# Special Planning Committee Meeting - October 27, 2009 > Auto-transcribed civic record · October 27, 2009 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/1101 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/1101?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2009-10-27 - **Last revised**: July 17, 2026 - **Length**: 27,266 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed with OpenAI's open-source Whisper large-v3-turbo model, run locally by The Lexington Times. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude. Verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Special Planning Committee met on October 27, 2009, at 9:30 a.m. to address six agenda items related to student housing and enforcement matters. The committee took eight votes during the meeting and heard two public comments. The committee approved two items: the Student Housing Task Force Report and Expanded Enforcement Recommendations. Four additional items were addressed with mixed outcomes—three items were deferred for future consideration (Comprehensive Review of Building Inspection, Improved Information Sharing Between Divisions, and Definition of Fraternity and Sorority House), while one item regarding Spacing or Density Limits on Student Homes was denied. ## Attendance The following individuals were present at the meeting on October 27, 2009: * Gorton * Blues * Gray * Ellinger * James * Lawless * Beard * Feigel * Stinnett * McChord No absences or late arrivals were recorded. ## Votes and Decisions **Motion 1: Abatement Funding for Code Enforcement** [timestamp: 0:06:38] Motion by Ellinger, seconded by Feigl. The body approved adequate abatement funding for each budget cycle up to $200,000 for the Division of Code Enforcement. The motion passed 6-3 on a roll call vote. Voting in favor: Ellinger, Blues, Lawless, Feigl, Stinnett, McChord. Voting against: Gorton, Gray, James. The approval established an enterprise fund to return abatement recovery funds to Code Enforcement, capped at $200,000 annually, with a five-year review period. **Motion 2: Amendment to Cap Enterprise Fund** [timestamp: 0:16:27] Motion by Blues. The body amended the motion to establish an enterprise fund with a maximum cap of $200,000. The amendment passed 6-3 on a roll call vote. Voting in favor: Ellinger, Blues, Lawless, Feigl, Stinnett, McChord. Voting against: Gorton, Gray, James. **Motion 3: Five-Year Reevaluation Clause Amendment** [timestamp: 0:17:37] Motion by James, seconded by Feigl. The body considered an amendment to include a five-year reevaluation clause for the enterprise fund. The amendment failed 4-5 on a roll call vote. Voting in favor: James, Blues, Lawless, Feigl. Voting against: Ellinger, Gorton, Gray, Stinnett, McChord. **Motion 4: Code Ordinance Review Recommendation** [timestamp: 0:53:16] Motion by Blues, seconded by Feigl. The body recommended to the Council that ordinances be reviewed and revised to clarify codes and increase fines to discourage paying penalties as a cost of doing business. The motion passed 6-3 on a roll call vote. Voting in favor: Ellinger, Blues, Lawless, Feigl, Stinnett, McChord. Voting against: Gorton, Gray, James. The approval established a subcommittee to study and recommend revisions to fines and code enforcement mechanisms. **Motion 5: Building Inspection Task Force Referral** [timestamp: 1:16:01] Motion by Feigl, seconded by Blues. The body moved recommendation #5 regarding civil fines for building inspection violations to the Building Inspection Task Force. The motion passed 6-3 on a roll call vote. Voting in favor: Ellinger, Blues, Lawless, Feigl, Stinnett, McChord. Voting against: Gorton, Gray, James. Recommendation #6 regarding fines for construction without permits was removed as it had already been passed. **Motion 6: Structural Violations Referral to Planning Committee** [timestamp: 2:19:04] Motion by Lawless, seconded by Blues. The body referred the issue of daily fines for structural violations to the Planning Committee for review. The motion passed 6-3 on a roll call vote. Voting in favor: Ellinger, Blues, Lawless, Feigl, Stinnett, McChord. Voting against: Gorton, Gray, James. **Motion 7: Rejection of Student Housing Density Limits** [timestamp: 2:48:40] Motion by James, seconded by Ellinger. The body rejected the recommendation for spacing or density limits on student homes in geographically defined areas. The motion passed 5-3 on a roll call vote. Voting in favor: James, Blues, Lawless, Feigl, Stinnett. Voting against: Ellinger, Gorton, Gray. The rejection included the home buyback program. **Motion 8: Amendment to Exclude Home Buyback Program** [timestamp: 2:50:20] Motion by Blues, seconded by Lawless. The body considered an amendment to exclude paragraph 2 (home buyback program) from the rejection. The amendment failed 4-5 on a roll call vote. Voting in favor: Blues, Lawless, Feigl, James. Voting against: Ellinger, Gorton, Gray, Stinnett, McChord. ## Budget and Financial Actions The meeting included an appropriation of $200,000 in abatement funding for the Division of Code Enforcement. This funding was designated to support the division's code enforcement operations. ## Public Comment Two speakers addressed the meeting regarding fraternity and sorority housing issues. **Anthony Humphress** [timestamp: 2:03:00] spoke about fraternity and sorority housing and partying. He suggested creating designated university streets for student parties as a way to reduce neighborhood disturbances and improve safety. Humphress noted that fraternities and sororities cannot formally designate party houses due to charter rules, which he presented as a constraint on current housing practices. **Tony Blanton** [timestamp: 3:01:21] addressed the definition of fraternity and sorority houses. He explained that a fraternity is currently using a loophole in zoning laws by living in a single-family zone without being officially recognized as a fraternity house. Blanton emphasized the need for a legal definition of fraternity and sorority houses to enable proper enforcement of zoning regulations. ## Appointments During this meeting, an appointment was made to the Building Inspection Task Force. However, the specific individual appointed to this position was not identified in the meeting record. ## Contested Items **Student Housing Density Limits** The council debated a proposal to limit student housing density, with disagreement centered on displacement, affordability, and legal enforceability. The motion to reject the proposal passed 5-3, indicating a divided council. Members who opposed rejection expressed strong support for the home buyback component of the proposal, suggesting the split reflected differing priorities regarding housing policy and student accommodation. **Definition of Fraternity and Sorority House** Council members engaged in heated discussion over whether to define fraternity and sorority houses in policy. The debate focused on three main concerns: whether such a definition would be enforceable, whether it could be considered discriminatory, and whether it posed legal risks. Members also raised concerns about whether the definition would unfairly target students and whether it could create loopholes that would undermine the intended policy goals. ## Student Housing Task Force Report The Student Housing Task Force presented its findings on student rental housing issues affecting Lexington [timestamp: 00:03:50]. The presentation, delivered by David Jarvis, Dewey Crow, and Tony Blanton, examined historical context, enforcement challenges, and policy recommendations related to student housing. **Key Issues Identified** The task force identified several significant concerns within the student rental housing sector: - Property maintenance problems affecting student-occupied rental properties - Nuisance violations in neighborhoods with high concentrations of student housing - Lack of a legal definition for fraternity and sorority houses, creating enforcement gaps **Enforcement Challenges** The presentation highlighted difficulties in addressing these issues through existing enforcement mechanisms, indicating that current policies and procedures were insufficient to manage the scope of problems identified. **Recommendations** The task force presented recommendations focused on two primary areas: - Policy improvements to address gaps in current regulations - Enhanced enforcement mechanisms to better address violations and maintain neighborhood standards **Outcome** The Student Housing Task Force Report was approved by the body. ## Expanded Enforcement Recommendations The committee discussed eight recommendations for enhanced code enforcement during this agenda item [timestamp: 00:03:50]. **Key Speakers** David Jarvis and David Barbary led the discussion on the enforcement recommendations. **Recommendations Presented** The committee considered the following measures to strengthen code enforcement: - Increasing abatement funding - Lifting hiring freezes - Conducting regular sweeps - Increasing fines for violations - Four additional recommendations (specific details not provided in available materials) **Outcome** The committee approved a motion to allocate up to $200,000 in abatement funding through an enterprise fund. The motion passed. ## Comprehensive Review of Building Inspection The committee discussed the need for a comprehensive review of building inspection practices during this agenda item [timestamp: 1:05:10]. Dewey Crow led the discussion on this matter. The review encompassed several key areas of building inspection operations, including civil fines, abatement procedures, and lien placement practices. These topics were identified as areas requiring systematic examination and potential improvement. Rather than making an immediate decision, the committee deferred action on this item. The recommendation was referred to a newly formed Building Inspection Task Force, which would undertake the comprehensive review and provide recommendations for consideration at a future meeting. ## Improved Information Sharing Between Divisions The committee discussed the need for improved data integration between Code Enforcement, Building Inspection, and other departments. [timestamp: 1:16:36] **Key Participants** Dewey Crow and David Jarvis were the primary speakers on this agenda item. **Discussion** The committee identified a need for better information sharing across divisions to improve operational efficiency and coordination between departments. The discussion focused on the challenges of data integration between Code Enforcement, Building Inspection, and other related departments. **Action Taken** A motion was made to hear a presentation from Computer Services regarding software development for cross-agency tracking systems. This presentation would address potential technical solutions to facilitate improved data sharing between the divisions. **Outcome** The agenda item was deferred, meaning the discussion and any decisions were postponed to a future meeting. ## Definition of Fraternity and Sorority House The committee discussed whether to include a definition of fraternity and sorority houses in the zoning ordinance [timestamp: 1:36:39]. **Key Speakers** Tony Blanton and David Jarvis led the discussion on this agenda item. **Debate and Concerns** The committee debated the merits of formally defining fraternity and sorority houses within the zoning code. Several concerns emerged during the discussion: - **Enforceability**: Questions were raised about how such a definition could be effectively enforced - **Discrimination**: Concerns were expressed about potential discriminatory implications of singling out fraternity and sorority houses in the ordinance - **Identification challenges**: The committee noted difficulties in identifying which houses would qualify as fraternity or sorority houses under any proposed definition **Outcome** The recommendation to define fraternity and sorority houses in the zoning ordinance was deferred. The committee determined that the matter required further study before a decision could be made. ## Spacing or Density Limits on Student Homes [timestamp: 2:17:58] The committee discussed a proposal to implement spacing or density limits on student housing, modeled after policies used at Penn State University. The agenda item was presented for discussion and consideration by the committee. **Key Speakers and Positions** The discussion involved committee members Feigl, Blues, Lawless, and James, who engaged in debate over the merits and drawbacks of the proposed density restrictions. **Concerns Raised** The committee identified several significant concerns that ultimately led to rejection of the proposal: - **Displacement risks**: Committee members worried that density limits could displace existing student residents from their current housing arrangements. - **Affordability impacts**: There were concerns that restricting housing density would negatively affect housing affordability for students. - **Legal risks**: The committee raised questions about potential legal challenges or liability associated with implementing such restrictions. **Outcome** The recommendation to establish spacing or density limits on student homes was **denied**. The concerns about displacement, affordability, and legal exposure outweighed support for the Penn State-inspired model during the committee's deliberation. --- ## Decisions - **null** — passed (6-3): Approve adequate abatement funding for each budget cycle up to $200,000 for the Division of Code Enforcement - **null** — passed (6-3): Amend the motion to establish an enterprise fund with a maximum cap of $200,000 - **null** — failed (4-5): Amend the motion to include a five-year reevaluation clause - **null** — passed (6-3): Recommend to the Council that ordinances be reviewed and revised to clarify codes and increase fines to discourage paying penalties as a cost of doing business - **null** — passed (6-3): Move recommendation #5 (create civil fines for building inspection violations) to the Building Inspection Task Force - **null** — passed (6-3): Refer the issue of daily fines for structural violations to the Planning Committee for review - **null** — passed (5-3): Reject the recommendation for spacing or density limits on student homes in geographically defined areas - **null** — failed (4-5): Amend the rejection motion to exclude paragraph 2 (home buyback program) from the rejection --- ## Full transcript that is used to treat for the emerald ash borer. Most of these are under $20. It's not very expensive. And a lot of times, depending on the size of the tree, you might be able to get two and three applications out of each bottle of pesticide. Some of the things that we recommend that the homeowner use before they apply the pesticide is wear some rubber gloves and a pair of safety glasses. Measure the tree at about breast height. In this situation, because there's a branch union at that height above the ground, measure the tree about in this area. From experience, we know that's about a 3 to 4 inch tree. The diameter of the tree will determine how much pesticide the homeowner will have to use. And of course, follow the label instructions. But as a general rule, it's about one ounce of pesticide for one inch diameter of the trunk of the tree. So in this situation, the trunk of the tree was between three and four inches. So we've measured out already in our measuring cup about four ounces of the pesticide. And you take the pesticide and just pour it directly into your water. And you can even put that in just a bucket of water. You don't have to use a watering can. but a watering can is nice because it will distribute the water evenly. And before you actually apply the pesticide, you want to take away the mulch because if you apply the pesticide directly to the tree with the mulch already down, the pesticide will actually bond. Thank you. Thank you. is to start with our recommendations for the Student Housing Task Force, and they are on page 11 of your packet. And this first section is Expanded Enforcement. There are eight recommendations, and I'd like to methodically work through them, and many of them relate to code enforcement. So I would like to, David Jarvis is here, our Director of Code Enforcement, and if it suits you, committee members, we'll just start with the first recommendation and hear from David about the status of his budget and what he needs, and then we'll go from there. If you have a question for him, please log in on your monitor. Welcome, David. Thank you. The first recommendation is to approve adequate abatement funding each budget cycle. And so I wonder if you could give us an update on what you have and what you need. Sure. Normally we ask anywhere from $100,000 to $150,000, depending on, I guess, the budget cycle, what funds are available. This year we received about $90,000 for abatements. Typically we usually run through those by about April of the next fiscal year. So May, June, July of the ending part of the year, we're usually out of abatement funds. Abatement funds are used to clean up properties. They're used to haul trash away, cut the grass, that sort of thing. Now any of these funds that are recovered go back into the general fund. And I know at one time, Council Member Lane, he had authored an idea of some of those recoveries coming back into Code Enforcement's budget to where it would be sort of a revolving fund, and we would cap it, you could say cap it at $200,000 a year. That way you would always have monies available to clean up, you know, abandoned property, derelict property, problem properties. And so I think, you know, any idea, any solution like that would certainly help that aspect. So $200,000 is a better number for you? Absolutely. I mean, we usually run out of money, like I say, every April. And especially with World Equestrian coming up, we're going to make a real concerted effort in cleaning up a lot of properties in and around downtown, out towards the horse park. Any that we see, really, we will abate. Okay. Council members, are there any questions of David about this recommendation? Yes. Would we have to use the ordinance if we allowed you to keep the revenues in, or are you able to do that presently? I'm not sure. I don't know if that's under ordinance, if those recoveries go back into the general fund, or they can be earmarked. That may be a question from the law department. I'm not quite sure. Okay. Thank you. Are there other questions, Council members? Okay. What is your pleasure about number one recommendation? Mr. Ellinger. Well, I move that we approve adequate abatement funding for each budget cycle up to $200,000 for the Division of Code Enforcement. Second. Mr. Ellinger has moved and Ms. Feigl has seconded. approving, basically approving number one recommendation up to $200,000. Let me ask you a question, Mr. Ellinger. Is it your sense then that this, if the full council approves this, then it would go forward to the budget discussions? And I'm also looking at Mr. Stennett. What would be our process here? In terms of making sure we actually follow through with it? Well, getting it into the mix of recommendations to the mayor's budget. Well, I think as a council, we can always give a list to the mayor to include in his budget, but ultimately we have to be the ones to include it. If whoever is the mayor at the time chooses not to do it, ultimately this decision will be made during budget time, unless we pass a true ordinance that funds it. Thank you. Mr. Blues. Thank you, Chair. I wonder if we could also include in the motion the recommendation that return funds that come back from the reimbursements go back to code enforcement rather than to the general fund. Are you making that as an amendment to establish an agreement? enterprise fund for code enforcement? Yes. I'll accept that. I think we might have to ask the law department if we're able to do that, what we need to do to allow that. Is there anyone from law here? Is your amendment then up to $200,000 or is it unlimited? Or do you know? Actually, I don't know. But I think we need to establish the principle and the necessity that it's somehow counterproductive to establish an enterprise fund and then bleed it. So, bleed it. Because that's what happens. it's steadily depleted and not restored, and it leaves code enforcement helpless in that regard. So