/drop-off. Please return your survey by 5:00pm on Friday, April 22.

En español: es.ottlex.org

En français: fr.ottlex.org

Kwa kiswahili: sw.ottlex.org ar.ottlex.org

Here's how this works: 1. Start by filling out the survey. In it, we’ll ask you a few questions about your vision for the future of Lexington.

2. After the survey, you'll have a conversation about your responses. What do you have in common with others at the table?

3. During your table conversation, remember that this is a space for dialogue, not debate. Speak only for yourself and listen to others. If someone says they have experienced something, believe them.

4. At the end of the conversation, there's one more question for you to answer - what did you learn from the conversation?

6. Remember, On the Table is an exercise in local democracy!

When you participate you are making your voice heard!

5. In the early summer, CivicLex will release data that summarizes what the public thinks about how Lexington is changing.

The City of Lexington will use this information to set goals for how the city grows and changes over the next 20+ years in their Comprehensive Plan.

Start here: What neighborhood/community do you live in?

Do you like living in your neighborhood?

Yes, I like living in my neighborhood.

I like living in my neighborhood, but it could use some changes.

No, I do not like living in my neighborhood

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

Do you think protecting the environment should be a high priority in Lexington?

What do you think should be done to protect the environment in Lexington?

Yes, I think protecting the environment should be a high priority I think protecting the environment is good, but it shouldn't be a high priority No, I don't think protecting the environment should be a high priority

Do you think Lexington is a place where everyone can succeed financially?

I think everyone can succeed financially in Lexington

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

I think that only some people can succeed financially in Lexington I think very few people can succeed financially in Lexington

Over the past 50 years, Lexington has been designed mostly for cars.

How important do you think it is for Lexington to prioritize other transportation options like walking, biking, and public transit vs cars over the next 20 years?

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

I think walking, biking, and public transit are more important for the city to prioritize I think it is equally important for the city to prioritize cars, walking, biking, and public transit I think it’s more important for the city to prioritize cars

Lexington is growing, and over the next 20 years, new developments could be built downtown, along major roads, in existing neighborhoods, and on farmland.

Do you think growth in Lexington is a good thing?

I think growth in Lexington is always a good thing I think growth in Lexington is a good thing, depending on how it happens I think growth in Lexington is a bad thing

Keep going!

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

Finally, think about Lexington as a whole. Do you like living or spending time in Lexington?

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

Yes, I like living/spending time in Lexington I like living/spending time in Lexington, but it could use some changes No, I do not like living/spending time in Lexington

answers are optional, but help us know how representative of Demographics These Lexington our survey responses are.

Age: Gender Male Female Non-Binary

Zip Code: Race/Ethnicity (Mark all that apply) Asian American Indian / Alaskan Native Black / African-American Hispanic / Latino Native Hawaiian / Pacific Islander White

Highest Level of Education Less than High School Diploma High School Diploma or equivalent Associate's Degree Bachelor's Degree Master's Degree More than Master's Degree

After the Conversation...

How was this experience for you? Did you learn anything new in your On the Table conversation? Did you change your mind about any of your answers? Let us know!

Email Your email address will only be used to provide results of this survey process. It will not be connected to any of your survey answers and will never be shared.

Appendix B On the Table CivicLex Data Set

Welcome to the On the Table Data Set! This April, thousands of Lexington residents gathered all across Fayette County to talk about Lexington's neighborhoods, environment, jobs, transportation, and land during On the Table. Each table included a survey that asked participants to answer multiple choice and open response questions about these topics. The following posters contain some of the data collected from this survey.

This is the largest publicly-available data set of local resident sentiment, with over 15,000 usable question responses and 20,000+ codes tagged. This amounts to over 50,000 data points about how Lexington is growing and changing.

Please Remember: this data is a work in progress!

There is lots of work left to do with this data set. To process all of this information, we read through every single response and assigned it one of 32 codes. We created these codes by reading a sample of 700 random question responses and grouping them into key topics.

However, each of our 32 codes reflects just that the theme or topic was raised in the response - not how people actually feel about those topics. Think about it this way... both "I want my neighborhood to have more trees" and "My neighborhood has too many trees" would both be tagged with the Trees code.

Why did we do this? The main reason is time, to keep up with the timeline of the Comprehensive Plan, we had to have all of our responses coded by theme by mid-May. Over the next 6 months, we plan to do a more robust sentiment analysis of this information, but luckily, this data is now officially available for anyone to start digging through and reading responses.

In short: the data does not reflect positive or negative feelings towards the codes - it just counts how many times they were mentioned.

If you want to support the continued analysis of this data, please consider donating to CivicLex today!

On the Table 2022 was supported by:

The Comprehensive Plan Survey data from On the Table and other inputs will be used to inform Imagine Lexington, Lexington's Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan is an important long-range planning document for the city of Lexington that is updated every five years.

The Comprehensive Plan governs how the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government makes policy around five key topics: neighborhoods, the environment, jobs & prosperity, transportation, and how we balance use of our rural and urban land. It affects everything from the cost of housing to parks, from what kind of jobs are available to where we put sidewalks and bike lanes.

Early Spring 2022 LFUCG Planning Staff gathers public input on community needs and plan themes.

Late Spring 2022 Planning Staff presents public input and other data to the Planning Commission, which is a resident board/

Want to learn more about the Comprehensive Plan?

Check out this video from Lexington's Division of Planning!

Summer 2022 - We are here!

The Planning Commission drafts Goals & Objectives, which are the guiding recommendations of the Comprehensive Late Summer / Early Fall 2022 The Planning Commission holds a public hearing on its draft Goals & Objectives, which is open for public comment. Residentrecommended changes are incorporated and recommended Fall / Early Winter 2022 CivicLex will release our full OTT Data report. Council reviews the Goals & Objectives, public input, and data/ research. The public can attend these meetings and provide comment.

2023 The Planning Staff drafts the Implementation Strategies for the Council-adopted Goals & Objectives, determining how the priorities in the Comprehensive Plan are enacted across Lexington.

Contact the Division of Planning to make your voice heard throughout the Comprehensive Plan process

Council Districts & Neighborhood Clusters

There are a lot of different ways to group the OTT Dataset. The two main methods that we used are Council Districts and Neighborhood Clusters. You can find your Council District with the

map below, or on LFUCG's website.

Survey Response by District

1

11

6

10 9

OTT Participation Percentage 0% - .5% 0.5% - 0.7% 0.7% - 0.85% 0.85% +

3

5 7

4

8

12

Neighborhood Clusters

Neighborhood Clusters

To understand resident sentiment by neighborhood, we organized each self-identified neighborhood response into one of 32 Neighborhood Clusters.

Open Response Codes

Number of Codes Applied

In addition to creating neighborhood clusters, we also created 32 open response codes, which we manually applied to every single open response answer (over 15,000!).

Respondent Demographics We estimate that about a quarter to one third of On the Table participants completed the survey. Of those who did complete the survey, the demographics were slightly more white, female, older, and more educated than Lexington overall.

Some respondents left demographic questions empty.

Age

Gender

Race/ Ethnicity

Education

Multiple Choice Answers The OTT survey contained six multiple choice questions related to the main themes of the Comprehensive Plan. These questions are not meant to be robust, standalone data it is best to think of them as context for the open response questions and codes displayed on the remaining posters.

1

Walkability, Bikability, and Accessibility

We assigned the Walkability, Bikability, and Accessibility code to any response that mentioned walking or biking trails, sidewalks (location, condition, or need for), bike lanes, or physical accessibility to walking or biking for people with disabilities (e.g. sidewalk condition, ramps, and curb height).

8% of all OTT codes

The neighborhoods that mentioned this code the most frequently were ...

With 1731 total mentions

1. Picadome / Pensacola - 20% of codes

2. Woodland / Chevy Chase - 20% of codes 3. Kenwick / Bell Court - 19% of codes 4. Liberty - 18% of codes

5. Lakeview / Chinoe - 15% of codes

6. Cardinal Valley / Alexandria - 14% of codes 7. Northside - 14% of codes

This code was mentioned in...

Coded Responses by Council District

37% of responses to the Transportation Question 14% of responses to the Neighborhoods Question 9% of responses to the Environment Question 8% of responses to the Lexington Overall Question

Quotes from Residents "More neighborhood amenities.