since we're talking about intention here, and I think the clear intention would be to restore funds, to, you know, to code enforcement as they come back to the government. And we could, you know, we can always work out the limits and the details later. Okay, so the motion on the floor is to amend the original motion. So are those of you on the list wanting to speak to the amendment to establish an enterprise fund? Council Member Beard. Thank you, Madam Chair. There really is no problem on this. If $200,000 is our target, when we go into the next budget cycle and you have recovered X number of dollars, all we do is just cut back what our appropriation would be to get it back to the 200 number. That's correct. And then we can revisit and see if that 200 is correct or not. But there's no danger that this thing is going to build up to 400, 500, whatever, as I see it anyways. Right. That's why we had the idea of capping it, capping it at 200,000. We feel that's a number that we can live with. We can abate the properties and take care of the things we need to take care of. Because like you say, one year I think the recoveries were around $339,000. We don't need that much money in the abatement fund. That could go right back into the general fund. You could cap it at $200,000. There would be monies to do abatements when needed. So really it's – I think you're just putting monies in different cubby holes, really. And then one other comment. And up to $200,000 could be $80,000, $90,000, $100,000. If we really are going to do this, we ought to say $200,000 rather than up to $200,000. I agree. Council Member James. Thank you, Council Member Gorton. I apologize for my tardiness. I do know, I know that most people would like to keep issues separate, but there was an instance where it was last year sometime, and I was trying to get a budget for tenant relocation. And there was a strong objection from council members to establish a recurring, which would have, in my opinion, is the same thing as kind of like where you're taking money and putting it into a fund. And I will express what was expressed that day, which is we just have to be sure that we're monitoring actual need. So whatever money is put back in there. So if you cap it at $200,000, we just need to make sure as a council that we're monitoring that to make sure that we're not putting more money in there than we're supposed to. We've seen other enterprise funds that go and go and go and appropriations don't happen. That should happen out of that. We just need to make sure we're keeping a close watch on that. So if we do establish some type of fund, I would also like to have a subcommittee of the council members that beyond just the full budget and finance but that specifically looks at that, looks at the trends, looks at how much is being utilized, and looks at how when it's time for a budget time, whether it's that link or whatever it is. But somebody needs to be looking closely at how this fund is being utilized and whether or not it's being effective. Like I said, moreover than just the regular budget and finance, because we deal with a lot of issues, but very, very microscopically looking at how we're capturing these funds and utilizing them back in that division of government, just so that we're very transparent and we're doing this right, because I could see many other things that we could utilize this for. You'll find many people that are going to be trying to get funds to come back to their specific division of government. such as trees, the urban forestry department, and things like that. So we're setting a precedent, and I think we need to make sure that we do it right. I will support the motion, but with scrutiny. Thanks. Thank you. Is there any other, Council Member, with a comment or question? So Council Member Blue's motion to amend is to establish an enterprise fund to put a maximum of $200,000 of the money that comes back from your abatements to you. And we'll need to run it past law. David Barberis just appeared magically from our law department. Welcome. Lucky me, right? Yes. I'm not sure which question. I was watching part of this on the television set. I think you all can accomplish the result without doing legislation. If you do legislation, as Council Member Sten had indicated, it would pretty much mandate what you spend the money on. We've done enterprise funds both ways, I believe. So it really depends on how much flexibility you all want as to whether or not you actually put this in an ordinance versus just deal with it as part of your budgeting process per se. Thank you. Is there any other comment? Council Member James. In the ordinance, does it have an ending date, an expiration date for the program? Well, it's a fiscal year. Yeah, right. Well, I mean, like, you know, that we do this for a duration of, because I know it was a pilot program, right, that you're, what was presented was a pilot sort of thing. Right. I think Officer Gaines' program is a pilot program. Okay. I mean, if you're going to address the abatement with code enforcement, and that's ongoing every year. Okay. So I don't know if council or if the committee would be willing to look at that, but do we, because if we don't come back and look at it later, if we don't make it to where that ordinance says that, it won't be done, and it will go on in perpetuity. So I don't know if that's something that the council would want to consider is, you know, that we do this for a period of a certain number of years and then look at what's happening at that point. Are there other comments, questions, motions? Okay, the motion on the floor to amend then. Oh, Council Member Lawless, I'm sorry. Could you just read the amendment again? Oh, yes, the amendment is to... And I'm sorry for being late also. And this is in relation to abatement funds for code enforcement. And the motion is to establish an enterprise fund, which is a dedicated fund, to bring those funds that now go into the general fund back to code enforcement, and it will have a maximum cap of $200,000 in a fiscal year. Any other questions? All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? All right. Now, that was an amendment to the original motion, although I think it just changed the original motion. Is that right, Mr. Parliamentarian? So do we need to have a vote on the original motion? Okay. So the original motion as amended. Is there any discussion? Yes, Council Member James. I'd also like to make a motion to amend, just to offer this, that we state for a period of five years. I make a motion that the motion states for a period of five years and to be reevaluated. Okay, is there a second? All right. Motion to reevaluate in five years with a second by Council Member Feigl. Now, discussion on the amendment. Council Member Blues. Thank you. I'm not sure I see the necessity of this since the mayor's budget will be reviewed annually by the council and particularly by links committees. and can, you know, and I would expect we'll, you know, we'll review each program. So it doesn't, in other words, this can be reviewed annually rather than, say, giving it a five-year track. I think the motion is to put it in the ordinance, right, that this enterprise fund would be reevaluated in five years. So you're saying you would prefer to change it to one year? No, I'm saying that I think there's probably no necessity for a time limit here since it will be reviewed by council and preliminarily by the LINCS committees and recommended on whether to continue a particular program or not. Council Member Lawless. I agree with Councilmember Blues because this isn't a dedicated tax stream like some of the dedicated taxes that a lot of people have objection to. And I would imagine that every year during the LINCS budget process, if they only used $130,000, that it would be capped at a much lower rate. Council Member Feigl. Thank you, Madam Chair. I seconded the motion because I feel like, number one, I think one of the things that we've learned through the Student Housing Task Force is that most of those funds that were collected have really gone back into the general fund and they've not been reserved to do additional work in code enforcement. And so what we want to do is guarantee that these funds are accessible to code enforcement. And so in order to do that, I think we do need to try and ensure that there is some longevity to this particular action that we're taking. While it will be discretionary within each budget cycle, I think it tells the council, the council, whoever happens to be sitting here and whoever the mayor is, that this is a priority. And hopefully, you know, that we will try to protect those sources for at least five years to make sure that we have made some progress in solving the problems. And maybe at some point code enforcement won't need that much money. But I do think that it sends a message that this is a priority, and I would like for this to be in the ordinance. or in the motion. Council Member James. Thank you, Chair. Just to explain a little bit further, I do think that in five years the priorities and the needs of code enforcement and other things may be different. I think when you focus on something for a certain period of time, you get hopefully results. And I think that that's where this could potentially lead. I think we in this government have had challenges with something being the way that it is, and then we just kind of have the budget handed to us, and we don't necessarily tackle those things. We finally, in this budget cycle of, and you'll see in the Budget and Finance Committee later, we did ask for the ordinances and resolutions that deal with our budget specifics. So annually what's supposed to happen is we're supposed to be handed down from the administration or it's indicated in the proposed budget, the ordinances and resolutions that are appropriate, and we take those things into consideration first, fund those things, or decide to not fund those things or make determinations on how we're going to handle those things, and then we do the other things that are not priority. As Council Member Feigl has said, this should be a priority. But I think making it minimal with everything else that we've had challenges with in the budget does not help us to get to that point. This does not defer or stop the ability for this to go beyond the five years. What this does, it says, where are we right now? How have we done? And do we need to increase that or decrease this? Or do we need to set our priorities elsewhere? Also, just because of the way our budget is, we don't at this point evaluate in depth. We're handed a budget, and the way our timing is, we don't have the time to go through line item by line item each thing. So I think this raises it to the top, along with the other resolutions, and establishes it as a priority for this council in future. Thank you. Any other comment on the amendment on the floor? All those in favor, please say aye. Anyone opposed? Okay, let's do a hand count. All those in favor, raise your hand. Opposed? Council Member Lawless, are you voting? You were four? Okay. So that motion fails. So are there any other motions before we attend to the main motion on the floor? All right. Would those in favor please say aye. Yes, Mr. Stenner. I thought we were going to have discussion on the main motion before we vote it. Oh, I'm sorry. We will. Yes, as amended to establish the Enterprise Fund. Yes. Do you wish to speak? Yes, ma'am. Thank you. That's what we're doing. Mr. Jarvis, what was the maximum amount of abatement funds you've spent since your time here in the calendar year? We normally spend all of the abatement funds that we're allocated every year. What's that dollar amount? Usually $100,000. We're usually out by April, May, spring, grass season. So we have to really pick and choose after that to what we can abate and what we can't. So you've never spent more than $100,000? We've never had more than $100,000 than I know of. Okay, so you've never come back to council and we've put more money in there in November? We've taken money. We've begged you for money before. We've taken money out of demolitions before. We've moved money around. Yeah, we've had yard sales, you name it. So I'm just curious. I mean, we're doubling your money. Right. We can use it. We can spend it. Absolutely. Absolutely. So I'm just curious. where we're giving you 100% more. Absolutely. And we've never spent even near that in the years past. Yeah. So what are we going to spend it on? More and more grass mowing, more? More cleanup. Because you've still got 14 days you have to wait. Right. So we know that. What we normally do, if we get into the season we run out of money, we just start issuing civil penalties. If we can't abate them anymore, we just start fining the property. Well, that's great, but the problem doesn't go away. All we're doing is putting liens on the property, and if it's a property that's got some issues on it anyway, then, you know, we're still dealing with this piece of property. And how much of those funds are you, that when we spend to abate, are you recovering? Well, I'm not sure because it doesn't go through code enforcement to recovery. The recovery used to go through the law department. There's a move now to have that go through revenue because there will be a better handle on it with revenue because it's easier to pay those. You know, you can come to the second floor, pay those fines, pay those abatement costs. So that's really going to be something. You know, I've seen figures as high as $300,000 a year, and that would be capped. And, of course, anything over would go back into the general fund. We're just asking for enough money to do what we have to do to move forward, you know, to accomplish comprehensive abatements. I guess my point is we're recovering most of that $100,000 anyway. Oh, yeah, absolutely. Well, because you're also, not only is it abatements, it's civil penalties that we issue. Right, right. It goes into the same pot of money. Well, I'm just trying to make it way it's an offset more so than anything. Absolutely. Even if we increase the $200,000, we're going to get that back more than likely. I would hope so, yes. Thank you. Councilmember McCord. Thank you. As someone who had a situation in April where a neighborhood nearly rioted because there was no money to go and mow grass that was about five feet tall in your neighborhood and something that we went right by, this is a massively frustrating issue. Every year to run out of money and have folks calling and asking for help and going through the right process and then to get an answer by code enforcement that we just don't have any money. That is not a good thing. And with all that we're actually here to talk about today, which it's kind of funny that we've spent this much time on the first issue of just what we're going to give, what we're getting ready to ask you to do, along with the World Equestrian Games, it is very serious that we be serious about ramping up your budget and giving you some money to work with. Because outside of the police officer showing up at your house when something bad has happened or the fireman's showing up, the one person inside government that you want is that code enforcement person. if your neighbor's yard is out of control or certain things are going on that drive your property values down. So I think Council Member Stendon's point is well taken. This is something that, as we give it, is not only something that's very vital and needed, and we run out every year and just frustrate constituents every single year, but we also have the opportunity to recover it. So I firmly support increasing your budget as much as we possibly can. Thank you. Council Member Lawless. Thank you. I've seen firsthand what happens as they run out of funds around April because that's also right before the big move out around the U.K. And please, please support this. I was stunned a couple of years ago when I realized that this was not a revolving fund that they could use. And so a lot of things that really detract from neighborhoods across the city go unattended because there is no money. And a lot of times they're life safety issues. Thank you. Council Member Ellinger. Thank you, Chair. David, you said that the most that you had received each budget cycle was $100,000, but you've had demolition bake sales, garage sales, or whatever you need to do. You've taken from your demolition fund to move over. What do you think you have used from that to go beyond $100,000 then? So to say that you only spent $100,000 really is not correct because you have spent more than $100,000. Is that not true? We have. We have spent more than $100,000. And normally we try not to take too much money out of the demolition fund because then we come across a piece of property that needs to be torn down, and then we've depleted all that money. So really we only try to dip into the demolition fund about $20,000 a year. We try to limp through until we can get to July. A lot of our contractors run a 30-day pay cycle, and we'll get them to go ahead and abate in June and just sort of hold off on the payments. If we're stopping in April until July, that's, I'm sure, a pretty busy time that you'd like to have money. Very busy. As Council Member McCord said, we've had to not abate properties with grass five feet tall, and, you know, in public right-of-way even area. You know, I say public right-of-ways, but it's private property, but it's along roadways, and it's dangerous, and it looks horrible, and we've had to just not abate it. Thank you. Council Member Feigl. Thank you, Chair. David, I just wondered a couple of things. This is a very difficult process for you, I'm sure, because you do have to take the calls as they come in and try to abate those situations. But at the same time, is there any possible way that these issues, different code enforcement issues, can be prioritized so that there's always a certain amount of abatement funding there for life safety issues as opposed to maybe mowing grass? Is there any way to do that? We do. Again, like I said, back in April, we will prioritize what we need to do. If it's cutting grass versus cleaning up food, garbage in front of a property, we'll clean up the food, the garbage first. We address the safety issues, the things that pose a danger, trash and debris. And if it's mowing that we have to let go for a while, as Council Member McCord said, we let it go. Because, you know, mowing the grass, it's important. And especially if it's in an intersection, I mean, we take that into consideration. But, again, we're going to focus on the life safety issues first, you know, trash and debris, garbage, diapers, that sort of thing. And you'd be surprised how much of that stuff gets torn up and scattered all over the yard. Is there a council member who has not spoken who has a comment or question? If not, let's go ahead and take the vote. All those in favor of the motion, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? All right. Thank you very much. Now, David Barbary is sneaking up behind you. David Barbary. Could I get clarification on your intent on when the start date would be for this? Because we're in the second quarter of this fiscal year. Is the desire to have this start? I don't know the thinking of council members, but it seems to me we're getting ready to build next year's budget very soon. Is that the thinking that this will be with the next fiscal year? I think the consensus is the next fiscal year. Thank you. Number two recommendation, we're going to have David Jarvis here at the podium for a while, is to lift the hiring freeze on approved additional positions in the Division of Code Enforcement. And will you give us an update on this, please? Yes, actually, that has been done with Councilmember approval. The two positions that were vacant, one was converted. There was a housing position converted to a nuisance control officer. There was an existing nuisance control officer. We have went through the hiring process, and we have just received the candidates' names from HR. We'll be holding interviews this coming Wednesday, not tomorrow, but a week from tomorrow. So we feel very comfortable in saying that by, I'm going to say, middle of November, we may have those positions filled. Very good. Any questions for David on