Being able to walk to grocery or have small businesses that are accessible ... Also bike lanes on Richmond Rd need improvement and protection. They are not cleaned regularly, trees block the path and it is too dangerous for me to ride my bike."

- Idle Hour Resident

"Better sidewalk and easement maintenance; many pedestrians use this neighborhood and it’s impossible for wheelchairs or people with disabilities to navigate."

- Northside Resident

"I would love to be more connected to nearby parks like McConnell Springs or the one across Versailles Road. The parks are so close but they are completely closed off to our neighborhood."

- Cardinal Valley Resident

Public Transportation

2

We assigned the Public Transportation code to any response that mentioned public transit or transportation by name, in addition to Buses, Trains, Trolleys, Bus Rapid Transit (BRT), Light rail, Ride shares, Bike Shares, and Scooters.

The neighborhoods that mentioned this code the most frequently were ...

7% of all OTT codes

1. Picadome / Pensacola - 18% of codes

With 1672 total mentions

2. Kenwick / Bell Court - 16% of codes

3. Woodland / Chevy Chase - 16% of codes

4. Cardinal Valley / Alexandria - 15% of codes 5. Liberty - 15% of codes

6. Lakeview / Chinoe - 15% of codes

7. Lansdowne / Glendover - 13% of codes Public Transportation was mentioned in...

Coded Responses by Council District

41% of responses to the Transportation Question 10% of responses to the Environment Question 4% of responses to the Lexington Overall Question 4% of responses to the Neighborhoods Question

Quotes from Residents "Lexington provides many job opportunities. Greatest problem is getting to the jobs due to the lack of sufficient public transportation."

"Transit that is easily accessible to all suburbs to encourage walking and less cars, as well as more bike and walking paths that extend outside of downtown. Public transit can become green as well."

"More ways to pay for public transportation, not everyone carries cash, need to be able to pay by debit card."

- Cardinal Valley Resident, 25

- Georgetown Street Resident - Student, Tates Creek High School "Make public transportation more "Better, shorter routes with Lextran."

- Lexington Resident, 49

accessible."

- Wyndham Resident, 53

Amenities & Quality of Life

3

We assigned the Amenities and Quality of Life code to any response that mentioned Neighborhood Facilities, General Food Access (grocery store, Farmer's Market), Events, Sense of Community, Public Art, Noise, and Neighborhood Associations. City parks and trails are not included in this code.

7% of all OTT codes

The neighborhoods that mentioned this code the most frequently were ...

1. Masterson / McConnell's Trace - 15% of codes

With 1567 total mentions

2. Georgetown Street - 14% of codes

3. Castlewood / Loudon - 14% of codes 4. Tates Creek - 14% of codes 5. Veterans - 13% of codes

6. Cardinal Valley / Alexandria - 13% of codes 7. Southland - 13% of codes

Coded Responses by Council District

This code was mentioned in...

29% of responses to the Lexington Overall Question 23% of responses to the Neighborhoods Question 5% of responses to the Urban/ Rural Balance Question

Quotes from Residents "A grocery store within walking distance! We have a nice park, walkable sidewalks, but there is no grocery store within waking distance. There are also no sidewalks from Red Mile to Versailles Road!"

"More diversity and some social events that would allow us to connect with our neighbors!"

"Access to entertainment for - Lansdowne seniors."

Resident - West End Resident, 82

- Gardenside Resident

"More than one entry/exit to the neighborhood, streets repaved, a community center for youth in the neighborhood."

- Winburn Resident, 32

4

Environmental Sustainability & Resiliency

We assigned the Environmental Sustainability & Resiliency code to any response that mentioned Emissions Reduction (including vehicles), Electric Vehicles, Carbon Footprint, Litter and Pollution, Green Regulations & Incentives, Green Energy, Green Infrastructure, and Native Plants.

6% of all OTT codes

The neighborhoods that mentioned this code the most frequently were ...

With 1224 total mentions

1. Gardenside - 12% of codes 2. Kenwick / Bell Court - 11% of codes 3. Picadome / Pensacola - 10% of codes 4. Kirklevington - 10% of codes 5. Castlewood / Loudon - 10% of codes 6. Tates Creek - 10% of codes 7. Bryan Station/ Eastland - 10% of codes

Coded Responses by Council District

This code was mentioned in...

37% of responses to the Environment Question 4% of responses to the Neighborhoods Question 4% of responses to the Transportation Question

Quotes from Residents "City-wide residential and business curbside composting, or minimally incentivize backyard/ neighborhood composting.

Connect residents to urban ecology through a more expansive community gardening program."

- Downtown Resident, 33

"Si yo pudiera daría consejería en la importancia del medio ambiente y el respeto la confianza ceguridad y la gratitud..."

"Translation: If I could, I would give advice on the importance of the environment and respect, trust, safety and gratitude.."

- Winburn Resident, 38

"Protect and expand our tree canopy with diverse tree species, particularly native trees. Reduce the areas that are mowed in our county parks and expand plant diversity in parks to aid our pollinators."

- Glendover Resident, 67

Style of Development

5

We assigned the Style of Development code to any response that mentioned a specific type of building development or characteristic, including Density (high or low), Aesthetics, Housing Options and Types, Sprawl, "Missing Middle" housing, Mixed Use, Single Family, Overlays, and ADUs.

5% of all OTT codes

The neighborhoods that mentioned this code the most frequently were ...

1. Liberty - 13% of codes

With 1137 total mentions

2. Kenwick / Bell Court - 13% of codes

3. Woodland / Chevy Chase - 12% of codes 4. Beaumont - 12% of codes

5. Picadome/Pensacola - 11% of codes 6. Downtown - 11% of codes 7. Wyndham - 10% of codes

Coded Responses by Council District

This code was mentioned in...

22% of responses to the Urban / Rural Balance Question 8% of responses to the Environment Question 7% of responses to the Neighborhoods Question

Quotes from Residents "We need high density, mixed use development in flexible zoning that is accessible via public transportation. We need cohousing--neighborhoods with private dwelling spaces, but also shared, common spaces ... nearby to groceries, schools, workplaces, shops, services."

- Castlewood Resident, 33

"Less rental properties and more family-owned homes" -Lakeview Resident, 51 "Less surface parking, more residential units."

- Downtown Resident, 43

"Wherever new growth occurs, it should be in context with the existing built environment. It is important to protect and preserve our beautiful rural land; we should give equal importance to protecting and preserving our existing vibrant neighborhoods."

- Picadome Resident, 70

6

Urban Greenspace

We assigned the Urban Greenspace code to any response that mentioned a Park or Urban Greenspace, including Greenways, Plazas, Community Gardens, Public/Private open space, Urban Habitat and Naturalized Areas, and Yards.

The neighborhoods that mentioned this code the most frequently were ...

4% of all OTT codes With 962 total mentions

1. Beaumont - 12% of codes 2. Southland - 9% of codes

3. Gardenside - 9% of codes

4. Cardinal Valley/ Alexandria - 9% of codes 5. Veterans - 9% of codes

6. Kenwick / Bell Court - 8% of codes 7. Wyndham - 8% of codes

Coded Responses by Council District

This code was mentioned in...

15% of responses to the Environment Question 10% of responses to the Neighborhoods Question 9% of responses to the Lexington Overall Question

Quotes from Residents "Continue to build parks, including pocket parks.

Continue to encourage public art: murals, statues, fountains and other types of waterways" - Ashland Resident, 73

"More street trees/greenways to get to places near me. The sidewalk on Man of War would be great to use more regularly, but the lack of street trees in the easement between the road and sidewalk makes it loud, hot, and sometimes scary to walk or bike down."

- Veterans Park Resident, 22

"More options for families in walking distance (playground, splash pad, community garden, walking trail, farmers market, etc)" - Gainesway Resident, 38

Housing Affordability

7

We assigned the Housing Affordability code to any response that mentioned Affordable Housing, Housing Affordability, Section 8, Government Housing and Funding, Vouchers, and Land Trusts.

The neighborhoods that mentioned this code the most frequently were ...

4% of all OTT codes With 827 total mentions

1. Liberty - 10% of codes

2. Meadowthorpe - 10% of codes

3. Kenwick / Bell Court - 10% of codes

4. Bryan Station / Eastland - 9% of codes 5. Stonewall - 8% of codes

6. Picadome / Pensacola - 8% of codes 7. Castlewood / Loudon - 8% of codes

Coded Responses by Council District

This code was mentioned in...

18% of responses to the Jobs & Prosperity Question 8% of responses to the Urban/ Rural Balance Question 4% of responses to the Lexington Overall Question 4% of responses to the Neighborhoods Question

Quotes from Residents "I would like the people who live in my neighborhood to have more of a voice of what their needs are. Affordable housing is a must!"

- Georgetown Street Resident, 62

"Being able to own my home rather than rent. The cost of very small homes is still astronomical."

-Garden Springs Resident, 36 "Policy and programs that help lift those who need affordable housing and higher paying jobs."

- Hartland Resident, 55

"I think affordable housing is a problem. Rent is rising and the quality of the housing isn’t in line with the rent. It takes an entire paycheck just to pay rent, let alone other bills, which still doesn’t include any leisure activities."

- Hamburg Resident, 29

Appendix C Community Organization Input Materials

Proposal for 3.7-mile l Light Rail Line By Peggy Somsel Rebecca Glasscock Representing the Pensacola Park Neighborhood Association

We are proposing a 3.7-mile light rail transit line, with the north terminus at Cooper and Nicholasville Road and the south terminus at Man ‘O War and Nicholasville Road.

Our neighborhood was pleased that LFUCG invested in studying the Nicholasville Road corridor: Imagine Nicholasville Road. A plethora of citizen comments were submitted. These comments were evaluated and are now being considered. Our focus today is on traffic congestion, particularly on Nicholasville Road and more generally throughout Fayette County.

As reported on February 15, 2022, the National Transportation Research Nonprofit (TRIP) calculated the hidden costs of traffic and poorly maintained road in central Kentucky. The TRIP study estimated that, in Lexington:  The average motorist wastes 19 gallons of fossil fuel each year, while stalled in traffic.  Being struck in traffic is costly, amounting to an $809 expense per year per motorist.  The average motorist spends $306 per year maintaining their car, with some of the expense related to potholes and other road damage.  While a lot of effort is expended maintaining the streets and roads, 7% are considered in poor condition and 13% are rated as mediocre.  On average, 68 people per year die in traffic accidents. The cost of these crashes is spread throughout the community, with each driver bearing an extra cost of almost $400 per year.  Put together, drivers lose over $1,500 per year to roads that are rough, congested, and lacking in needed safety features.

On Nicholasville Road, 68% travel by private vehicle, 19% walk, 8% bike, and 4% travel via LexTran buses. Mirroring the results of the TRIP study, Imagine Nicholasville Road listed 15 concerns with the road, including congestion (especially at rush hour and during UK events), dangerous/unsafe stretches, and inefficient/poorly planned areas. Envisioned is a safe, efficient road that is accessible, uncongested, walkable, bikeable and greener.

1

One suggestion to accomplish the goal of safety and efficiency is to improve the bus system. More routes and a lane for buses only were two of the suggestions. With more routes, the buses would still be in traffic, impeding other vehicles with frequent stops. A dedicated lane would be preferable. While public opinion isn’t particularly favorable, at least at this time, to riding the bus, there is a notable exception. LexTran’s two loops around UK’s campus are very popular. Why? Because the buses come every few minutes, the bus shelters are covered, and the buses travel where people need to go.

Over the last few years, Lexington’s population has been increasing by around 1% per year.

While that increase doesn’t seem like much, a consistent 1% rate of increase would double Lexington’s population in 70 years. Adjacent counties, often with lower housing prices, are also experiencing increasing populations, and many of these residents are commuting to Lexington for work. What a headache, trying to facilitate smooth transportation into, out of, and around Lexington. Perhaps we need to expand our vision for Nicholasville Road.

For context, let me share a bit of history. In the first half of the 20th century, our country had an efficient, well-used, and even beloved system of streetcars in cities and towns, large and small. In Lexington, first came the Omnibuses in 1874. These buses, that looked like big stage coaches, offered rides for five cents. Horse-drawn streetcars made their appearance in 1882 and then the electric streetcars came on line in 1890. The first Interurban ran between Lexington and Georgetown in 1902. By 1910, there were additional lines: to Nicholasville, Versailles, and Paris. Lexington’s peak year for streetcar ridership was 1926, when our streetcars carried 7 million passengers. Keep in mind that, in 1920, Lexington’s population was only 41,534.

Cheap oil and the private automobile killed the streetcars. It is well documented that General Motors played a key role in destroying our country’s rail systems, promoting in Lexington and elsewhere the idea that buses could be (or would be) more economical than streetcars. From 1926 to 1932, Lexington’s streetcar ridership declined by 40%. On April 21, 1938, the last of Lexington’s streetcars pulled into the bone yard.

The buses didn’t live up to their promotion, but the private automobile was General Motors’ real end-game anyway. In 1924, 3.7 million automobiles were produced in the United States.

During the 1950s, 58 million were produced. As of 2021, there are an estimated 289.5 million private vehicles on American streets and roads, clogging the roads and polluting the air.

The streetcar, generally called light rail today, needs to be put back on the table for consideration. Light rail is expensive, so we suggest starting with Nicholasville Road, which bears exceedingly high traffic volume during much of the day. A 3.7-mile line, with a dedicated lane on the east side of Nicholasville Road, would run between Cooper Drive and Man ‘O War. 2

The rationale for the north terminus is that the LexTran loops that serve UK turn at the intersection of Cooper Drive and Nicholasville Road, allowing an easy connection between the bus and the rail. As for the south terminus, large areas (potentially) for Park and Rides are available near this intersection. Smaller Park and Ride areas might be arranged in front of Malibu Jack’s, the Zandale Center, and others.

Already 30 U.S. cities have reinvested in light rail, including Cincinnati, Atlanta, Charlotte (NC), Memphis, and Little Rock. Besides the visual appeal of light rail, there are economic benefits.

Studies indicate that for every $10 million of transit investment, business sales increase by $30 million dollars. Residential properties located within proximity of the light rail tend to become 42% more valuable, thus generating greater tax revenue. Light rail reduces individuals' travel time due to less congestion, and yes, there’s a little walking involved, which tends to make people happier and healthier. Transportation is responsible for generating significant quantities of air pollutants, so an electrified light rail system would help our community reduce its pollution load, and the attending adverse health effects.

Over the past five years, 77% of transit funding ballot initiatives in the United States have demonstrated a high level of support. As gas prices fluctuate, but trend upward, light rail is likely to become even more desirable. Finally, light rail can be good for our mental health and well-being: people can relax, read, and socialize. As with the bus system, light rail would add an option for lower income individuals.

At the end of WWII, the streetcar systems in both Europe and the United States were in desperate need of repair and upgrades. Europe invested in keeping their light rail alive. We lost that opportunity, but it has come again. Light rail technology is well-advanced and Lexington would be well-served to begin considering investment before our current transportation system buckles down under the stress of an increasing population. Development means taking what we have and making it better. We had light rail once and it was very successful. It’s time to consider it again.

Light Rail Transit definition, by Transportation Research Board A metropolitan electric railway system characterized by its ability to operate single cars or short trains along exclusive rights of way at ground level, on aerial structures, in subways, or occasionally, in streets, and to board and discharge passengers at track or car-floor level.

3

Potential funding sources Statement from the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act: Predicable, reliable funding is the foundation for success for transportation in Kentucky, and the IIJA would help us continue to deliver quality transportation all across the Commonwealth.

From the Federal Transit Administration, federal programs that support public transportation (as of March 10, 2022): Competitive Programs  Rebuilding American Infrastructure with Sustainability and Equity (RAISE)  Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and Safety Improvements (CRISI)  Railroad Crossing Elimination Program Federal Loan Programs  

Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) program Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing (RRIF)

Flexible Funding for Transit and Highway Improvement   

Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) program Surface Transportation Block Grant (STBG) National Highway Performance Program (NHPP)

Also, General Motors destroyed the streetcars. Maybe Toyota will help rebuild them.

Informal Survey of Pensacola Park Neighbors Of twelve responses, ten indicated support for a light rail system. Comments included:  Would ride to avoid parking hassles. Need commuter parking to relieve congestion.

Work with UK and hospitals, and city offices to offer incentives for their employees at the commuter parking spaces.  Not exactly sure what it is, but would potentially use it to get to and from work at UK.  Thinks its ridiculous. No one uses public transport. No one will stop using their cars.