item number two? Number three is resume and conduct regular comprehensive sweeps by the Division of Code Enforcement in the affected neighborhoods. Yes. I think if this idea is passed, if this pilot program is passed, I think that will incorporate the regular inspections. You're meaning by this idea? The Officer Gaines idea. Officer Gaines proposal? Right. That will. There will be verbiage in there. we will conduct regular comprehensive inspections in the neighborhoods along with doing the voluntary inspections for the landlords. Again, we still do the sweeps every year, twice a year in the U.K. area for the trash, the debris, and we can conduct other comprehensive sweeps as far as housing issues. I think the last one we did was, I want to say 2004. So it's usually in that four or five-year cycle that we do do comprehensives, And that can be accomplished through just a request from the council member in that district that we conduct further comprehensive housing sweeps. So that's something that can be done. And in the short of it, yes, we can do that. Council Member Beard. Thank you, Madam Chair. David, how would you define affected neighborhoods? I mean, I know we all have something in our minds about what that is. but there are some cases in other pockets of especially student housing problems, but they could not necessarily be students. Well, I guess if we want to classify the affected U.K. areas, really, I mean, we can draw up our own boundaries. We can, as a council member, you can have your boundary included. If you have something bordering U.K. and you think there's an issue there, we'll be glad to include that in the affected area. We do do the NET, the Neighborhood Enhancement Team, along with the Clear Unit now. We still do our neighborhood suites in other parts of the city. We've done about 11 of those so far. So, I mean, we will continue to do that also. But as far as the affected UK area, that's up to us. I mean, we can decide what's affected, what's not, and include that in the area. Yeah, I would agree with that. I just hope the rest of the committee would also agree. In one instance, like Big Bear Lane that's out off Redding Road is not in the U.K. area, but it's highly populated with U.K. students. So that could be in the affected areas. It will be. Yeah, right. I agree. Councilmember Ellinger. Thank you, Chair. David, I was a little confused. So on three, do you not need us to do anything? Or you had said something about if Officer Gaines' proposal was included. So is that predicated on that, or do we have to make sure that that's passed for that? Or is this something? I know you do sweeps, and what is the cycle? No, no, to do a comprehensive housing sweep in the UK area, it's not predicated on this program. This program will assist us in doing that, because what it will do is it will cut down on the number of properties that we'll have to include in the sweeps that we do, because you'll have property owners that have volunteered to be in this program. Those houses will have the seal on the door, and we'll know that those houses have been inspected previously. But, no, it's really not. It's just it will assist us in doing our comprehensive sweeps with this program. We can still do a comprehensive sweep in the UK area. I know. So is that something that we need then to pass or to make a motion, or you feel like you have that? No. In the past, we've done that at the request of the council member in that district. We do comprehensive sweeps. So just if we request it then in that district? Absolutely. We can even come to you and request that we do one, and you can give us your blessing for that. We're doing one right now in the Cardinal Valley area at the request of Council Member Henson. Okay, thank you. Council Member Ellinger, it is my sense that if the Planning Committee wanted to make a motion on this item, it would simply add strength to it as it comes to the Council. It would be, I guess, in the form of a resolution to reinforce the comprehensive sweeps. And I guess that's what I was trying to get at is, but if we do that, then we're still going to rely on your guidance on where that sweep is, or is this just going to be for the U.K. area or just where you think it's necessary? I think really either or. I mean, if you want us to put it in part of the resolution to do the sweeps in the U.K. area, we can do that. And then also we can come to you and say, you know, we think that a sweep's needed. And, again, if we do our five-year cycle like we normally do in neighborhoods, because really it's a staffing issue, and we'd love to do sweeps every year, but we can't do it. I mean, when we do these sweeps, it's a massive undertaking. We look at 1,000 houses. I mean, you can imagine the notice and orders that have to go out, the support staff that's required. I mean, literally it takes everything we were previously doing, puts it on the back burner, and then moves us to the front. So it's one of those deals. So really it's up to you all if you want to include it in a resolution, and we can still include it into our recommendations to you. I guess my only concern is I don't want to be telling you how to run your job, and you kind of know what needs to be done in your manpower, and I'd probably prefer if you came to us and tell us that you need to be doing it than us telling you, but that's just my personal opinion on that. I agree. Thank you. Any other comment, any motion, or anything on number three? Okay, let us move to number four. And I believe this has to do with your shop also, David. I believe also in building inspection, maybe. Together. I believe so. Number four says, increase fines for key property violations, including up to double the current total maximum fines for maximum multiple violations within a 12-month period and following the loss of an administrative appeal. Do you want to speak to that first before Council? Well, currently civil penalties are issued on the number of violations. If it's a housing notice, they're issued on the number of violations on the property and the number of re-inspections conducted on that property. It can range from $100 to $1,000, depending on how many violations, how many times we've been out there. On a nuisance issue, it's the third notice, which we're currently working on that to narrow that down to the second notice. The way the ordinance was written, there's confusing language in there. The table says after the second notice you receive a civil penalty, which in all essence you should. If we've had to deal with this property for now for an ongoing month to get the property cleaned up, we'd like to issue a civil penalty. The way the ordinance is currently written, it says after the second notice. So therefore we're not allowed to issue a civil penalty until the third notice. After that third notice, you get a $100 civil penalty. It doubles if we have to abate the property. That goes all the way to $500. So I think the thought, I'm not sure about this, but the thought was to double the civil penalties for nuisance and housing issues. Again, we can work with what we have now. I think once we get the language changed in the current ordinance to reflect the second notice carries the civil penalty, I think that will go a long way because if you have to wait until that third notice issue civil penalty, you're into the property now for 45 days. Can you clarify for us where that is in process to change that language? The law department and I are currently working on that right now. Mike Sander and I have addressed that issue, and we're ironing out the details. Okay, and David Barber is at the podium again. I don't know how much background you all want on this whole process before you all get into discussing this. All of it's codified in your code of ordinances in Chapter 12. The tables he's referring to, there's a separate civil fine penalty table for housing versus the nuisance abatement. On the nuisance abatement table, essentially what happens if they go out there and abate, and in the future they issue a civil fine, it's a two-stage table. The top level is if you didn't have to abate it as a government, the bottom level it automatically doubles for each subsequent one if they've ever had to go out there and abate. It runs on a calendar year basis, so the more times you get in trouble in the same calendar year, the higher your fines are for subsequent violations. If you're good for an entire calendar year, they would essentially be starting over again, and that's with respect to the nuisance-type situations. When you talk about nuisances, that's pretty much everything on the exterior of the property that does not involve the structure itself. If it's the structure itself or the driveway or the sidewalk, those kinds of things, those are handled separately outside the nuisance. So generally speaking, nuisance is going to be your trash and debris. It's going to be your vehicle, abandoned vehicle, junk vehicle type situations, and your weedling type stuff primarily. That's what it's going to be. I think you all need to be aware that what happens as a practical matter when they issue a fine is you're going to get kind of two different notices on a nuisance. One of them is going to tell you to abate it. And if you don't abate it and they can reach the abatement to abate it legally, it's not enclosed and they can get it and they've got the money to do it, and it doesn't get abated within the time frame, they're going to abate it at your cost anyway. In addition to that, once you reach this number of threshold notices that David talked about, what would happen is, and I think it's automatic now, they're automatically issuing that fine when they go out there on a subsequent one if it's called for. So you'll get it, for instance, if they had to go out there and actually have it abated, you're going to get penalized two different penalties for essentially the same violation. and the way it works is they show up and see it on the subsequent one, it is a violation. They issue the civil file. You get the time to clean it up before we'll evade it, but you don't get time to contest the fact that it is a penalty. Now, legally you can go through the administrative hearing process, but just so you all understand it, they're automatically issuing that when they see the violation on a subsequent violation. They go out there and see it, they issue it. It's automatic. And then if you have a problem with that as a property owner, you have the opportunity to appeal that within the time frame. So otherwise, just generally speaking, I don't think these have been changed since they were created. So there is an argument that it's been, I guess, 15 years or so since these amounts were changed. The legal concern you would have at some point is, and there's nothing in the statute that says what your minimum or maximum has to be, but legally if it becomes too high, you would have an argument that it's essentially unconstitutional because the punishment's not really fitting in with the conduct that's being prohibited. So certainly on the high end, legally you all could decide to essentially double these at the high end. And I don't know if you – I'd have to defer to David whether he thinks doubling them would really accomplish something on a first or second violation, because I think most of the time when someone gets penalized, they don't have the conduct take place again. And if your focus is on subsequent conduct, the focus on increasing them is probably you're going to want to do that for more at the back end of it for subsequent violations than necessarily at the front end. And I think most people might think if they got cited a single time, a $100 fine for not cutting their grass, for instance, that might be deemed a fairly significant amount. You all may not feel the same way and certainly you could talk about doing it on the low end as well. Thank you. We do have questions from Council members. Council Member Lawless. Since we have so many problems with repeat offenders who say, oh, it's just the cost of doing business, I'd really like to see these fines increased. But as I was reading the ordinance recently, the demolition by neglect, and this has to do with the structures, is a huge problem. And in the ordinance it says the fine will be levied daily for every day they're in violation past their appeal time, et cetera. But then there's this little turn of phrase in there it says, and can be cited daily, which means you have to wait the whole 30 days again. And I'd like to see that language cleaned up because that's what is allowing these houses and buildings in our downtown and our neighborhoods to absolutely fall apart while they're, you know, getting fined every so often. And I think putting that in place would dramatically enhance the livability, the sustainability of our neighborhoods and our community. So could you speak to that? I think one of the reasons that that was, I guess, incorporated into this was the appeal process. You have the right to appeal. And I think that's one of the reasons that the daily fine was not really carried out as often as it has been, because there is an appeal process. Again, David, he may be able to speak better to that as far as the prohibitions of fining daily versus the way we do it every 30 days. I understand that they have to go through the appeal process, but the way I read the ordinance, and I'm not an attorney, thank goodness, you can't levy the fine daily after they've gone through that process because you have to give them another citation and then go through that whole 30-day process again. So it really, the unintended impact of that phrase in that, and it's just that one little phrase that would change that, that would allow us to these people that buy properties and deliberately just let them fall apart. If they were fined that daily after the first appeal process, then it would be more incentive for them to take care of that property and not let it just fall in total disrepair. I think David's correct just from the civil side. Normally the per day one is a criminal type of enforcement, and in fact, the criminal fines aren't very high, but normally what happens if you get in front of a judge and you say they haven't cleaned this up, one of the remedies the judge can offer you is you clean it up by X date. If you don't, I'm going to assess a fine of this amount for every day. It continues to be in violation. We have practical matters on the civil end because you are legally entitled under the state law as well as the code. Every notice of violation is appealable. And so you've got this issue of them waiting. If it's going to be done on a daily basis, they could wait until the 20th day to exercise their right of appeal. and if you've gone out there every day, you've affected all of the subsequent notices that have been issued since then. So as a practical matter, it's been assessed like that. What we've had, and it may be possible to get with the hearing officers on this to get their recommendations, if your concern is it goes to a hearing and they're still not doing it, we have had limited success with some of the hearing officers in the past in convincing them that an appropriate penalty would be to assess it on a per-day basis under their administrative hearing powers. And that's been done a couple of times with some success. And I think really what that involves is having them comfortable that whatever change is done with respect to that empowers them to go ahead and do that. I think they have gone back and forth on what powers they have under the ordinance to assess a fine of that type nature. But on your typical fine as a practical matter, I think you're going to have complications in trying to assess it in that fashion because of the appeal mechanisms that they're allowed to exercise under the law. I completely get the appeals process, but it is a civil fine, and it does say that after they go through the due process, they can be fined that amount daily for every day it goes undone. And I don't understand why. If it went to a hearing, the hearing officers are not doing that. That's what I'm telling you. The hearing officers do not feel like, and I haven't been to a hearing in a while. The last time this came up in front of a hearing officer that I was at a hearing, the hearing officer did not feel that the code was clear enough to allow them to exercise that discretion. So if you're talking about assessing it as an ongoing fine once they're at the hearing, we are bound just as the violator is by what the hearing officer enters in the order. And what I'm telling you is, with rare exception, the hearing officers have not been comfortable issuing a civil fine on a daily basis. Now, I'm under the impression that they could get that comfort level if the ordinance was written in a different manner so that they had a comfort level that that's something they had the authority to do. But once again, just like a judge, they are entitled to issue their order on it, and they may feel that it's not appropriate, even if they saw the language in there to allow them to do it. They may feel that that's an inappropriate penalty under the circumstances. The correct language in there that is bingo, that's exactly what I'm talking about. So we can talk about this later, but this is absolutely what is allowing demolition by neglect. Thank you. Council Member Blues. Thank you, Chair. David, you're on the record with the meetings of the Student Housing Task Force, and indeed what happens, especially with property owners who own many rental properties, that the cost of violations is factored in as just the cost of doing business. And I think that that's what we want to get at here, that we end that. So, Madam Chair, I'd like to make a motion, And I move that we recommend to the Council that we review and revise current ordinances to clarify the codes, to increase fines to effectively discourage the payment of penalties as a cost of doing business. Do I have a second? Second. All right. The motion on the floor is to review and revise ordinances to clarify the code to increase fines, to discourage paying fines as cost of doing business. That's correct. And this is deliberately vague here because I think we do need to, you know, to look at our ordinances with a view toward, you know, the time limits, the loopholes, and where we would want to raise fines. So what I'd like to be able to do with this motion is to begin that process of review. Okay. There are discussion on the motion. I know several, there are three council members who were previously on the list. So discussion on the motion, Mr. Ellinger and then Ms. Feigel. Thank you. Being vague, is this something that we might want to put in a subcommittee and have them kind of come back with recommendations back to this committee? That would certainly be, I think, an effective mechanism for doing this. Okay. Thank you. Ms. Feigel. I certainly agree with the intent of the motion and would support that, particularly going into a subcommittee to be studied in depth. What I don't want to happen, and I'm not sure where this is going, because I haven't looked at the level of detail of the different levels of fines for different violations, but I just don't want us to get into a situation where we are obligated to fine somebody for something that's not as egregious as what we're aiming at. such as, you know, if the Herbie doesn't get taken back off the curb. I know that that is a code violation, is it not? Actually, not through code enforcement, no. That's actually through solid waste. Charlotte Turley. Okay. Well, that was an example, maybe not a great example. Maybe I could give you, say, a first-time offender who is on vacation and is fined for not cutting their grass. Something we could look at, maybe the first offense, maybe not increase those fines. But if you've been cited three and four and five times in a year, double them. Okay. That sounds more reasonable to me. So I just wanted to make sure that we all kind of have considered that as well. Thank you. Council Member Martin. Thank you, Chair. I just wanted to sort of reiterate some of the comments of my colleagues. I think the abatement can be a game of cat and mouse. and to the extent that folks are only required to comply once every couple of months, I think that becomes