Lexington has many problems not being addressed.  Less pollution, lower carbon emissions, builds community, and less congestion. Would use for shopping and entertainment. Just having the system would make me want to use it. Let’s do it!  I might change my mind in the future, but I really do not think I would use a light rail service out of safety concerns.

4





If this can reduce congestion and mitigate the effects of vehicle pollution, I think it’s an option worth exploring. As a newcomer to Lexington, there are lots of benefits I can imagine, including reduce commuting times on weekdays as well as fewer parking issues and traffic hassles on game days.

I already take the bus to work. All for public transportation option that more of my neighbors will use.

Great Transit Systems in the U.S.

Ten cities with populations above 50,000 but less than one million have transit ridership* in excess of 50 per year. All these cities share a commonality with Lexington: they support a large university. #1. #2. #3. #4. #5. #6. #7. #8. #9. #10.

Ames, Iowa: 101.1 Champaign-Urbana, IL: 79.0 Ithaca, NY: 78.9 Honolulu, HI: 78.0 (the outlier) State College, PA: 73.3 San Marcos, TX: 57.3 Athens, GA: 56.4 Blacksburg, VA: 55.3 Davis, CA: 51.4 Iowa City, IA: 50.6

The larger cities with high ridership are: New York, NY: 233.3 San Francisco, CA: 136.1 Boston, MA: 89.3 Washington, DC: 88.6 Seattle, WA: 71.5 Chicago, IL: 63.7 Philadelphia, PA: 60.1 Portland, OR: 58.8 * Ridership = Unlinked trips per capita

5

2019 American Public Transportation Association Report        

In 1997: 52 rail systems. In 2017, 88. Since 1997, ridership has increased over 60%.

Since 1997, U.S. population has increased 19% while public transit ridership has increased 21%.

When the report was prepared, 47% of public transit trips were by bus and 48% were by rail.

Over the past 30 years, light rail has become 33% more efficient in terms of kilowatt hours per vehicle mile.

Public transit has become more accessible. In 1993, 41% were handicap accessible. As of 2018, 89% were.

An estimated 4.1 billion gallons of gas per year saved by using public transportation.

Four dollars in economic returns are generated for every $1 invested in public transit.

Each $1 billion investment in public transit supports 50,000 jobs and $642 million in tax revenue.

Imagine Nicholasville Road

Light rail is consistent with the benefits outlined in the Imagine Nicholasville Road, including landscaping to add aesthetics, reduce heat island effects, minimize upkeep, calm traffic, and provide a traffic/pedestrian buffer; pedestrian scale lighting; separated bike paths; and calming traffic by narrowing the lanes and other means.

6

5/19/2022

W H O W E ARE • Founded in 2006 • We are a non-profit dedicated to achieving smart growth in Lexington-Fayette County through land-use advocacy, education, and research.

• Our vision: Lexington-Fayette County will be the model for sustainable, equitable growth by balancing and connecting our vibrant city with our productive and beautiful Bluegrass farmland.

FAYETTE ALLIANCE

Growing our city, Promoting our farms

1

5/19/2022

ADVOCACY We advocate at City Hall to positively impact planning and zoning laws for smart growth, including policies that promote community-driven investment and discourage displacement.

EDUCATION We educate community members and policy-writers about how and why smart growth can improve quality of life for all our neighbors.

RESEARCH We fund research to provide objective data to support our advocacy work and inform decisions around land use policy in Lexington-Fayette County.

FAYETTE ALLIANCE

Growing our city, Promoting our farms

2023 Comprehensive Plan SMART GROWTH Priorities

FAYETTE ALLIANCE

Growing our city, Promoting our farms

2

5/19/2022

Fayette Alliance GrowSmart Plan • Policy Map • Illustration of Placebuilder categories • Specifically identify areas with the most potential and opportunity for growth but still allow flexibility • I/R policy map update and zoning updates to match • Maximize Housing Production • Audit of existing planning & zoning policy to maximize housing production in infill & redevelopment areas • Create urban zoning classifications aimed at non-residential redevelopment areas that allow flexibility • Proactively apply zoning classifications to intended redevelopment areas, specifically those with Small Area Plans (with community input) • Encourage complete communities in Expansion Areas

FAYETTE ALLIANCE

Growing our city, Promoting our farms

FAYETTE ALLIANCE

Growing our city, Promoting our farms

3

5/19/2022

Using Infill to Meet Housing Needs • To make housing more affordable for all, we need more types of housing at more price points close to where people work and play

• Single family homes on small lots, duplexes, triplexes, and more “missing middle” housing • Demographic preference for smaller homes in walkable areas closer to jobs and services • Development near transit – in Lexington, transportation costs account for 24% of an average person’s income.

Where development occurs is critical to overall affordability and access

FAYETTE ALLIANCE

Growing our city, Promoting our farms

Fayette Alliance GrowSmart Plan • Quality of Life Strategy • Plan for utility and quality of life investments in major redevelopment corridors, particularly to encourage more housing production • Adopt updated Quality of Life investment plan, Transit plan, Bike/Ped plan and more into 2023 Comp Plan to formalize overall QOL strategy • Transportation Planning • Prioritize policies which encourage transit-oriented and walkable development • Maximize development and small area plans on major transit corridors which can accommodate growth

FAYETTE ALLIANCE

Growing our city, Promoting our farms

4

5/19/2022

Sustainable Growth Study • Maintain existing Urban Service Boundary/Urban Service Area based upon data from Sustainable Growth Study • Annual growth and development tracking in 2022 and beyond based upon foundational data from Sustainable Growth Study • Maximize development on existing land inside USA and expansion areas • Phase 2 of Sustainable Growth Study • Complete additional analyses regarding infrastructure, community facilities and rural resources outside USB to make informed decisions about future growth • Next steps?

FAYETTE ALLIANCE

Growing our city, Promoting our farms

SMART GROWTH IS EQUITABLE GROWTH • Ensure equity is a key part of 2023 Comp Plan Update • Consider recommendations of Neighborhoods in Transition Task Force and Mayor’s Commission on Racial Justice – Housing & Gentrification Sub-Committee for additional research and tangible policies

FAYETTE ALLIANCE

Growing our city, Promoting our farms

5

5/19/2022

Protect Our Rural Resources • 1 out of every 12 jobs is directly attributed to agriculture • Our ag sector contributes $2.3B to our economy, $8.5M to our annual tax base and generates an additional $1.3B in income, profits, and dividends annually • Farmland anchors a $2B tourism industry and 12,000 tourism related jobs • Our landscape builds our cultural brand, attracts employers, employees and supports our quality of life

FAYETTE ALLIANCE

Growing our city, Promoting our farms

JOBS AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Prioritize policies which activate existing land to promote job growth • Policies which promote use of 250 acres LFUCG received in UK land swap for economic development • NAI Isaac reports 978, 902 sq ft vacant office and 1,383,129 sq ft vacant industrial and retail space • Per LFUCG Sustainable Growth Study, 51 vacant parcels of 1-4 acres (totaling 115 acres) zoned light industrial for employer opportunities

FAYETTE ALLIANCE

Growing our city, Promoting our farms

6

5/19/2022

THE QUESTION IS NOT IF WE GROW, IT’S HOW

FAYETTE ALLIANCE

Growing our city, Promoting our farms

TAKE ACTION • Smart Growth Ambassador program • Grow Smart Academy 2.0: Making Your Voice Heard for Sustainable Growth • Tuesday, March 29th from 5:30-7pm at the Lyric Theatre • Coalition for a Livable Lexington: Affordable Housing 101 • Tuesday, April 5th from 5:30-7:30 at the Lyric Theatre • On The Table – Public Session • Thursday, April 14th from 5:30-7 at Charles Young Comm Ctr • Follow us on: Instagram - @FayetteAlliance Facebook - @TheFayetteAlliance

FAYETTE ALLIANCE

Growing our city, Promoting our farms

7

5/19/2022

QUESTIONS?

FAYETTE ALLIANCE

Growing our city, Promoting our farms

Thank you Planning Staff!

Brittany Roethemeier, J.D. Executive Director brittany@fayettealliance.com Stan Harvey, FAICP Lord Aeck Sargent Stan.harvey@lordaecksargent.com Board Member, Fayette Alliance

FAYETTE ALLIANCE

Growing our city, Promoting our farms

8

Urban Trees and the Comprehensive Plan Comments from Trees Lexington!