a problem. And, you know, if we site them and they go out and they clean it up the next day, but then it's bad again for another two or three months, we really haven't fixed anything. So I applaud the committee's pursuit of things that will render it more effective and perhaps more timely. I'm always concerned about the length of time that it takes to actually penalize somebody for some of the things, because as my colleagues have indicated, it can become a cost of doing business. So I appreciate that and support that motion, though I'm not a voting member of the committee. One suggestion I have is that the comment was made about penalties being aggregated within a calendar year. And I guess I would suggest that we consider or that the committee considers recommending to the council that the penalty be aggregated on a rolling 12-month basis. That might would be a more appropriate indicator of the amount of activity within a 12-month period. It's possible, given calendar years, that you could actually have a lot more activity within a 12-month period than you would actually get fined for. I think I misstated that, if that's what you all heard. It does roll, but it rolls with the last fine that was issued. It is rolling, but it's a rolling 12-month period. You guys are way ahead of the game then. Thank you, Madam Chair. Just to clarify that, say you're cited in July. Right. Your first one doesn't drop off until the next July. Right. Right. Okay. Great idea. Very good. Thank you. Council Member Beard. Thank you, Madam Chair. David, we've been discussing fines. How do you enforce the payment of fines? We place a lien on the property. And to what level? I mean, to the level of, obviously, the fine, but if a person has a property that's worth $75,000, It's going to be a long time before Can you execute against them at any given point? I think there's a dollar amount and I'll have to defer to David to that We'll put a lien against the property for $100 I understand that, but that doesn't do anything at all Until such time as he tries to sell it That's right I'll defer to David And this is all just generally speaking. We have, from a collection standpoint in my department, we have general policies that try to focus on repeat violators as well as minimum amounts of money. If they reach the threshold on those amounts and we have the viability to go ahead and, with respect to the particulars of the property, to file a foreclosure lawsuit, we end up filing a foreclosure. And to give you a general idea, I think it's ballpark. It's if you have five or more liens of record and or you have $2,500 or more in total that you owe the government. With respect to all of them, if it's legally appropriate, a lien will be filed and it will be of record. And they have a significant number of properties. I'm going to say the majority of properties that they end up siting only have one violation ever. And with respect to those, we have a high percentage of collections, as you've alluded to, simply by having the property transfer control at some point in time or the property owner otherwise wants to make good on it. Kind of ironically out of all this, I think with respect to just the total numbers of properties, In most instances, it's a single-type violation, and they get either the person pays it off when they get cited or it ends up being a one lien-type situation. Unfortunately, what you all end up hearing about is the minority of properties, which are the repeat violators. Okay. Yeah, just having a situation where they can fumble their nose at us until such time as they feel like they'd like to get rid of the property, let us say we have an acceleration clause. I know once we file a lien, there is interest that accrues on that lien on the property. So, again, if you've got a one-time offender and we put a $100 civil penalty on it, we file a lien. Like you say, the chance of us foreclosing on $100 is going to be very small. Exactly. And for that matter, all of us will be dead and gone, as would our progeny for the next four generations before it would be a problem. Thank you. And, David, just to clarify, those liens are first liens, are they not? Yes, they are. They're superior liens. Yes. Okay. Oh, David Barbary has a clarification. It depends on the type of lien. Oh, okay. This is also kind of a twist. If it's a civil fine, it's a priority. And if we spent the money, which doesn't make a whole lot of sense, it's not. So we've attempted probably for the third time in a row this year, I think there will be a push legislatively to try to get that amended. I don't know from a lobbying standpoint how successful that might be because I think you have a lot of banks that are trying to protect whatever interest they have in properties. And as you all probably know, a significant number of these properties end up being in foreclosure otherwise. And just so you all are clear, if it is in foreclosure otherwise and we have a lien interest in it, we assert our lien interest as part of that action, whether we file the foreclosure or not. Thank you. Council Member James. Thank you, Madam Chair. My question was on the original motion or was on the motion and Council Member Blues, that was only to talk about violations related to code enforcement and not anything else. So we're not talking about any other types of fines that are instituted, like, say, trees or anything like that, only code enforcement. That's correct. Okay, thank you. And then my other question I was going to ask, either David or David dealt with the management partners audit, and I wondered what they said regarding code enforcement. And my assistant brought down everything related to public safety. And part of, I think, what Council Member Beard was talking about, about the liens and that process, they get to that as well and talk about that we really need to look at what that process is and expedite it and make sure that law, code enforcement, and whatever that process is are all flowing together. Do you feel like from what you're saying today and from what the proposals are that we're going to be able to get that expedited lien process? We are. We're working on it also. CODA has recently taken over filing their own liens at the county clerk's office, and we feel that has expedited a lot the process of filing the liens because with the law department, they file all of the liens of all the divisions in the Irby County government. So, of course, you know, we're thrown in that mix. When we took over that process, we file our own liens now so we can really get those over there and get them filed. Okay. Was that in response to the audit? It's part of it. It is. I think there were several parts of that audit that we're still working on. I think the dialing back the number of violations to two versus three was part of that. I think that all goes into the whole law department code enforcement relationship. Okay. I think it's important as we – I do support the motion, and I think as long as we're doing it, we need to make sure we're fulfilling it from the time they're getting cited all the way through, so that way we have a consistent policy. So if there's something that we need to do about that lien process and the relationship between code enforcement and law to expedite that, I think now would be the time, once this motion passes at that point, to introduce that, because I did not see that, and maybe I'm missing it, but I didn't necessarily see it referred to in the pages 11 and 12 of our packet. Thank you. All right. The motion on the floor is to review and revise the ordinances to clarify the code such that increasing fines to discourage paying fines as cost of doing business. Is that correct, Mr. Blues? All right. All those in favor, please say aye. Anyone opposed? All right. Thank you very much. I think, David Jarvis, you can rest for a minute. Thank you. Number five recommendation applies to building inspection. And it says, create a system for civil fines, abatement, and placement of liens on offending properties for violations of any code enforced by Division of Building Inspection. Welcome to Mr. Dewey Crow. Good morning, Chair. Yes. In an effort to save time, I think five and six would be better served under the building task force, building inspection task force that the vice management announced today during work session. And I think those two issues can be taken up at that time rather than go through a lengthy conversation today, if that's okay with the committee. Otherwise, we can hear it twice or, you know, have discussion on those two items. I think whatever the committee wants to do with these recommendations. Those actions are already being taken on another track. So there won't be duplicating work. Pardon me? Yes. Council Member Ellinger wants to know what this task force will be doing in relation to 5 and 6. 6 is to create civil fines for activities undertaken without a permit from Division of Building Inspection. So what will be done on the task force? The motion was to have a comprehensive review of the work of building inspection, looking at what codes they're enforcing, what we're asking them to enforce in terms of zoning laws, what the penalties are, can we create administrative hearing board, et cetera, on down the list. So we will want a comprehensive review of everything we're doing through Building Inspection Department to see if we can do anything better. So would it be, I mean, if there's a motion, it might be appropriate if this committee wants to do it, to word for word take these two recommendations and place them into that task force? It's part of the work of the task force. They come back to this committee and report out. So moved. I want to clarify something with you all. We do have a, hang on one second, we have a motion by Council Member Feigel and a second by Councilmember Blues to place numbers five and six recommendations from the Student Housing Task Force verbatim into the task force. Is it already created or is it being created? How long will this be? Vice Mayor. My plan was to make the appointments today. Okay. So there would, I was going to ask the same question that, so that we don't, to ensure that there is no delay on actions regarding this. And that's what Council Member Stendant, you just said that there wouldn't be any, it would actually dig into the root causes that then drive these recommendations, right? And confirm them is my understanding, right? Okay, thank you. And now David Barbary wants to clarify something. It's my recollection, and I'm not going to remember what the name of this task force is. I believe there is a task force that's currently seated that is reviewing number five at least. And that, Council Member Henson's on that. Because we were discussing proposed needed changes to state law, and I think the preliminary determination on number five was if you want to be able to have that authority, at least with respect to the stuff that's clearly treated under the zoning ordinance as being a criminal-type matter, is going to require an appropriate change to the state law. And there is a committee that's met at least once that I think is meeting again next month that has discussed that very same issue. And I'm not suggesting that you all don't otherwise seat this group, but I think it's relevant to that group's knowledge that this discussion is otherwise taking place. MS. David, do you have a copy of our packet? The three issues in Councilmember Henson's work group are reviewing civil penalties and fines on property owners who operate home offices in violation of the ordinance, imposing restrictions on issuing permits when there are pending written complaints, and placing time limits for completion of construction projects. I think number one is turned into number five is what I'm suggesting. It's turned into a broader issue of how if you want to go about enforcing that civilly, it's going to take a change to the state law. Okay. And so that, just so you all are aware of it, that's being separately pursued. I would assume that that group would be ready to make some sort of report out by the end of this calendar year. Okay. So, Council Members, yes, Dr. Blues. I wonder if perhaps Council Member Henson's task force or working group could be subsumed into the task force if the Vice Mayor is going to appoint, whether that would make the process more… These three issues that were in Planning Committee are very separate, and I believe she's almost ready to report back to this committee. And there are three very specific issues, so I think we probably should leave it as is. But, Mr. Barbary, you're saying number five you think is also being... I just wanted to let you all know that it won't catch you by surprise if there's a report out from that group by the end of this year that there's a suggestion that the state law be changed. I think that might impact your discussion otherwise with this other group. So the motion to put both these into this task force is probably fine. And if Council Member Henson's recommendations affect what's in that task force, they can work with that. is my thinking. So is there any comment or question about the motion on the floor? So Council Member Feigl has, oh, Council Member James. Council Member Feigl, Council Member James. Thank you, Madam Chair. I could, can you hear me? I don't feel like I can hear myself talking. Pardon? I don't know. Can you hear me? Your mic doesn't sound on. Council Member Feigl, Council Member James. I can't even hear myself talking. So maybe Maybe I just need clarification. On number five and six, would it not be appropriate that this committee at least, I guess what I'm thinking, if a task force is formed, is it not that we as a committee would need to have a recommendation or we wait to hear back from a task force about the need for this? Do we need to hear at this committee the discussion of the need for it, and then we as a committee determine whether or not this is something we'd like to move forward? I'm a little bit confused about process, and maybe I'm just missing it, but I feel like this is presented in front of this committee. Are we assigning the task to evaluate whether or not these things are needed, or do we need to agree that these things are needed before we allow it to move forward to some other group? You see what I'm saying? I do, sort of. They've come today to this committee because the need was identified in the Student Housing Task Force. and it was fairly specific in the background information and the appendices, the discussions of these two, it's up to this committee what we want to do with them. And if, I mean, I think it's appropriate if we want to move them forward based on the task force work, that's okay, or if we choose to handle them right here. The point Council Member Stennett was making, I think, is not to duplicate work and have them in two different bodies. And my point that I need to feel okay about is that if the report was presented out to us and it's expected that we as a planning committee take action on this, I want to make sure that it's being recaptured back into this group because there's a tendency for task forces to report out to the full council, and I'd like to see this back to committee before it reports out to full council. So I don't know how to make that happen. Well, I think the task force is to report back to full council, is it not? It is. It would, but I think considering Council Member Jane's request and the merits of it, you know, especially since the issue has, the overall issue has been deposited in planning, that it would be appropriate that the task force, you know, report back to the planning committee. I think the purpose of this really is, the way at least I'm interpreting this, would be that this would be a sort of a deep dig into building inspection, comprehensively all the issues which would, you know, necessarily then include these recommendations. Does that work for you? It does. And that's because it's very holistic. So it's helpful if it can come back to this planning committee so we could see where we need to place certain things. So, yes, that would be helpful. Okay. Very good. Council Member Lawless. I think I was the one that suggested number five and number six. In the first one, number five, and I think they are very separate than what Council Member Henson is doing, we have passed a, yeah, number six, we've passed, yeah, number six is done. We have passed fines on people who build without a permit. We've done that. So we can check that off our list. And number five, that was an issue about that we'll take a change in state regs, making it a civil penalty rather than criminal. And that was the purpose of that. So just FYI. So based on your comment, let's see, Council Member Feigl, I believe you made the motion. would you want to, since number six is complete, do you want to take number six? I would amend the motion to delete number six. Okay, and is that good with the seconder? Okay. So the motion then is to move number five to the Building Inspection Task Force for in-depth recommendations. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? All right. So moving on then to number seven. Number seven recommendation says to improve system to better document violations and ensure sharing of information about complaints between responsible divisions of LFUCG. So it's my sense this will for sure involve both code enforcement and building inspection and sharing of information so that there's full discussion in the task force centered around full knowledge and more of a comprehensive look. So David Jarvis. I think Officer Gaines' program will also address this issue, but one of the things we've done, when we utilize LexCall 311 to take the complaints for code enforcement, before they were just called into code enforcement, we would document and put them in the computer. Now that it's in the LexCol system, any division that has access to LexCol can look at those complaints and see the end result. So I think we are working towards that. There may even be other plans to modernize code enforcement's reporting out system via the web, through LexCol, through our website. So I think that is in the works with Ramos folks. And I do know that Keith's program will address some of those issues. Now, I'm not sure what Dewey has in mind. Mr. Crow, what is your perspective on that? I fully agree with that. We do need a more comprehensive software that will tie divisions together that deal with all property issues. Currently, Computer Services is looking at software that would suit that purpose. It would then link building inspection, code enforcement, engineering, planning, all divisions that do with property issues or property violations so that you could go on, pull up an address, and see any ongoing action by any agency on that particular property, whether it be proposals for a zone change, whether it be a code enforcement violation that's underway, or whether they're building an addition at that location. My understanding from Rama and his folks are that due to budget constraints they haven't been able to move forward with that, but hopefully in the coming budget cycle that they're going to try to include funding to put that software program in place. And do you know the cost of it? I do not know the cost directly. It is a significant cost, though, is my understanding. Millions? That would be significant. My understanding, we get into the, we exceed a million dollars on it. I don't know the exact numbers, and I would have to defer to. So just for clarification before discussion, right now, complaints that go to 311, Lex call, can, I think I heard you say, David Jarvis, may be looked at by any of these divisions, but is there any comprehensive look or any meeting, regular meeting, to look at these? Or is it on a voluntary basis by the different divisions? I think it's on a voluntary basis. If the divisions have access to LexCol, they can look and see what code enforcement currently has under notice and the outcome of the case. But I'm not aware of any ongoing meetings to where we sit down and discuss, you know, caseloads or with other divisions or anything like that. Dewey and I are in pretty close contact, especially dealing with some of the violations in the UK area, boarding houses, that sort of thing, the gravel parking lots. He and