Lexington has an urgent need to preserve and enhance our urban forest, which will require a coordinated effort between government agencies, development professionals, members of the public, and local organizations (like Trees Lexington!).

Trees are clearly important to the Comprehensive Plan. They are mentioned in the current comprehensive plan in various locations, both directly and indirectly. Here are some potential reference points: Goals & Objectives Theme A, Goal 3: Provide well-designed neighborhoods and communities.

Objective D: Promote, maintain, and expand the urban forest throughout Lexington.

Theme B, Goal 2: Reduce Lexington-Fayette County’s carbon footprint.

Objective A: Continue programs and initiatives to improve energy efficiency.

Objective B: Anticipate the community's needs by encouraging environmentally sustainable uses of natural resources.

Theme D, Goal 2: Support a model of development that focuses on people-first to provide accessible community facilities and services to meet the health, safety and quality of life needs of Lexington-Fayette County’s residents and visitors.

Objective A: Encourage public safety and social sustainability by supporting Secured-by-Design concepts and other policies and programs for the built and natural environments of neighborhoods to help reduce opportunities for crimes.

Policies Theme A, Design Policy #5: Provide pedestrian-friendly street patterns and walkable blocks to create inviting streetscapes.

Theme B, Protection Policy #2: Conserve environmentally sensitive areas, including significant natural habitats, wetlands and water bodies.

Theme B, Protection Policy #7: Protect sensitive streams, natural habitats and wildlife in the Urban Service Area; protect the urban forest and significant tree canopies as crucial ecological networks.

Theme B, Sustainability Policy #13: Expand collaboration for existing environmentally-focused agencies on sustainability programs and follow through on implementation.

Theme B, Restoration Policy #1: Protect and recover Lexington’s urban forest by strategically planning new trees and creating walkable streetscapes.

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

Theme D, Connectivity Policy #6: Take a holistic approach to designing context-sensitive streets, addressing them within the framework of the countywide network, land use context, and the needs of all users.

Theme D, Support Policy #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 and anxiety.

Criteria A-DS5-2: Roadways should provide a vertical edge, such as trees and buildings.

A-DS5-4: Development should provide a pedestrian-oriented and activated ground level.

B-PR7-2: Trees should be incorporated into development plans; prioritize grouping of trees to increase survivability.

B-PR7-3: Developments should improve the tree canopy B-RE1-1: Developments should incorporate street trees to create a walkable streetscape.

D-CO5-1: Streets should be designed with shorter block lengths, narrower widths, and traffic calming features.

Opportunities for improvement 1. Tree Loss and Removal Trees being cut down during new development projects. There is little incentive for developers to preserve trees on a site with existing regulations. Grading restrictions may need to be addressed to help preserve trees.

Outside of historic areas, there are few protections for significant or historic trees on public or private property in Lexington. There are notes about protection of significant trees in the ordinance, but there is little enforcement on a parcel by parcel basis. Consider broader tree protection ordinance.

Minimal protection of trees near riparian areas (land near our creeks, streams, waterbodies, etc.).

Need better buffer area (no mow zone) and enhancement when development occurs near these sites.

There is no mitigation program or tree bank program in place to offset tree losses or to provide on option for developers working on constrained sites.

2. Tree Care Great arborist team at the Division of Environmental Services. Mixed skill level among landscaping crews and contractors.

Education and supervision are needed to ensure long-term tree survival. Most benefit is received from trees surviving over 15 years.

Encourage greater collaboration between government divisions and community organizations regarding tree care.

3. New Tree Installation Incentivize planting trees in yards instead of utility strips.

Greater tree species diversity will help reduce the impact of pests and disease.

Trees planted for new development are often planted incorrectly, not maintained, and lack vitality. Currently, there is little to no enforcement on having required canopy be replaced if the initial trees die. This is a particular issue with trees in parking lots or commercial areas.

Landscaper Examiner position should be filled and funded.

Adopt uniform tree planting standards across the city. Illustration attached.

Soil quality and volume are extremely important for tree longevity. There are currently no soil volume requirements for trees in constrained sites such as planting easements or parking lots.

Tree cost share program (dead street tree removal and replacement) should be fully funded and additional resources dedicated to increase tree planting.

4. Information and Progress Tracking Currently, there is no system for inventorying or monitoring trees installed or preserved on new development sites, meaning there is little information about how much (or how little) those sites end up contributing to overall canopy goals. The PlanIt Geo subscription as part of the 2022 UTC should help, but software tools will be needed beyond the two-year subscription.

How Trees Lexington! Might Contribute Communicating the significant value of trees to multiple stakeholders.

Providing education for development professionals on how trees fit in with site design and construction and value of trees in the urban landscape.

Tree installation and care workshops for landscapers.

Educating homeowners on the importance of preserving large trees on their property and/or replacing the canopy if a tree on their property needs to be removed.

Providing “tree expert” input at Public Hearings for zone change proposals, development plans, and subdivision plans that involve sites with notable trees or significant canopy.

Encouraging homeowners to contribute public input to Planning Staff, the Planning Commission, and the Urban County Council as it relates to tree preservation and canopy enhancement during the development process.

Meeting with Planning Division Staff and the Bluegrass Climate Action Team: A Conversation about Lexington’s Future Growth Tuesday, April 5 (10:30-11:30AM) Bluegrass Climate Action Team Representatives: Judith Humble (Chair); Lane Boldman; Catherine Clement Outline: 1. Introduction to Bluegrass Climate Action Team 2. Current Status of Climate Change: • Latest IPCC Report • Impact on US and Kentucky (What’s happening now, what is predicted) • NOAA Map: Present status of states and predictions for future consequences and future costs • Importance of land-use decisions in Climate Change Mitigation: We must rethink our relationship to land!

3. Our purpose in meeting with you: To discuss concerns about proposed expansion of the Urban Services Boundary and Lexington’s future plans for growth 4. Our Findings on Urban Expansion/Urban Sprawl: • Urban expansion dramatically increases GHG Emissions • Urban expansion in cities is costly to both city governments and residents • Housing in areas of expansion increases burden to residents via increased cost of transportation and decreased access to services • Expansion with a low-density model is associated with increased health costs as well as unintended consequences 5. Alternative affordable housing designs focused on densification and access to services are recommended, and are being increasingly researched by growing cities.

6. Other individuals and organizations in support (including developers) 7. Our ASKS: (1) Make all feasible efforts to maintain the current Urban Services Boundary in the revised Comprehensive Plan; (2) Evaluate future development in our city in terms of Greenhouse Gas Emissions (3) Lead Lexington in the direction of densification and a “peoplefirst” orientation to city planning.

8. How can concerned citizens help our city implement these recommendations about densification and land use?

9. Your thoughts about Lexington’s future growth?

Contact: Judith Humble, Chair: judith.humble@yahoo.com or (859) 576-0002

RESOURCE LIST FOR BCAT MEETING WITH PLANNING DIVISION STAFF CLIMATE CHANGE RESEARCH •Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Climate Change 2022: Impact, Adaptations and Vulnerability: Summary for Policy Makers (Feb. 2022) https://report.ipcc.ch/ar6wg2/pdf/IPCC_AR6_WGII_SummaryForPolicymakers.pdf •IPCC 2022 Report: Fact Sheet for North America https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/downloads/outreach/IPCC_AR6_WGII_FactSheet_NorthAmerica.pdf •IPCC 2022 Report Headlines https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/resources/spm-headline-statements/ •NOAA State Climate Summaries https://search.yahoo.com/yhs/search?hspart=trp&hsimp=yhs001&grd=1&type=Y149_F163_202167_011322&p=NOAA+State+Climate+Summaries

*Temperatures in Kentucky have risen .06 degrees since the beginning of the 20th century, less than half the warming of the contiguous states, but the warmest consecutive interval of temperatures has been from 2016-2020. With higher emissions pathway, historically unprecedented warming trends are projected for this century, with increases in heat waves and decreases in cold waves. *Total annual precipitation events have been above average since 2000. Annual precipitation events are expected to increase in frequency and severity. *Increases in evaporation rates due to higher temperatures may lead to more naturally occurring droughts.

FINANCIAL COSTS OF CLIMATE CHANGE AND FOSSIL FUEL POLLUTION •Technical Support Document: Social Cost of Carbon, Methane, and Nitrous Oxide. 2021 https://www.whitehouse.gov/wpcontent/uploads/2021/02/TechnicalSupportDocument_SocialCostofCarbonMethaneNitrousOxide.pdf •Public Health Benefits per kWh of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy in the United States: A Technical Report https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2021-05/documents/bpk_report_second_edition.pdf •The Cost of Air Pollution https://www.oecd.org/env/the-cost-of-air-pollution-9789264210448-en.htm •Economic Impacts: Climate Change 101 for business leaders, 2021 https://www2.deloitte.com/us/en/insights/topics/strategy/economic-impact-climate-change.html GWG AND FOSSIL FUEL IMPACTS OF EXPANSION AND LOW-DENSITY DESIGN, and SUGGESTED ALTERNATIVE, LOWER IMPACT URBAN DESIGNS. (Many of these solutions promote affordable housing, affordability and equity).

•We Can’t Beat the Climate Crisis without Rethinking Land https://www.brookings.edu/research/we-cant-beat-the-climate-crisis-without-rethinking-land-use/ •Release: Urban sprawl costs US economy more than $1 trillion per year https://newclimateeconomy.net/content/release-urban-sprawl-costs-us-economy-more-1-trillion-year

*“The most sprawled cities spend an average of $750 on infrastructure per person annually; denser cities spend closer to $500.” *“Sprawl raises the cost of infrastructure by 10-40% by increasing the distance between homes, jobs and services. *“Smarter urban growth strategies could reduce urban infrastructure capital requirements by over $3 trillion in the next 15 years.”

1

•Rethinking Urban Sprawl: Moving Toward Sustainable Cities. https://www.oecd.org/environment/toolsevaluation/Policy-Highlights-Rethinking-Urban-Sprawl.pdf •Slowing Urban Sprawl Can Also Slow Climate Change https://gbdmagazine.com/slowing-urban-sprawl/ •Why Sprawl Could Be the Next Big Climate Change Battle https://www.npr.org/2020/08/06/812199726/why-sprawl-could-be-the-next-big-climate-change-battle •ACEEE The 2021 City Clean Energy Scorecard https://www.aceee.org/researchreport/u2107#:~:text=The%20sixth%20ACEEE%20City%20Clean,equity%20in%20development%20and%20deliv ery.

•New Studies Measure the Cost of Urban Sprawl, and it’s More Than You Think https://www.treehugger.com/new-studies-measure-true-cost-sprawl-and-its-more-you-think-4856771 .•A Road Map to Sustainable and Equitable Implementation of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act https://static1.squarespace.com/static/53cab2c3e4b0207d2957d0d2/t/6241f95ab9705d250f643595/1648490842690/I IJA+Implementation+Explainer.pdf •Urban Land Use and Cost of Public Services https://www.ezview.wa.gov/Portals/_1995/Documents/Documents/Exhibit%20%23J1%20%20Futurewise_UrbanSprawl.pdf *“The findings of this analysis represent substantive evidence that, at least from the standpoint of public finance, a more compact urban form is a desirable planning goal.”

•Suburban Sprawl Cancels Carbon Footprint Savings of Dense Urban Core https://news.berkeley.edu/2014/01/06/suburban-sprawl-cancels-carbon-footprint-savings-of-dense-urban-cores/ *“Suburbs account for about 50% or all household emissions – largely carbon dioxide- in the US.” •World Economic Forum: 10 Ways Cities are Tackling the Affordable Housing Crisis https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/06/10-ways-cities-are-tackling-the-global-affordable-housing-crisis/ •How Energy Efficiency Can Affect Low Income Households In Kentucky. https://www.aceee.org/sites/default/files/pdf/fact-sheet/ses-kentucky-100917.pdf •Pedestrians First: Tools for a walkable city https://pedestriansfirst.itdp.org/ • National equity atlas https://nationalequityatlas.org/indicators/Car_access#/?geo=07000000002146027

*A factoid from this resource is that 20% of black households in Fayette County do not own a car. More broadly 15% of people of color households do not own a car. (For population as whole 8% households do not own a car).

• Aging Population Needs Walkable Bikable Cities, https://www.cnu.org/publicsquare/2020/03/05/aging-population-needs-walkable-bikeable-cities.

*A quote from this According to Jana Lynott, senior strategic policy adviser with the AARP Public Policy Institute, we outlive our driving years by on average a decade.1 One in five people over 65 don’t drive. By age 80, 65 percent are no longer driving, while only 40 percent have difficulty walking. Seniors eventually have to give up driving even as they are still able to walk.

PEOPLE IN FAYETTE COUNTY CARE •Yale Climate Opinion Fact Sheet, Fayette County KY https://bit.ly/3Dua2lp•

2

Messages from IPCC Report (Feb. 2022)

SPM.D.5.3 The cumulative scientific evidence is unequivocal: Climate change is a threat to human well-being and planetary health. Any further delay in concerted anticipatory global action on adaptation and mitigation will miss a brief and rapidly closing window of opportunity to secure a liveable and sustainable future for all. (very high confidence) (P. 35) D5: It is unequivocal that climate change has already disrupted human and natural systems. Past and current development trends (past emissions, development and climate change) have not advanced global climate resilient development (very high confidence). Societal choices and actions implemented in the next decade determine the extent to which medium- and long-term pathways will deliver higher or lower climate resilient development (high confidence). Importantly climate resilient development prospects are increasingly limited if current greenhouse gas emissions do not rapidly decline, especially if 1.5°C global warming is exceeded in the near term (high confidence). These prospects are constrained by past development, emissions and climate change, and enabled by inclusive governance, adequate and appropriate human and technological resources, information, capacities and finance (high confidence).

D3: Interactions between changing urban form, exposure and vulnerability can create climate change- induced risks and losses for cities and settlements. However, the global trend of urbanisation also offers a critical opportunity in the near-term, to advance climate resilient development (high confidence). Integrated, inclusive planning and investment in everyday decision-making about urban infrastructure, including social, ecological and grey/physical infrastructures, can significantly increase the adaptive capacity of urban and rural settlements. Equitable outcomes contribute to multiple benefits for health and well-being and ecosystem services, including for Indigenous Peoples, marginalized and vulnerable communities (high confidence). Climate resilient development in urban areas also supports adaptive capacity in more rural places through maintaining peri-urban supply chains of goods and services and financial flows (medium confidence). Coastal cities and settlements play an especially important role in advancing climate resilient development (high confidence).

Bluegrass Climate Action Team: April 5, 2022

SIXTH ASSESSMENT REPORT Working Group II – Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability

Fact sheet - North America Climate Change Impacts and Risks Observed and projected climate change impacts Accelerating climate change hazards have adversely affected the wellbeing of North American populations and pose substantial risks to the natural, managed, and human systems on which they depend (high confidence). {ES-Ch14} Even if global warming is limited to 1.5°C, human life, safety, and livelihoods across North America, especially in coastal areas will be placed at risk from sea level rise (SLR), severe storms, and hurricanes (very high confidence). {14.6.2}

Ecosystems Rising air, water, ocean, and ground temperatures have restructured ecosystems and contributed to documented redistribution (very high confidence) and mortality (high confidence) of plant, fish, bird, mammal and other faunal species. Climatedriven changes are particularly pronounced within Arctic ecosystems (very high confidence). {ES-Ch14} Escalating climate change impacts on marine, freshwater, and terrestrial ecosystems (high confidence) will alter ecological processes (high confidence) and amplify other anthropogenic threats to protected and iconic species and habitats (high confidence). {ES-Ch14}

Health Climate change has negatively affected human health and wellbeing in North America (very high confidence). High temperatures have increased mortality and morbidity (very high confidence), with the severity of impacts influenced by age, gender, location, and socioeconomic conditions (very high confidence). {ES-Ch14} Health risks are projected to increase this century under all future emissions scenarios (very high confidence) but the magnitude and severity of impacts depends on the implementation and effectiveness of adaptation strategies (very high confidence).