I are in close contact with those issues. But as far as, you know, issues that would deal with, like, solid waste or anything like that, unless they look in that LexiCol system, they're not going to have access to our database. Okay. Thank you. Council Member James. Thank you, Chair. Committee members and Dewey, you might want to be up to the mic. Like I was on a LINCS committee I think my first year when, so that's been three years ago, and I remember Dewey talking about that they needed an upgrade in the computer system because they needed to be able to link in. They needed the tablets for every inspector to have a tablet when they go out to a site. And it was, I think at that point, the hope that the tablet would kind of automatically transfer information in because, you know, part of somebody's entire job is scanning documentation and filing documentation. And then even when they scan it and file it, maybe it doesn't transfer over to this other system. So that's in a homegrown system, and it doesn't transfer. The management partners audit also addressed this and talked about how dubious of a business a homegrown system is. I just, you know, we've heard for several years that IT is working on something. It's always going to be a money issue. It's always going to come down to are we ready to invest the money. And I think at this point we've just got to take action and do something. So I actually make a motion that we hear a presentation from IT department regarding where they are with the building inspection and code enforcement crossover software system. Do I hear a second? And I'm gathering you would like this at a work session, or would you like it? I'd like it at this committee, so we can make that. I mean, this recommendation is here in this committee, so I think it would be appropriate to hear it here, and we can decide, as we have with, you know, the abated funds coming back to code enforcement, what do we need to do to get some money invested in the software, the database. Okay. So there's a motion on the floor. Council Member Beard. Thank you, Madam Chair. Slippery slope here, maybe. When they make this presentation, there are priorities that need to be taken and taken into consideration as far as their work and what they're doing. And I think we need to see a bigger picture than just this issue alone as to what IT is doing. to say that they're buried or they're busy or whatever is fine, and I'm sure they are, but at the same time, are they going forward with the things that we need them to go forward with? And so I would want to expand that somewhat to have them give us some list of priorities, these costs and a timeline of when these things should be finished, should be started for that matter and finished. Thank you, Madam Chair. Council Member Lawless. that I'd like to see that seems to me could be implemented immediately is a way, just an Excel spreadsheet that when a building permit is given out, it wouldn't cost millions to hire somebody just to do data entry so that that's easily accessible. Thank you. Council Member Feigl. Thank you, Chair. I just wanted to ask Mr. Crow if, I think, I think Council Member James mentioned that this was two or three years ago, that this was recommended or at least requested. And has there been any progress, to your knowledge, has there been any progress toward building a system better than you had three years ago? I know we looked at some software products out there that will accomplish this. And I know there's a lot of interest in certainly computer services and desire to move forward. As Council Member James said, it is a management partner's recommendation. Several of the recommendations that affect building inspection are really directly tied to having an upgraded software program that links us with other divisions that are, again, dealing with property, from planning to code enforcement to engineering, so that you have this comprehensive view of what is occurring in a particular property and you can track any action all the way from the beginning to the end and see the outcome of it and document that through this program. The software they're talking about is very comprehensive. In fact, it takes over. It just doesn't do that. It actually takes over for us, issues our permits, tracks our permits through our processes, as well as the other divisions and their projects. So it's very comprehensive software, and I do believe that we need it and should have had it. And the budget's been better several years ago. It will enable us. It will be a web-based product. It will enable us to then use field computers, laptops, or other mobile computing devices in the field to get documentation instantaneously to inspectors that are out there looking at a piece of property. They can see that history immediately. They may also find out instantly whether there's ongoing actions by code enforcement or there's other issues in maybe water quality or other divisions are having a problem there. So we know that there's multiple things occurring that. It is needed, and I've gotten some assurances from computer services that they're going to try to move forward with it in the near future. Again, I guess budgets are, you know, certainly have an impact on how quickly you can move on those. Well, one of the reasons that I ask this is because I was involved with one of my constituents in the 5th District in a process of inspections and whether the inspections were actually occurring and whether that information was being reported properly. And what I came to realize is there isn't, in my opinion, there isn't a lot of good direct communication between the different departments in building. Council Member Gordon and I worked on this project, and we realized that the communication is just not as good as it should be between departments. And if this is something that would fix that problem, I would be all in favor of it. But again, it is a bigger issue. We need to look at it in the broader context of our entire budget. But I really don't want this particular request to get lost somewhere. So whether it goes into this special task force that's going to be set up or whether we make some kind of notation so that we can look at it during the budget cycle, I just don't want it to get lost because there really is a lack of communication between different departments. Council Member Stenet. Thank you, Chair. I guess I'm a little curious. Instead of waiting for the money and waiting for a unique software package, why can't we take the records that we supply to the PVA and use every property in Fayette County, give it its own ID number, and then have the different divisions immediately start under each property when they click on it, create what action that division is taking either forward with it, whether it be a stormwater or a fire action, code enforcement, building inspection, and compile that list so that anyone can access it, can see all their involvement with LFUCG under that particular property so we all can share that. I mean, we already have that database. Could we not just take that and do something with that? So I know you want to use handhelds and things like that, that are a little more in NSU permits, but this is a knowledge, this is a history database that anyone can look under that property and see exactly everything they've done with LFUCG or what they've requested tied to the property, not necessarily the property owner. That would work, I would assume, from our standpoint. I don't know how they, you know, I would have to defer to computer services as to how they could accomplish that. We already assign a very particular identifier to every piece of property through our system, through our current software. Every property is identified by what we call a parcel ID number, which identifies the street by number and identifies the address attached to that, as well as the general address and name of the street is included. So we have that capability already in our current system. I think what this new software, new packages, goes far beyond those capabilities. It actually would allow you as a homeowner to go onto the website, bring up your address. If you're doing an addition there, it would be you be able to see whether that inspector was there that morning, what he found and what he did. And that's something that just a database tracking would not provide. This would be almost real-time information available to a homeowner, a building contractor, any citizen to see exactly what's occurred at that property almost instantaneously as it's being done. Well, I'm not talking specifically to your department. I'm just talking about as a government as a whole, any action. I think once you would click on building inspection or anything, then you would go into your system and see all those kind of things. But a comprehensive list, I know David probably could use this too, of everything we've done with that property, Whether it be a legal notice, a fire notice, a police effort, whatever it may be, we can list that so that everybody in government can see this is a property and what we've done there. And then they click on that, and then it goes into your system to see permits and things like that. Get a little more comprehensive after that. But I think we need to work on a comprehensive list of every property. If you already have that, I know we have it because we give it to PVA. Just start expanding that and let everyone start recording in there notes every time that department has contact on that property. I have no problem with doing that if we can get it worked out. How do they accomplish that through computer services and the other divisions that have put data in? Thank you. I think it would be obviously very beneficial, as would any type system that will give us more knowledge and information as to what's occurring there. Thank you. Councilman O, David? We currently do that through the LexCol system. When we enter an action on a property, you can log on to LexCol and you can see it on the web now. And to answer Council Member James' question, we implement the handheld computers, and we use them in the field, but the one thing it does do, it does report back to a homegrown system. So, yeah. And then we enter the data into the LexCol system. So it's sort of a, we'd like to take that step out one day, but right now we're just entering it into it ourselves. And to that point, though, not every division is doing it. I know you are. Right. So if we need to get stormwater doing it, we need to get sewers. Anytime we have action on that property, and they touch, LFUCG has an action on there that needs to be recorded under that property. You could enter it into the LexiCorp system and see it. Thank you. Yes, excellent. Council Member James. Thank you. I think Council Member Stinnett makes some great points. And what the way the management partners audit stated it kind of reiterates that development review software should connect all property-related functions such as code planning, public works, and FIRE into one case management and tracking database. What we have in our government are vacuums of information in different divisions of government. And although code enforcement has great information, which their system has been able to link with our link or they data entry it, whatever it is, again, that's another person, that's another salary just to be able to do that. For effectiveness, efficiency, faster, better, cheaper, it really does work better if we can have one comprehensive. So that's what I'm talking about. And Council Member Beard, I'm not really asking for computer services to come. and put this higher on their priority list. We just need to hear what is feasible. We need to hear where they are, what's feasible, like Council Member Stenet's saying. Can we use something we already have and be able to make it more effective? But we already know through building inspection the homegrown systems that are used, we cannot. It won't, you can't just plug your computer in and web it over and it just translates the information. It's in a homegrown system, and we need to get away from those homegrown systems, which management partner says are created by individuals, which when that individual leaves the city, that whole database knowledge, how that was even created is gone. We need comprehensiveness when it comes to one of the three H's, high tech. So I think we need to really kind of get with the program and understand when it comes to consent decree and other things, the easier it is to access that information, the better it is. And it should be system-based, not people-based. with a backup, definitely, for those of you that don't necessarily believe in the H, the high-tech H yet all the way. We do need to have a backup system for tracking that paper, but that computer system is definitely needed. So my motion still stands. You know, I do think that we need to hear from computer services of what's going on, not demanding, just, you know, what can we do with what we have to make our system work better. Thanks. Council Member Beard. And I've got no problem with that. I just have more of a global problem with making sure that our priorities or their priorities match our priorities. As it relates to they're still sitting out there, for instance, the human resources system that we spent much more than a million dollars for, like three or four million dollars, I think. And the whole paying system revitalization and such is waiting on that. And so they may take a message from us that they need to do this first and put that into another year and another year. We need to look at this more globally as to what our priorities are, and is this actually the most important thing, or is it second or third, or can it be squeezed in somewhere along the line. And it's something we don't know. We get a shot at finding out at length time, But right now, at this moment, we don't know where they are. And I think we need an update just generally on where they are and what the priorities are. And if we're adding one where that might fit, something they can get done relatively easy, stand-alone, that might be possible and would be fine with me. Thank you. So, Council Member James, motion on the floor is to hear a presentation from Computer Services in the Planning Committee about progress on the software to link the divisions. And I'm presuming you're included in that is cost. Yes. Hearing cost. So, are there any other comments on the motion? If not, will those in favor please say aye? Aye. Anyone opposed? And I think that planning could probably hear that at its November 24th meeting. So let's move on to number 8, which says draft and adopt a definition of fraternity house and sorority house to be added to the zoning ordinance, similar to the first sample definition included in materials submitted by the UK Dean of Students. And this is in Appendix 10, if you, pardon me, page 14 in your packet. If you'd like to go ahead and turn to that, Council members. This is the recommendation refers to the Greenville County, South Carolina definition. which says fraternity or sorority house, a house or structure occupied by a college or university fraternity or sorority containing sleeping rooms, bathrooms, common rooms, and a central kitchen and dining area maintained exclusively for members of the fraternity or sorority and their guests or visitors. And the task force discussed this because there currently is nothing in the zoning ordinance defining a fraternity and sorority house, and it was felt by some of the enforcement folks that it would be beneficial to have such a definition, and it would be helpful to them. So I open the floor for comment, questions, motions, et cetera. Council Member Feigl. I certainly don't have a problem with trying to come up with a definition, but in looking at the first example they've used, I'm seeing, you know, that it would be easy to get around because it says that they would be maintained exclusively for members of the fraternity or sorority. sorority. And while we're trying to limit probably more the number of people that live in a house than anything else, I'm not sure how determining that it's a fraternity or sorority really has a lot of relevance to that. But when this one says exclusively for members of a group, a sorority fraternity, they could easily get around that by allowing one other person to live in the house. So what have we accomplished if that's what we choose to enact? I think it really should say more about if they are registered with the university as a sorority or a fraternity. I mean, that to me is the basis for determining the definition. So your comment, I'm looking here, could be combined with some language from the second one, which talks about a university-affiliated fraternity or sorority. Is that what you're referring to? That makes more sense to me. To add some of that language. Councilmember James. Madam Chair, is there, I wonder if there's anybody here from the university that could speak on their definition per their? Lisa Higgins-Hord is here. Welcome. And we did thrash this around in the task force. Do you have some perspective on this? on this? Unfortunately, I do not because the Dean of Students is the person who actually had this information in today's Board of Trustees days and everybody is in meetings and committees. So he would be the one that has all the information for this specific piece for the task force. I could try and see if I can get that information to you before the end of this meeting. Okay, that would be good. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Beard. Is the problem on the fraternity sorority situation that these are fraternity and sorority houses where it's the stand-alone type of fraternity sorority houses, or these overflow form and that there is like a mother house that does the cooking and all of that, and this is just for sleeping. And that way we can have rather than 80 members, we can have 100 members in the fraternity or sorority. The father house could do the cooking. That's true too, but it wouldn't be as good. Yes. Well, David Jarvis has been in these discussions, and I think he can flesh this out a little bit. I can't speak for the task force members on this, but I think the problem lies with the houses that pop out of the neighborhoods and deem themselves a fraternity or sorority. I don't think you really have the problem with the affiliated fraternities and sororities on the U.K. campus as much as you do the hockey team moving into Kentucky Avenue, and we've got a fraternity now. I think that in lies your problem. Kind of like old school. I can't speak for the task force members, but from my understanding, that's the problem. Some of the fraternity sorority houses that will buy or rent a house in a neighborhood and convert it into a fraternity sorority house, not the ones that are affiliated with UK, perhaps, you know, in fraternity row or that sort of thing. So if that clarifies it any, I don't know. Officer Gaines has something to add. We also have the issue with kind of what we deal with as a party house. a fraternity or sorority will rent the house to kind of bypass the restrictions of a legitimate fraternity or sorority that is recognized by UK. So what they do is they rent a private property strictly for a lot of times having parties, and that's what we go to and deal with. So that's using the definition that might be taken into consideration. I reference sleeping and maybe parties are more appropriate, but I'm not even going to go there. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Martin. Thank you, Chair. I think we can just dance around this and dance around this and never really solve it. It's like one of my kids sort of saying squishy things. You squeeze it one place and it pops out the other place. I don't think we're going to solve this problem unless we as a council really attack what a housekeeping unit is. That's really what the problem is. We could set up definition after definition, but if we don't really get to the crux of what really is supposed to go in a single-family neighborhood, we're never going to solve this. We can squish it one place and it'll pop out someplace else. Many, many other college towns and other cities and other jurisdictions have faced this very problem. And there are many court decisions and other types of approaches that have attacked this. If we don't try to really make use of the expertise and the experience that other cities have gained in this, I really don't think we're going to solve it. And I would hope that we as a council could consider really trying to describe what a housekeeping unit is. Folks would share the entire house. They would share food, rent, and other expenses. Rent would not be allowed by the room. A housekeeping unit is a fairly stable and permanent group, and it certainly is not a group that rents by the room or has a party house or something like that. But I'm certainly in support describing fraternity and sorority houses, and I would support the attempts to define that. But it sort of does dance around the problem. And so I think we eventually have to really get down to a housekeeping unit and define what that is. Thank you, Madam Chair. Councilmember Blues. Thank you, Madam Chair. I think that Council Member Martin makes a good point here, and I wonder if it might not serve our purpose as well to hold Number 8 for and to incorporate it in a discussion of Number 5 of the expanded policy recommendations from the task force. I think that the two are really one issue, as Council Member Martin suggests. So this is not a motion, but I would suggest that we consider, when we consider number five, that we keep in mind this last recommendation in expanded enforcement. Thank you. Council Member James. Thank you, Madam Chair. Officer Gaines, question for you. I've tried to, in looking at legislation, I try to think of it as reasoning and intent. So I'm trying to figure out what is gained by defining sorority. Where are you trying to get? What's the purpose of defining it? What's going to happen differently by defining something versus not defining it? This wasn't out of my proposal. This came out of the student housing task force. In your opinion, as an enforcement officer, knowing when you walk up to a place that it's a sorority house versus a family living there, what difference does that make? I think that would fall back on either code enforcement or building inspection with those respects because our enforcement is going to be the same no matter what it is. We're going to deal with whatever violation that we see happening when we're there, whether you're a family or whether you're a fraternity, sorority. Let me ask them then. We're going to deal with legal crimes. Code or building inspection? What's going to be gained by defining? I believe if you define sorority or fraternity house, It would help address those situations where we have maybe a house out in a single-family zone that's been rented and is occupied by maybe four, five, six members of a single fraternity or sorority. Now, if it's defined properly, we could go in and look at that and say, well, you're not living here as a family. Technically, you're all members of a fraternity. Under our definition, this is a fraternity house, and it's not allowed in this zone. It could help enforcement from that end. Fraternity and sorority houses are under the zoning ordinance, specifically limited to certain zones. You can't have a fraternity house or sorority house in a single-family zone. But if without a definition of what constitutes one, the mere fact that four or five individuals live in a single-family home and they otherwise meet the definition of a family, but they're all members of a sorority, They're all members of a fraternity. We can't make that call that it's a sorority or fraternity house. So we have a law right now on the books in our zoning that says you cannot have a sorority or fraternity home within a certain – The zoning ordinance identifies where it'll – you go into particular zones and it'll identify what's permitted there. Sorority and fraternity houses are permitted in certain zones. Other zones, they're not listed, so therefore they're not permitted. They're not listed in single-family zones, so fraternity and sorority houses aren't permitted in single-family zones. But pre to that, there's always a definition in that particular part of there should be definitions ahead of that. The zoning ordinance does not define the term fraternity or sorority house. It lists them as permitted uses in certain zones, but it does not define what constitutes those. We think we know one when we see it, but that may not necessarily be the case. Obviously, we know the fraternity sorority houses when we see them, the U.K. ones. They're well-identified. We know what those are. Those are in proper places. Okay. Without a definition, we don't know that a group of fraternity students that have rented a house together out in the suburbs, is that a fraternity house or is that just a group of individuals living there as a family? Okay, so the benefit to defining it is that we'll know where they would be allowed or not, what would constitute them in a particular zone. We can look at a particular instance and see if it meets what the definition says is a fraternity or sorority house. So when a person asks for building inspection or building permit occupancy, they're going to have to define whether or not they intend to use that as a sorority, a fraternity house at that point. So then – If they're coming to us for any type of action that we would do, typically what happens is they just rent and move in. And if you go out, if you receive a complaint or become aware of from neighbors that there's large activities, a large number of people, and they think maybe it's a sorority house or a fraternity, then we would go there and do an investigation, try to find out who's occupying it. If they're all members of a fraternity and the definition states exclusively occupied by fraternity or sorority members, you now meet the definition of fraternity house, you have to cease this use. So what are you going to ask for from the occupants to see if they're a member of fraternity or sorority house or not? Until now, we would just ask if they are, if that's what the charge is. In other words, if we get a complaint that there's a fraternity house operating at such and such location out in a single-family zone, our inspectors would show up, make contact with the individuals there, and ask those questions. Now, we may get answers that may not be entirely truthful, but if they know what we're looking for, they may tell us, no, they're not. But we can follow up and try to get information maybe from the university as to what that is or from a fraternity that the neighbors are alleging is occupying the house. Again, making the determination is always the tough part. You have to try to confirm the information you're receiving as to whether it's factual or not and make a decision based on that. But if you don't without the definition, there's no reason to even say, well, it's not. As long as they meet the definition of family and they're living there and occupying in that manner and they're not doing things that would identify it as a lodging or boarding house, then, you know, there's nothing we would, you know, there's no action we could take at that point. Okay. Well, I want to help you get workable legislation. So beyond defining it, I think we need to figure out how you're truly going to identify. So you can define anything you want, but then how are we going to go through and prove that? Otherwise, it's not workable legislation. So I want to help you. I agree with you. There needs to be a very positive method to identify exactly what you have and make those determinations. That's part of the problem we have with lots of the definitions and lots of the instances we deal with, especially on the use of single-family homes and other residential-type properties as to exactly what is occurring there. Some of the definitions we have are just a little – are too broad. Some of them are – can be broadly interpreted. Some of them aren't. They're just not adequate to give us the information we need and define it well enough to let us go in and make a definitive determination so we can take enforcement action. Thank you, Dewey. Thank you, Chair. Council Member Stennett. Thank you, Chair. In terms of accepting this recommendation and not accepting it from the Student Housing Task Force, we put into committee last Tuesday a comprehensive review of our residential zoning ordinances. I think this does merit one of the items for discussion as well as what Council Member Martin alluded to, the definition of family within our zoning ordinances. So I would be in favor when we review our residential zoning ordinance to include this in there as part of that review as one of the items along with parking, et cetera, all the way down the list that we're compiling as we go forward. Thank you, Chair. Council Member Feigl. I just would ask that you expound on that just a little bit. Is that going into a committee? What is that? We voted into planning committee last Tuesday, so it's in this committee. Okay. The comprehensive review of residential zoning ordinances and all the definitions within those ordinances. So this definition would fall into our review when we look at those. Okay. All right. Well, I would agree with that because I feel like that defining fraternity and sorority is maybe not only is it going to be difficult, but I'm not sure it's going to get us where we want to be. I mean, we could have a group of five guys living in a house that aren't necessarily affiliated with a fraternity and be, you know, some of the biggest offenders that are out there in terms of nuisance in the neighborhood. And then again, you know, we might have three sorority girls that are renting an apartment together. And would that be deemed a sorority house? You know, so I think this is a very complex issue. And I'm not sure it's going to get us where we want to be in terms of enforcing our regulations. So I think that does need to be studied pretty carefully. So I would support putting that into the committee. I have one more, Councilmember, Councilmember Martin, and then I think we have some input from FIRE. Would you like to give your input in response to Councilmember Feigel? The only thing I'm here to say is that UK recognizes we do like six to eight off-campus fraternity or sorority house inspections every semester. Ones that are not UK owned and they consider them to be recognized as a fraternity or sorority affiliated with Kentucky, with UK, but it's not owned by their property. they're required to have an inspection by our office once every semester. There's probably about six, seven, or eight of them out there. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Martin. Thank you, Chair. Dude, I had one more question for you, sir. I'm sorry to bring you back up here. Mr. Crowe. Sorry. Are the fraternity and sorority houses, are they still being used primarily as residences, or are you talking about just a vacant house that is rented by a fraternity or sorority as a party house? Can you rephrase that? I'm kind of lost there. And you're talking about if they're other than the actual established fraternity that's in an official fraternity house. Other than fraternities on campus, one of the things that the council is talking about is defining a fraternity or sorority. I guess that one of the issues that perhaps they're trying to find a solution to is a fraternity or sorority that might rent a private house in a neighborhood in order to have parties there off campus. because of the no drinking policy on campus. Are you familiar with these types of houses, or is Mr. Jarvis or? I'm not directly familiar with them used in that context. We know there are groups of fraternity students that rent properties. They live there otherwise as a family. Now, if they're using that for party purposes for the main sorority or fraternity, I can certainly see that happening. Again, with a definition. I guess you don't really know if they're living there as a family. Well, when we go in, what we look for is things that identifies it specifically as a lodging house or a boarding house, which are identified in the zoning ordinance. If we don't see those things, they're not there, they're not evident, and the information we have doesn't indicate that it's being rented in any fashion, then we don't pursue it on those issues. Again, a definition would say if this house is rented by a fraternity or sorority, we can get that rental information from the landlord that, yes, they did rent it to such and such fraternity. That would be prime evidence that that's possibly being used for that if it meets a definition. Okay. I appreciate that. I guess I would have some concern about any sort of designation in our zoning ordinance which would specifically target students as opposed to other groups of people undertaking the same activity, similar to Council Member Feigel's comments, I think that would really be unreasonable towards students. I think it's the activity itself that we should be concerned with. So one of my concerns with the definition of fraternity and sorority would be that it would almost have to be defined in terms of being a student, and that may just discriminate unfairly against students. Notwithstanding the fact, I still think we need to describe housekeeping units. And what I think is being described here and what would typically be a sorority, those folks rent by the room. And renting by the room, I think, is contrary to single-family residence. And so I think that – but that is something I think we can take into the subcommittee and to look at that more closely. But I guess I'd be concerned about any designation that would target students as opposed to other folks engaging in the same activity. Thank you, Chair. You're welcome. Vice Chair Blues, would you take the gavel, please? Thank you, Madam Chair. I wanted to just add a little bit of perspective to this. And I am fine if we want to delay this, but we have in our zoning ordinance discussion about fraternities and sororities, but no definition of what one is. So when you have something in your zoning ordinance and have no definition of what it is, it makes it very difficult for enforcement. So this, the discussions in our task force had to do with tightening up this little piece of the zoning ordinance so that if we want to attend to a fraternity or sorority, we know what we're talking about. Many communities across the country have defined fraternity and sorority, and they've defined them so that they stand up in court. It's not anything new or different, but it's a separate piece from lodging house, boarding home, congregate living, any of those things. It's just one more piece of the puzzle. So I just wanted to put that in the mix because I'm actually supportive of putting a definition in for sorority fraternity because we already discussed it in our zoning ordinance. That's all. Thank you, Vice Chair. And then I think that we're pushing our time here, but Lisa Higgins-Hord maybe has something more to add. Is that right? Do you want to come to the mic? We haven't really had public comment. Is this someone with you? No, no, no. He was raising his hand constantly, and I was wondering if you were going to. I've worked in the U.K. with attorneys for 10 years. Oh, okay. Okay. Well, were you able to? I was able to get our dean of students, Tony Blanton. He's actually in a meeting with a student right now, so I pulled him out for at least five minutes. there is no way that he could get down here before 1130. And he did say if we did need to have him down here for conversation on this, this is specifically his area. And he can pretty much speak to this and explain to you why the recommendation is on the floor for, just as you had just talked about with the sorority and fraternity housing. And so I think you would probably benefit for having him here to discuss that because he knows about the loopholes and what the suggestions are. So we might could have him at the next meeting. Yes, and also if there's anything else that you would like for us to comment on, please let us know for this next meeting. And, of course, today is Board of Trustees meeting, as I said, and everybody is at a meeting, so I'm having to pull them out, and sometimes that's a little difficult to do. Okay, very good. Council members, do you want to hear from – are you at Transi or UK? I've worked at UK with materials for 10 years now. Do you want to step to the microphone and remind us of your name and address, please? Sure. I'm Anthony Humphress, and I live at 1108 Fontaine. And I think a lot of what you'll hear next week is probably a little bit about what I'll say here. But a fraternity and sorority has to be registered nationally with their group, and they each have to have one house on campus that you cannot have parties in or alcohol. Hall, so they do not party at their registered fraternity houses. The ones that might be further off campus are Delta Tall Delta on Nicholasville Road by Elizabeth Street, there's Kappa Alpha and Kappa Kappa Gamma on Maxwell, those kind of things. However, since they cannot drink on campus or in their houses even nationally, nor can and they technically rent another house and say, hey, this is the TAPA drinking house, or they would lose their charter. They have to do that informally. Therefore, you would never be able to prove any of that. However, it's kind of like you were saying, sir. If you try to squash the parties, it's going to pop up somewhere, and that's just a fact that they will find somewhere to party. So I would propose, and I know that neighbors might not be in favor of this, but there are certain streets around the university that are gone. There are over 90% students right now, such as University State, some of Maxwell, Hagerman Court, Woodland Avenue. I would suggest that somehow informally you label some of those streets as university streets where we could say, hey, if you want to live this kind of lifestyle and you want to have your parties, and this is very similar to Ohio State, then you do it here, and that would be an outlet. It would be safer. Police could patrol that area more. They could register the parties. And on the other side of things, that way students would know, hey, if I'm not living on one of these streets, then I know I'm supposed to be a good neighbor and not have parties at 2 a.m. So I know that was way down on the list of suggestions here, like a university area. But I think maybe not an area, but a street would be very helpful. But I just want to let you know that that's how the fraternities and sororities operate. They will not formally say this is our party house, but they will pop up somewhere, and it will be nearly impossible to stop it unless you have a street. So thank you. Thank you very much. Council Member Lawless. Since we have such an enormous workload on the planning committee, I would like to make a motion that while we're here we extend the meeting to 1230. Discussion? The motion is to extend the meeting until 1230. Any discussion? I see some pain in some faces, but no discussion. Council Member Blues. Well, I think what Council Member Lawless says is correct. We have a huge amount of work to do, and we don't have a lot of time in which to do it. And we are here now, and we can get in maybe another 55 minutes, and that can matter. Thank you. Any other discussion? I would recommend if the motion passes, we do take a five-minute amenity break. Council Member James. Thank you, Chair. I will support Extend in the meeting. I do think if we do find that there are issues that we need to hear from UK on, I mean, we talked previously about we really needed to have them as a partner in solving the student housing issue that we probably need to schedule. I mean, I know we need to schedule at our convenience, but we need to schedule at a time where they can be here to participate in discussion. it was kind of odd to not have them here. Thanks. Thank you. Any other discussion about the motion to extend our meeting until 1230? All those in favor say aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? All right. We will take a five-minute break, and I think just to go back and summarize with number eight, we want to go ahead and hear from Tony Blanton at our November 24th meeting. All right, very good. We'll take a break here for five minutes and resume after that. Thank you. Thank you. guitar