Warming is projected to increase heat related mortality (very high confidence) and morbidity (medium confidence). {ES-Ch14}

Economic activity Extreme events and climate hazards are adversely affecting multiple economic activities across North America and have disrupted supply-chain infrastructure and trade (high confidence). {ES-Ch14} Under current economic and consumption trends and paradigms, climate change impacts are projected to cause large market and non-market damages (high confidence) across North America. {14.6.2}

Food Climate-induced redistribution and declines in North American food production are a risk to food and nutritional security (very high confidence). Climate change will continue to shift North American agricultural and fishery suitability ranges (high confidence) and intensify production losses of key crops (high confidence), livestock (medium confidence), fisheries (high confidence), and aquaculture products (medium confidence). {ES-Ch14}

Water Heavy exploitation of limited water supplies, especially in the western US and northern Mexico, and deteriorating freshwater management infrastructure, have heightened water security impacts and risks (high confidence). {ES-Ch14} Intensified droughts and earlier runoff from diminished snowpack will increase water scarcity during the summer peak water demand period especially in regions with extensive irrigated agriculture, leading to economic losses and increased pressures on limited groundwater as a substitute for diminished surface water supplies (medium to high confidence). {14.6.2}

Cities and Settlements North American cities and settlements have been affected by increasing severity and frequency of climate-induced hazards and extreme events (high confidence) which has contributed to cascading effects of infrastructure damage, loss of services and economic activity, damage to heritage resources, safety concerns and disrupted livelihoods. Impacts are particularly apparent for Indigenous Peoples for whom culture, identity, commerce, health and wellbeing are closely connected to a resilient environment (very high confidence). {ES-Ch14} Coastal, riverine, and urban flooding affecting communities and ecosystems will become a dominant risk to urban centres (high confidence), displacing people, compromising economic activity, disrupting transportation and trade infrastructure. Large wildfires will increasingly endanger lives, livelihoods, mental and physical health, property, key infrastructure, and economic activities and contribute to compromised air quality and municipal water contamination with multiple human health implications (high confidence). {14.6.2}

1

SIXTH ASSESSMENT REPORT Working Group II – Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability

Figure 1: Rapid assessment of relative risk by sector (y axis) and climate hazards (x-axis) for North America based on an assessment of asset specific vulnerability and exposure across climate hazards (See SM14.3 for methodological details). For each unique combination, the hazard by sector risk was ranked as very high (very high risk and high confidence), high (significant impacts and risk, high to medium confidence), medium (impacts are detectable and attributable to climate change, medium confidence), low or not detected (risk is low or not detectable). Blank cells are those where the assessment was not applicable or not conducted. Risks identified through the rapid assessment were further evaluated in the chapter assessments (see corresponding sector text for full assessment of risk and impacts). {Figure 14.11}

Adaptation Options and Barriers Adaptation options

Barriers Despite scientific certainty of the anthropogenic influence on climate change {SPM WGI}, misinformation and politicization of climate change science has created polarization in public and policy domains in North America, limiting climate action (high confidence). Vested interests have generated rhetoric and misinformation that undermines climate science and disregards risk and urgency (medium confidence). Resultant public misperception of climate risks and polarized public support for climate actions is delaying urgent adaptation planning and implementation (high confidence). {ES-Ch14} Fragmented responsibility for planning, disaster management, and mitigation and adaptation actions hinders the development of integrated and equitable policies (high confidence) and their implementation. While community-level planning tailors adaptation to the local context, misalignment of policies within and between levels of government can prevent implementation.

Coordination, planning, and national support are needed as well as sufficient financial resources to implement climate-resilient policies and infrastructure (high confidence). {14.7.2}

Equitable, inclusive, and participatory approaches that integrate climate impact projections into near-term and long-term decisionmaking reduce future risks (high confidence). {ES-Ch14} Current practices will be increasingly insufficient to adapt to climate-induced risks (high confidence) without equitable and transformative adaptation policies focused on sustainable and resilient land use, consumption patterns, economic activities, and nature-based solutions with safeguards (high confidence). {ES-Ch14} Supporting Indigenous self-determination, recognizing Indigenous Peoples’ rights, and supporting Indigenous knowledge based-adaptation are critical to reducing climate change risks to achieve adaptation success (very high confidence). {ES-Ch14; Box 14.1; 14.3; 14.7} Near- and long-term adaptation planning, implementation, and coordination across sectors and jurisdictions supports equitable and effective climate solutions (high confidence). {ES-Ch14}

Climate Resilient Development Without limiting global warming to 1.5°C, key risks to North America are expected to intensify rapidly by mid-century (high confidence).

Immediate, widespread, and coordinated implementation of adaptation measures aimed at reducing risks and focused on equity have the greatest potential to maintain and improve the quality of life for North Americans, ensure sustainable livelihoods, and protect the long-term biodiversity, and ecological and economic productivity in North America (high confidence). {ES-Ch14} Transformational, long-term adaptation action that reduces risk and increases resilience can address rapidly escalating impacts in the mid to latter part of the 21st century, especially if coupled with the lowest emission pathways of SSP1-19 and SSP1-26 that limit global warming (high confidence). {ES-Ch14} 2

March 31, 2022 Jim Duncan, Director, Division of Planning Chris Woodall, Long-Range Planning Manager Lexington Division of Planning 101 East Vine Street Lexington, Kentucky 40507 Dear Jim and Chris, Find below a list for discussion for Planning Commission and Staff regarding the 2023 Comprehensive Plan.

All land is precious - whether it's downtown, suburban, or rural, development needs to be done "right," whether it's for economic development, agricultural, commercial/retail, or residential use. The idea that someone has to win or lose is confrontational and unproductive.

The Comp Plan should give clear direction on the overall balance of land uses that Lexington desires. Without such direction we will continue to have gas stations instead of affordable housing, more drive-thru restaurants when the Plan does not support car-centric development, TIFs for suburban shopping centers, and retail developers unwilling to include housing in their mixed-use projects.

Successful development needs to be in context. That means design compatibility with the existing built environment including step-downs and similar height, width, length, and setbacks. Planning should improve the Placebuilder tool to give greater priority to defining context, historically significant areas/properties, and the characteristics of individual neighborhoods. That should include the formal recognition of neighborhood histories and an improved working definition of historic properties.

Multimodal transportation planning is vital to the growth of Lexington inside the USB. The Comp Plan Transportation element should better direct and align with the Metropolitan Transportation Plan and the Transportation Improvement Program to achieve implementation of these objectives for transportation in all modes. Walking and biking trails are highly prized for recreational purposes and have almost universal support. However, some people now use biking as their primary transportation, which necessitates improved safety and continuous bikeways that get people where they need to go. The Comp Plan should encourage LFUCG to work together with LexTran to create a bus system that actually works for people who need public transportation to get to work, healthcare, and shopping, as well those residents who might forego using their car if riding the bus was more convenient and efficient. Improvements could include route changes, multiple transfer stations, increased frequency, park & ride stations, more bus shelters/benches, subsidized private transit, ridesharing, and better transit alignment with existing and new high-density developments. When appropriate, new commercial and residential developments should include accommodations for electric vehicle charging stations, ride-sharing, delivery pull-off spaces, and bus shelters.

The Comprehensive Plan should include a study of who rides bicycles, for what purpose, when, and where. Multimodal transportation design should be careful to not contribute to

automobile traffic problems or safety issues on arterials at a time when more people are commuting from surrounding counties to work in Lexington.

Public safety has not received enough attention from Planning. Rising violent crime is a growing issue affecting most or all of Lexington. It requires a comprehensive approach, which should include the Comprehensive Plan, as appropriate. The Plan should incorporate public safety data, including geographic and urban design information, and recommend solutions.

Corridor development is complicated and must be fully in context with existing neighborhoods. For instance, the Nicholasville Road Study advocates four (4) to six (6)story residential buildings within 1/2 mile of a transit station. The buildings have no stated contextual requirements, and placement seems random or not addressed. This has the potential to radically change or destroy established neighborhoods. Note that the 2022 Lexington Area Bottleneck Study advises that Proposed solutions in access and congestion management from the 2021 Nicholasville Road Corridor Study show a cost-benefit ratio too low to implement the measures in any near term.

Should the 2023 Comp Plan include corridors, it will need to explicitly define and identify them to assure transparency and should identify any adjoining roads impacted.

The proposed NE New Circle Road study shows promise because of identifiable underutilized commercial/retail development. The growing national conversion of commerce and office space to online activities suggests that commercial/retail land will be most available to meet housing and other needs.

Transit-oriented developments, on corridors and elsewhere, should not be approved without demonstration that transit services are in place to meet needs.

The challenge of affordable housing needs to be confronted aggressively with bold initiatives. The increase in housing costs, coupled with the lack of available rentals and homes to purchase, accentuated by stagnating incomes and rising interest rates has created an affordable housing problem that affects more citizens than ever before. The situation needs to be addressed from several angles with creative solutions and strong commitments from LFUCG, including: • Develop LFUCG and local community managed Land Banks; • Assess the impact of gentrification and plan accordingly; • expand programming & support for the LFUCG Office of Affordable Housing and the Affordable Housing Trust Fund; • partner with the Lexington Community Land Trust and other land trusts to increase opportunities for affordable home ownership; • partner with the development community to encourage the construction of more affordable housing units; and, • require that residential developments have an explicitly stated minimum mix of smaller & less expensive housing options.

Environmental issues need to stay in the forefront including the tree canopy, clean air and water, greenspace, parks, wildlife, agriculture, viewsheds, and stormwater and groundwater management. Placebuilder has not achieved the aim of balancing the priorities in zone change review and decision to give adequate weight to environmental issues. The Comprehensive Plan should include a provision to study retention basins, their benefits and costs, and their maintenance. The Division of Water Quality should report on related flooding and maintenance issues that continue to plague certain areas and neighborhoods.

Recycling and reuse initiatives and responsible use of landfills need to be imbedded throughout the Comp Plan. The Comp Plan should encourage developments with low carbon footprints and those that include healthy greenspaces. Developers should no longer get a free pass on remediating and mitigating existing water quality and flooding issues on small sites (under an acre) and on land under redevelopment. Such provisions only perpetuate the inadequate standards of the past and increase or continue water pollution and flooding. The 2023 Plan should call for impervious surface reduction (or mitigation) goals in redevelopment areas to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of our urban waterways. These should include a narrative on specific receiving waters and what the mitigation goals for discharge volume and peak flows should be based on stormwater modeling for the catchment area.

The Comp Plan should adopt current watershed management plans (Cane Run, Wolf Run, and West Hickman) and call for timely development of plans for the remaining watersheds.

Rental licensing and inspection is critical for ensuring the health of neighborhoods that include rental properties. This is becoming more important than ever with the number of rental properties eclipsing the number of owner-occupied residences. Code Enforcement and Zoning Enforcement – even when operating at their best – cannot be expected to mitigate myriad violations regarding blight or illegal usage. We encourage implementation of a Rental Licensing & Inspection Program immediately to get out in front of the situation before it gets worse. This program can be started incrementally with an initial emphasis on short-term rentals, new conversions to rental, properties that do not require an approved development plan, or focus on certain areas that currently exhibit problems. A full program addressing all rental properties should be the ultimate goal. Enforceable standards for accessory dwellings also are of importance.

Lastly, the Comp Plan and all its drafts and related documents need to be available in low cost, printer-friendly, ADA formats to be more useful to the public.

Thanks for the opportunity to have this discussion. As the process unfolds, we could add or modify our thinking. The above is not comprehensive nor fully detailed.

Walt Gaffield, President On behalf of the Fayette County Neighborhood Council

Kentucky Tenant Associations Beau Revlett, Andrea Zhang, Emma Davis Anderson March 24, 2022 1. Rental Affordability Crisis a. Evictions December 2021: 322 total, roughly 100 fewer per month due to rental assistance b. 2005-2016: average 465 evictions per month c. December – January peak time for evictions due to holidays, higher utilities, etc. d. People living in awful conditions – affordable housing i. Cannot find another place or afford another place ii. Feel helpless to do anything e. Redevelopment – kicking out tenants or increasing rent exponentially 2. Listening Project a. 50,000 in Lexington over the phone, text b. Code Enforcement not always the issue c. More data in the coming months, phone calls completed in February 3. Housing Decision Principals a. Highest landlord absenteeism around Maxwell and East End 4. Fit housing policies into the Comprehensive Plan a. Data in the plan needs to reflect renters and evictions, current data represents homeownership 5. Comments/Questions a. C. Taylor/V. Friedmann - What percentage of income going to rent burden/transportation? i. Emma will look into this data and respond b. LRP Staff – continued conversations along the way needed c. C. Woodall – lot of things that have happened since the 2018 comprehensive plan that can be reflected d. V. Friedmann – much of what has been discussed needs to be worked out through the policies e. A. Zhang – hoping these policies can fill in the gaps and make city leaders hear tenant voices more f. C. Taylor – when analysis from phone/text analysis complete, lets meet up again g. C. Taylor – What are your thoughts on Liveable Lexington? i. KTA – not much response or knowledge of Livable Lexington h. V. Friedmann – host On the Table? i. Possibly host a table, have not decided yet

Keeping Lexingtonians Housed KY Tenant’s Input on the 2022 Comprehensive Plan Update

In your wildest dreams, what affordable housing policy would you implement in Lexington?

Housing in Lexington from a Tenant’s Perspective

Lexington’s Rental Affordability Crisis

Lexington’s Affordability Crisis Cost burden: 32.6% overall, 46.34% renter, 21.3% owner (ACS 2020, Table S2503) “Among renter households below 100% of median income with a housing problem, 13,734 (51%) households are shown to be severely cost-burdened (paying more than 50% of their income for housing), and 10,920 (20%) are shown to be cost-burdened (paying more than 30% of their income for housing. Among owner households below 100% of median income with a housing problem, 4,450 (38%) are severely cost-burdened and 5070 (42%) are cost burdened.”

(Consolidated Plan, 2020, p. 21)

Evictions Filed December 2021

Evictions Continued ● Of the 322 evictions filed December 2021 ○ ○ ○ ○ ○

14 (4%) were for lease expiration/ nonrenewal of lease/ termination of month to month 10 (3%) were for lease violations/ material noncompliance 1 was due to a death 1 was Failure to pay rent and lease termination 1 was failure to pay rent and lease violation

○ 295 (92%)were failure to pay rent ○

41 above $3000 back rent (COVID-19 related): similar #’s to 2021

Story 1: Affordability Problems, Substandard Conditions

Story 2: Gentrification

Kentucky Tenant Listening Project ● 10+ text bankers volunteered and 20+ phone bankers were paid a wage of $20 per hour. ● 1,027 residents of Fayette County via text. ● 216 residents of Fayette county over the phone.

Phonebanking Preliminary Analysis ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

Across the board, the rent is too damn high It’s hard to find affordable units with enough bedrooms People want to see more affordable housing in more areas of town Unsafe housing conditions and unfair rent raises The City doesn’t care about us, people feel alone People want a reliable and trustworthy way to find housing, landlords lie about units.

It’s hard to shop around for housing if you can’t drive or don’t have a car

Two principles for housing decisions ●

Prioritize permanent affordability, including for those with the lowest incomes

●

Prioritize community control

○ ○ ○ ○

○ ○ ○

Can current residents of the neighborhood afford to live at the proposed development?

What impact will the development have on the cost of housing for low-income neighbors?

Will this development displace residents? Where will those residents go?

Immediately and in the long run, will this development make the neighborhood more affordable or less affordable?

■ Prioritize permanently affordable developments, like Community Land Trusts (CLTs) and limitedequity cooperatives to extend the impact of time-limited incentives like LIHTCs and the Affordable Housing Fund ■ Emphasize affordability for people at and below 30% AMI Do residents have power in decision-making about this development?

Will residents of the neighborhood continue to have power in decision-making about this development?

Will residents of the neighborhood own and benefit from this development, or will ownership and benefits primarily reside outside the community?

■ Prioritize community ownership, e.g., through cooperative housing and CLTs ■ Encourage Community Benefits Agreements

Pg. 45, Imagine Lexington

Pg. 45, Imagine Lexington

Pgs. 45, 47, & 48 - Imagine Lexington

Pg. 49, Imagine Lexington

Expanding the Comprehensive Plan’s Analysis of Housing ● ● ● ●

●

Housing affordability in Lexington is not just about the desirability of living here.

Data represented in the plan should reflect rent and evictions, not just homeownership.

We cannot abandon people’s right to their right to thrive in place, in their neighborhood.

Gentrification and the displacement it causes overwhelmingly affects Black neighborhoods and residents. ○ Plan identifies this but does not have any strategies to address this.

Address public investment’s role in driving gentrification.

Louisville

Syracuse

$999

●

Permanent affordability

$1,800

●

Community control

Discussion Question Given what we have discussed today and what you all know from experience, what kinds of policies to protect housing for low-income tenants are possible?