solo Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. guitar solo guitar solo guitar solo guitar solo guitar solo guitar solo guitar solo Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. We're going to go ahead and reconvene the meeting. We have a quorum back with us, so we're reconvening after our little postponement. And so, Council Members, the next item, I'll give Vicki a chance to get to her desk. The next item on our recommendation list is going into the expanded policy list of policy options. And the first one is to adopt spacing or density limits on student homes in geographically defined areas. And this proposal is found in Appendix 11, which in your packet for today is page 16. Oh. Okay. Okay. Anyway, page 16 has the recommendation for adopting spacing or density limits, and Council Member Lawless. Actually, Madam Chair, I had mentioned I wanted to go back to number, for about increasing fines for key property violations and refer that to planning to also look at the fines daily after the ordinance that allows for fines daily after they haven't been in compliance. MS. Are you referring it to the Division of Planning? No, I would like to put that into the planning committee, please. So moved. It's actually already in the planning committee. You want to redefine what's. No, the demolition by neglect, these were about nuisances. Okay. Do you want to go ahead and make a motion specifically? I move that we place in the planning committee looking at the ordinance that deals with building inspection, structural issues, and the daily fines. So you want a comprehensive review of the ordinance? Dealing with structures. Dealing with structures. Do I hear a second? Council Member Blues has seconded. I think there's maybe a little bit of confusion and question about specifically what you're wanting. If you can just tell us again. Okay. Council Member Blues, I believe it was, made a motion that we look at the nuisance fines and raising those at the minimum. I also would like to refer to planning that we look at the structure, the ordinance that gives the authority to building inspection about structures and those fines. To increase with the purpose of seeing whether we can increase the fines. Is that what you mean? Impose, just we need to examine that ordinance and I don't have it in front of me but that allows for the fines to be levied daily after they have met their 20-day or 30-day issue. And this is about demolition by neglect. Okay. And so I'm referring it to the planning committee so we can look at that, and I will come back with more information when we get to it. Okay. So the motion is on the floor. Are there questions? Council Member James. Thank you, Madam Chair. Council Member Lawless, I'm not sure which ordinance you're talking about and what, when you say fines for structures, what, like give me an example of what it would be. Like you have a giant hole in your roof and you're cited for that and you go through the process and you pay your $100 fine and then you don't get cited again for maybe 30 or 40 days? I think that refers to code enforcement, not building inspection. I'm sorry, did I say building inspection? I'm so sorry. Code enforcement, the external structure, not trash in the yard or junk cars, which was what Council Member Blue's recommendation was that we look at. Increasing the fines and then also per day. Yeah. Okay. I didn't know that that was separate from what Councilmember Blues' motion was. Yes, it is two separate issues. Okay. Thank you. You're welcome. Councilmember Blues. I don't have any objection to this. I had thought that that would be included, too. So this is just fine. Go ahead with it. Is there any other comment or question about the motion? which refers to structural fines. And if there's no other comment or question, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? All right. So number four sort of turns into a two-pronged attack. Okay. Okay. Now, I appreciate you all's willingness to go a little bit longer in our committee. And the next item on the recommendations from the Student Housing Task Force is the adopt spacing or density limits in geographically defined areas. And this is in Appendix 11, page 16 of your packet gives a brief overview of this. And we have Councilmember Beard. I didn't catch the first time. This one's bothered me from the first time I've heard it, actually, from the Penn State visit. And going over to page 16, right in the middle of the first paragraph, most university communities have found that if 50% or less of houses in a neighborhood are occupied by undergraduate students and all that, there's no definition of what a neighborhood is. Is that one block of a street? Is that what might be considered a neighborhood as far as neighborhood associations are concerned? I keep on looking at Council Member Lawless as I ask these questions. You weren't listening to me? I'm sorry. That's fine. Anyway, it's a little loosely tied together, I guess, and that bothers me. And the second paragraph, I'm not sure is even legal, to tell you the truth, and we do not have David here to help us right now. Did you have another question? Those were the two issues. And, you know, further, the problem also is if we decrease density and if, in fact, the university adds their 7, 8 to 10,000, it changes, it seems like, every time I hear a little different story. but it's going to push these students out of the existing areas into other areas, and other areas could be construed as the 4th District and probably the 10th District, maybe some of the 5th District. So, I mean, this is, we need to tread carefully on this part of this recommendation. Thank you. Councilmember Feigl. Thank you, Madam Chair. One of the things that we heard during the Student Housing Task Force as members of that, homeowners in the area came in to speak, my sense was that they were adamantly opposed to defining any area as a university area because they were very concerned that it would carry a negative connotation to their neighborhoods. So the issue of defining an area was really, from the Student Housing Task Force perspective, was really never resolved. I think one of the things that Officer Gaines has proposed in his pilot program is that this would be not truly a legally defined area, but would be certainly, on an informal basis, would be an area that would be looked at. and, you know, if we're talking about a broader area legally than the university area, then what we have to consider is, secondly, or how it's going to impact the rest of the community as well, because if it isn't defined to a particular area, how do you implement this on a countywide basis? and one of my biggest concerns personally as the council member for the 5th district is that if in fact we do start limiting the density around the university, then obviously those students have to go somewhere, and our district, my district, is the next closest area other than perhaps around Southland Drive and that area. But I do think that this creates a whole new set of problems, and I don't think it really solves the problem. I think it just transfers the problems to other neighborhoods. And as the university continues to grow and add students, obviously this problem is going to grow as well. So rather than try and reduce density in the area, I think what we have to do is fix the problem and control the behavior and try to do things to improve the enforcement. And I think that's what Officer Gaines's program does. And so I think this density issue is really not going to get us anywhere other than just to transfer the problem to another neighborhood. Council Member Blues. Well, I think that density is clearly a serious problem that we heard from many of the residential property owners who said, and I think this was pretty much a constant theme, that they liked living in neighborhoods with students. They enjoyed the interplay of a mixed neighborhood where there would be married folks and children and students and faculty members that the problem really became intensified when a neighborhood, when a street became a monoculture. So density really is an issue here. Another issue that troubles me is what seems to be a prevalent notion that students are simply by definition irresponsible and immature party animals and that they have some kind of right to have some sort of space in which they can be allowed to be immature, irresponsible, and lawless. It's ironic to me that the university had abandoned years ago the principle of in loco parentis and treated students as adults. and then sort of releases them upon the population to be childish and to engage in all kinds of irresponsible and uncivil behavior. I think that's not something that we should be willing to accommodate. And I don't think that most students are of that type. So I'm not terribly concerned about the, well, let me put this another way. That, to me, the idea that we don't want students to live in other neighborhoods because there are going to be violent disruptors of those neighborhoods. I think that's a problem with our perception of students and with our tolerance and accommodation of bad behavior. So getting back to this first policy recommendation, I would suggest that the first paragraph really is one that we need to be talking about when we come to policy recommendation number two, having to do with the permitting and inspection of rental properties, because that's another serious issue that we have to address. But the paragraph two is one that we might want to look at very seriously in a number of contexts, as a potential way of restoring neighborhood balance over time. That would also relate to other issues not directly related to student housing, but to affordable housing and some of the innovative mechanisms, such as community land trusts and land banking, that could be a part of this. So I don't have here a particular, I don't have a solution, because I think as Council Member Feigl observes quite correctly, This is a really difficult, complex issue. But it's one that we have to address as a total community, not just somehow a problem that we want to confine to a certain area of neighboring streets around the university that because of this density and because of this perception on the part of some people of what students are, we can allow simply to deteriorate as neighborhoods for all people. Thank you, Madam Chair. You're welcome, Council Member James. Thank you, Madam Chair. I agree with Council Member Blues that this issue is a comprehensive issue throughout the city, but I think all of these issues are. So that's been my struggle on each one of these recommendations that have come forward is that these are things happening all over our entire city. And so I think we need to be consistent in our message. If we're going to vote, you know, with the title of student on one thing or with the university area on one thing, and then in another instance say, well, this is really a comprehensive issue. We've got to be consistent in our language. So that's, first of all, I just wanted to say that. Secondly, the housing market study and everybody that's looked into the housing issue in Lexington says that rental is needed. Rental is needed and affordability is needed. As proposed on page 16, this actually begins to eliminate the opportunity for rental housing for students as they become available. So just because that one student moves out, it's no longer a student housing, now we can take this home buyback program. Our housing market study does not say that we need more available properties for sale. It says that we need affordable rent and affordable housing. we haven't funded live where you work for I don't know how long we can't get this horseshoe to fund that so if we're talking about that the paragraph 2 looks like a great idea we're going to have to put our money where our mouth is and fund a live where you work program we won't do it we had an opportunity in the land bank to classify that as for affordability only we didn't do that as a council we said no let's leave it open so it sounds great to support these kind of things that sound like, well, we'll do this to get to an end result where we can establish affordability and affordable rent. But we go all that distance and then we stop. And then we're left with a bolder Colorado where no one can afford to live there. So I don't think, I can't support this. For one thing, the language, like most universities, communities have found that if 50% or less houses occupied undergraduate, the problems cited become lessened. And, I mean, is it the fact that the problem exists or is it the fact that it's not a lot of it? And I think that if I live across the street from a place where it's happening all the time, I'm not going to care if there's 50 houses doing it. I'm going to know that the one across the street from me where this is happening. So I think we need to, we're trying to, like, do all this stuff at once. Let's figure out what strategy we want to use, but there's no need to. it's like we're trying to really layer on layer and layer a fire that we've already put out on the very bottom. Let's try to figure out if the fire is out before we layer things on to get to something that is not attractive for a university town to think about every time a student use ceases, we'll buy it back, and then people can buy it. I know people looking for rental, not for homeowner. I mean, people are extended in their credit right now. People aren't trying to take on more debt. Why would we create a program where more debt would be ensued by our constituency because it's the only housing stock available and it can't be turned into something else? So I just don't necessarily agree with that. I think we need to define student housing. I mean, if we're really talking about defining student housing, defining university, community, I think as Council Member Feigl said, people don't want to be identified as that for whatever reason. We've got to do that in this. There's no enforcement. It doesn't talk about the administration of the program. Density standard, regulated by whom? I mean, who's going to really oversee this? I think instead of going this route, we need to talk about how can we be a community that respects renters and that calls for renters to be respectful for their community. At this point, you say renter, and everybody's like, oh, we don't want renters here. But guess what? That's what our housing market study is saying, that this community is leaning. People, young professionals are transient. They, because of the technology available here, they're not committing. They're not committing to long-term home loans and mortgages. They are being transient. They're going places. They're paying rent, and they're moving. If you read Rebecca Ryan's book, she talks about that. So we've got to take into account where we're headed. I cannot support this for a multitude of reasons. It's going to hurt our workforce. It's going to hurt our economic development. We've got a university here, whether we like it or not, so we need to figure out how we can work with them. I'm all for single-family homes, but that's not really where our culture is going. And unfortunately, we can't control the culture. It's just like when you try to say, when I'm trying to do fixed cost on something, and you say the market, and I hear it over and over, the market needs to tell us what's going to happen. The market will tell us what the culture of Lexington is. We try to control it, but I think people are coming here because they like it, and when people live here, we need to figure out how we can be respectful to those folks and how they can be respectful to our community, and trying to buy out the house every time a student moves out is, in my opinion, not the way to do it. We want to treat the students as adults. We need to do that. To me, this proposal says, like I would tell my 12-year-old son, okay, you can only take four friends to the movie with you because I can only control four friends. You can't do that. We're going to treat them as adults. We want them to act like it. We need to treat them that way and hold them accountable for their actions. When they're out there littering, noise, parking illegally, alcohol abuse, I don't know how you would regulate that. I've tried with the Sunday alcohol sales. Didn't work. So I don't know how you regulate that, but that's a personal choice, but we need to hold those folks accountable. Thank you. Council Member Lawless. Thank you. I joined the Student Housing Task Force when I came on to council in January of this year, and my understanding is the Penn State plan is what kind of kicked off the Student Housing Task Force. What I have been struck with and have been concerned about is every single issue we have talked about has not been about student housing. It has been a community-wide problem. And there are two issues here. And unfortunately, I think we have alienated a lot of students, and they feel unwelcome. And I think that's very unfortunate. I have several students living on my street, and they're a delightful part of our community. The moratorium that I brought forth was about density and infrastructure and the misuse of our zoning and land use laws. That's different than the behavior part. The behavior part, again, is another issue. It's not always students. I'm hoping that the university can and will broaden their code of conduct for students. And I know that's another issue, but I had to get that plug in. So I would like to, instead of support this as is, although there are some things about it, you know, it's that not in my backyard. Somebody said, why should the third district have all the fun? But the issue really isn't whether or not people are students or not. It's whether or not they behave appropriately and there are appropriate consequences for those bad behaviors. I don't care where they live, and I don't care if they're students or not, because there are a lot of people who aren't students that behave badly. You can call the police department, and I'm sure they will confirm that. So for those reasons, I think this is too complex, and I agree that, you know, we don't. So anyway, I'm not going to support this as written. Council Member Blues. Thank you, Madam Chair. I just wanted to respond to some comments that Council Member James made. I certainly agree with the need for rental housing, But we also need to recover neighborhoods that are in the process of systematic degradation. And we need to prevent that from happening in the future. These are not, it doesn't seem to me that these are mutually exclusive enterprises that we can't do one without doing the other. Now, I don't think I have a full solution here at all, but I am suggesting that a kind of buyback program should be seriously looked at, among other things. because we do want what's both good for students and good for other citizens living together. That was the point I was trying to make. So thank you, Madam Chair. You're welcome. Council Member Martin. Thank you, Madam Chair. I have some concerns, again, about any sort of density system which would designate who gets to live in a house based on whether or not they're a student. I would like, before we would do that, a rather significant research and legal opinion from our law department to see what liability we might be incurring to do that. Again, as has been discussed a number of times here today, to the extent that a house on a street is different than a house next door, not by what activities taking place in the house or the number of people who are renting in that house, but by whether or not they are a student at the University of Kentucky or elsewhere. A house can be equally a party house as a student house or a non-student house. And I would be very concerned about whether folks who are similarly situated would be treated differently under our ordinances. And before I would even remotely consider supporting something which limited density based on whether or not they were a student or not, I would really want our legal department to tell us whether this was actually enforceable or would subject the city to unreasonable risk of liability. That said, again, I think we have to focus on the use of the houses and getting appropriate definitions under our zoning ordinances that allow us to force reasonable rules of conduct that are applicable all over the city and to not allow a single-family neighborhood to be used as apartments. And that is fundamentally the problem, is that we have a single-family neighborhood that's being used as apartments. So I would be, I guess, very concerned by this recommendation. Thank you, Chair. Council Member Lawless. Thank you, Madam Chair. I do want to say that along the lines of Council Member Blues and also Council Member James, I love the buyback program and making it deed-restricted affordable housing that would give people the opportunity to either rent or buy homes to reestablish these neighborhoods that have been so disrupted by demolition, by neglect, and density issues. So that's a piece of this that I think is really a very positive part of it. Thank you. Are there other comments, questions, or motions? It's my sense that maybe we ought to, rather than let these issues just fade away, we should have an up or down vote of each one. What's the committee think about that? Council Member James. I'll make a motion. I make a motion that at this time we reject the recommendation for the student homes that's on page 16. Council Member James has moved and Council Member Ellinger seconded that item one, recommendation about spacing and density, which is commonly known as the Penn State Plan B rejected. Any discussion on the motion? Council Member Blues. First a question here, does the motion pertain to all of the content of Appendix 11? I would say it does. Is that your intention? It does. If there's an amendment to that, I'd listen to it. Well, then, I can't support the motion as stated because it, in my view, throws out and closes off a proposal that I think we should at least look at in a very serious way, and that's the second paragraph. That is the home buyback program. that I'm not suggesting that we endorse it or adopt it, but I do want to continue to keep it in the mix of our discussions as we address density issues. So let me move to amend the motion to say that it pertains only to the first paragraph. So move. Is there a second? Council Member Lawless seconded. Is there discussion about the amendment? I'm sorry, I missed the amendment. Can you tell me what it was? Will you please repeat your motion? Yes, my motion was to exclude, let's put it this way, to exclude paragraph 2 from Councilmember James's motion. So that it would, so that if passed, it would reject the first paragraph, but would retain the second one. not as a proposal endorsed by this committee, but as a proposal still in the mix for further discussion and analysis. May I ask, Council Member Feigl? Well, from discussions that I recall regarding the buyback program, the home would have to be deemed vacant or deemed not rentable to students. and so this is whether that, well actually it's premised I believe on licensing requirement and once that license is revoked then the house is no longer available to be rented to students and that's when the city would then consider the buyback program. I think that's my understanding. But if that's wrong, I think that we don't have enough information here to actually consider this today because we don't know at what point this buyback is going to work. And also we don't know where the funds might come from. And we're making a big assumption, too, that there is a market for single families who want to move into an area that has been a student area. So I think we're making maybe a judgment too quick before we can get into a system where we're buying back properties. I certainly think we need to do a market study to see if they're marketable, if there is a market for those homes. So I think there are just too many unanswered questions with this, And I don't think at this point in time I can support the buyback program because I feel like there's just too many reasons why this won't work. Council Member Lawless. Might I propose that we make a motion to, rather than exclude the last paragraph, go on and vote on Councilmember James' motion. and then we can make a motion that we refer to a committee, a look at how we're going to use our land bank funds and whether or not buying abandoned properties or properties that have been condemned, et cetera, that that could be a whole different issue. Well, the motion on the floor, which was moved and seconded, is to amend to exclude paragraph two from the motion. Council Member Beard and then Council Member Blues to the amendment. David, could we ask that the law department come to the microphone for a second? Number two, have you looked at this in any depth? I haven't personally, and I can't really speak for my department whether we've actually vetted the idea of this type of program. I think from a legal standpoint, the concept of a government acquiring a property and then turning around and selling it and excluding the rental of it, I suspect that that may end up being defensible, but there may be elements of this particular program that may end up being problematic. So I think the concept of using governmental funds and assuming it's going to get, you know, eventually sold to the general public, that may end up being defensible as a concept. I suspect where we may end up getting into legal issues is the details potential of this particular program. I just sense myself that it doesn't meet the test of legality. And I don't know what you would do with a second buyer when the first buyer wants to move to wherever and the land is being held and the land trust and the structure is being sold and whether that can get financed. which is probably the biggest problem. Because I can't imagine, especially now that the rules have been tightened as tightly as they have been, that a lender would want to give up the dirt underneath the structure as collateral. So anyway, there are some problems with this, And I really wouldn't hate to have this die. I think we just need to vet it a bit more. And maybe we do that by a separate, as Council Member Lawless mentioned, a separate effort to just look at that part of that alone and not try to add it into this student housing piece. Thank you. Council Member Blues. Well, to clarify, I agree with everything Councilmember Fagel said, that we don't have enough information to consider a buyback program today, that we're making a judgment too quickly if we say it's off the table, that there may be indeed legal issues. That's why I wanted to preserve it as a subject to pursue and discuss. I'm not making this amendment as a proponent of this or to suggest that we adopt it as a policy that the Planning Committee wants to recommend to the council as finished legislation. I just want to keep it there as a proposal, a concept that needs further discussion, discussion and that is relevant to the question of density, to demolition by neglect, to the total desolation of neighborhoods. Thank you. Council Member James. Thank you. I won't support the amendment. I think I have all the information I need. we haven't funded Live Where You Work since I've been on council. That is a proposal that's written in paragraph two. We can't come to agreement in the city of what affordability is. People are using different spectrums. We are not going to be able to meet that. When we make a proposal, we do studies for years at a time to discuss and research what affordability is in Lexington, and we have entities that dispute the results of real data. When student, the terminology is used, when student use ceases. In my opinion, that means the university is shut down. So as long as the university exists, there's going to be a need for student housing. Every component, every sentence in this paragraph has with it something that cannot happen, that hasn't happened, that cannot happen, there's no support for it to happen, and a hypothetical concept to vote on that. If something else were coming forward that weren't related to this issue right now, it would have been voted down five minutes ago. Thank you. Thank you. Is there any other comment on the motion to amend the rejection motion to exclude paragraph two? If not, all those in favor of the motion to amend, please say aye. Was that one aye? All those opposed. Okay, that motion is defeated. So the motion on the floor is to reject the student homes recommendation, commonly known as the Penn State Plan. Any further discussion? All those in favor say aye. Anyone opposed? No. I'm going to be a no. So it's 6 to 3. So that motion passes to reject. I'm sorry, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 to 3. I apologize. So the motion is 5 to 3 to reject number 1. Now, Tony Blanton has joined us. If we could go back for just a short little while to the definition of fraternity and sorority house, would you join us at the podium or join yourself at the podium and tell us your name and your title at UK? And I appreciate your coming down here at such short notice. My name is Tony Blanton. I'm the Associate Dean of Students at the University of Kentucky. Welcome. We had some questions, Lisa may have told you, about the definition of fraternity house and sorority house, the importance of it, et cetera. Maybe you can enlighten us. Right now there's an issue with a fraternity that is kind of skirting, found a loophole in the zoning ordinances as they currently stand. The group's national organization bought a structure and went before the zoning committee to get a variance in order to allow them to use the house as a fraternity house. That was denied. The group is still living in the house. They just don't advertise that they live in the house. They don't have a sign up. They don't do anything to indicate that, yeah, this is a fraternity house, but it's still owned by the organization. and its members live there. The issue is there's no definition of what is a fraternity or sorority house in our current zoning ordinances. So there's no way for the city to go after this organization, and there's also no way for the university to go after the organization because the only thing that we could really go after the organization under the code is a violation of local law. But they're not in violation of local law because there is no definition in local law. So that's why this was one of the suggestions to kind of close that loophole that exists. Thank you. Council Member Martin has a question. You mentioned that they're not in violation of local law. I guess on what basis do you make that statement? How many folks are living in this house? I really don't know. I don't know. So you don't know if they're in violation, you just haven't? That's what I've been told over and over and over again by the residents who live in that neighborhood, that the group is in violation of local law. But as I said, I don't necessarily know that they are because there's no definition in the zoning ordinances of what is a fraternity house. So there's really no way to say that they are or they aren't. But they're living in a single-family zone. Is that correct? The Aylesford neighborhood, I don't – it's R3 zone, R3. Thank you. Does anyone else have a question for Tony? Council members, we're at our time limit. Do we want to take this up next meeting based on one more question? We'll go another minute over our time. Tony, thanks again for coming. I just wondered the language that's in our packet on page 14. Do you have that in front of you? Were any of these what you recommended? Did you have a recommendation? I didn't have a recommendation. I Googled zoning ordinances, fraternity, sorority definitions, and these are some of the definitions that I found. I think that in order to close this loophole, it's important to have a definition, but I really think it's up to the council members to decide what that definition should be. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Tony, would you be willing to, since you made that statement, and you're most familiar with fraternities and sororities, would you be willing to do a little extra research for us and come back with what you think is a really good definition? Would that work for you? I suppose I could do that. Would council members like to hear that? I mean, and maybe working with our planning folks, our law, who could, David Barbary is here, I think he's still back there, who might work with you to identify a really strong definition. Okay. I appreciate that very much. Council Member Martin. Thank you. I wasn't around when the words sorority and fraternity were added to the definition of family as an exclusion, and so I really couldn't speak to the original intent. But I'm going to venture to guess that they were looking at sort of the formal structures that we consider to be sororities and fraternities on campus. And so I think, again, while that is sort of a type of group home that is recognizable and could serve its purpose under that definition, I think as you, you know, get closer or further away from any particular definition, you're going to find loopholes and things like that. And I guess I go back to saying, again, that we need to sort of define what is a housekeeping unit because that is the essence of what our single-family neighborhoods are really designed to be, is sort of single-family housekeeping units. And so we can certainly define the exclusions from that very carefully and more thoroughly in order to give more clear basis to our folks at the city for enforcement. But I would venture to guess that the fraternity house that you're talking about is in violation of our zoning laws, that it is not a single-family residence and that as we pursue our review of our enforcement mechanisms that we will have better ways to identify and to bring folks in alliance with our current zoning rules. Thank you. Council members, we're beyond our time, and we still have two council members who wish to speak. Does that suit everyone? Let them speak. Council Member Beard. Something that Council Member Martin just mentioned, which resonated with me, and that's the term group home and how those are handled, and group homes are handled in our zoning ordinances, or are they handled in our zoning ordinances, and are they found in R1 and R2 zones. My guess is being somewhat familiar with what a group home is and knowing where one or two are, that they are definitely there and they wouldn't fall under the definition of family by any means. So that's just something to tuck away to further confuse the whole issue. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Feigl. I just wanted to clarify something. If Mr. Crowe would come forward, I just wanted to ask a question about R3 zoning. What all does that cover? R3 zoning is basically the first zone that allows multifamily units. In other words, you can have apartment units there. It's where you first find boarding houses and lodging houses allowed as a permitted use. Fraternities and sororities are also allowed in that zone, as well as single-family homes and duplex homes. So is the Ellsford area zoned R3? Do you know? I mean, I think that's what Mr. Blanton said. I know large parts of it are out that way are zoned R3. Again, in that particular area of town, there is varied zoning. But I think the Ellsford, most of it is R3. Again, I'd have to check our zone maps to verify that. You do have exceptions scattered around through there. And so fraternity houses allowed in R3? Yes. Okay. Thank you. Ms. Chris King has input. Oh, okay. He reminded me they're conditional in that zone, and that's probably what Mr. Blanton referred to, that they had gone to the BOA to get permission to be there as conditional use and were turned down. Okay. All right. Okay. That was a little confusing. Thank you. All right. Thank you very much, Council Members. members, and our next meeting is November 24th at 1 o'clock, and it looks like we'll be starting with the rental licensing ordinance recommendation, and I really appreciate all of you who came, and those of you especially who came and didn't get to present, but we're rolling through this, and I would simply entertain a motion to adjourn. All those in favor say aye. Thank you. I'm going to rock and roll all night. I'm going to clap your hands. I'm going to party every day. I'm going to rock and roll all night. I'm going to party every day. I'm going to rock and roll all night. I'm going to party every day. I wanna rock and roll, oh I can party every day I wanna rock and roll, oh I can party every day I wanna rock and roll, oh I can party every day Thank you! Thank you! All right. Thanks so much! Good night! Long as I remember The pain been coming down While the mystery foreign Infusion on the ground Could miss through the ages Trying to find the sun And I wonder, still I wonder Who will stop the rain? I went down Virginia Seeking shelter among the stones Out up in the fables Watch the tower grow Bobby, a plan's a new deal Wrapped in ghosts and chains And I wonder, still I wonder Who's got the rain I heard the singers say How we cheered for more Crowd and rushed together Trying to keep on Still a rain kept pouring Falling on my heels And I wonder, still I wonder, who will stop the rain We'll be right back. The wild kind of weird thing to show you sometime All the boys and girls tell your brother, your sister and your mama too Cause they're about to throw down and you'll know just what to do With your hands in the air like you don't care Fly by the people as they start to look instead Do your dance, do your dance, do your dance Quick, Mama, come on baby, tell me what's the word of white up? If we finally say, when you hear the call, you've got to get it on your white word up. It's the code word, no matter where you say it, you'll know that you'll be her now for you suck on DJ. And bring your fly hairs To be your reason And we know the reason Why you try to put on those airs And act real cool But you gotta realize That you're acting like bulls If it's music, we can use it We need to dance We don't have the time For psychological romance No romance, no romance No romance for me Mama, come on, baby Tell me what's the word I word of Everybody say When you hear the call You bet you're getting underway Oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh We call sign. W-O-R-K-A! W-O-R-K-A! W-O-R-K-A! W-O-R-K-A! W-O-R-K-A! W-O-R-K-A! We're going to fight. Three, two, four, three, four. I'm out of the way. Everybody's got no time. Everybody. Oh. Take, take, rip. Oh. Oh. Oh. Oh. Oh. The End Tomorrow will be too late It's now or near My love won't wait When I first saw you With your smile so tender My heart was captured My soul surrendered I spent a lifetime Waiting for the right time Now that you're near The time is here At last It's no or never Come hold me tight Kiss me, my darling Be mine tonight Tomorrow Will be tonight It's now or never My love won't wait Just like a willow We would cry emotion If we lost true love And sweet devotion Your lips excite me Let your arms invite me For who knows when We'll meet again This way It's now or never Come hold me tight Kiss me my darling Be mine tonight Tomorrow Will be too late It's now or never My love won't wait It's now or never My love won't wait It's now or never My love won't wait It's now or never My love will When this whole world Starts of getting me down And people are just too much For me to face I'll climb way up to the top of the stairs And all my cares just driven right into space On the roof, it's peaceful as can be And there the world below Don't bother me No, no So when I come home Even tired and weak I'll go up where the air Is fresh and sweet I'll get far away from the hustling crowd And all that bad rage knows down in the street On the road, that's the only place I know Look at the city, baby Where you just have to wish To make it so Let's go up on a roof And I could start, they put on a show for free And darling, you can't share it all with me That's what I said, keep on telling you That right smack down, in the middle of town I found a paradise that's trouble proof And if this old world starts to get in you down There's room enough for two Up on a roof Up on a roof Come on in Oh now Everything is alright Everything is alright Come on I'll put your two winter night and climb up the stairs and be you see me We've got the stars above and the city lights below Oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, oh, Bonneville Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.