# Council Services Committee - March 2, 2010 > Auto-transcribed civic record · Council · March 2, 2010 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/1249 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/1249?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2010-03-02 - **Body**: Council - **Last revised**: June 18, 2026 - **Length**: 20,737 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed by OpenAI Whisper-1. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude Sonnet. Speaker labels and verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Services Committee met on March 2, 2010, at 1:00 P.M., with Mr. Ellinger presiding. The meeting covered three agenda items spanning municipal infrastructure, public safety, and local commerce regulations. The committee took action on a Sidewalk Café Ordinance, which was approved, received an informational presentation on the Snow Plan, and deferred a decision on Yard Sale Regulations. Over the course of the meeting, 2 motions and votes were recorded and 1 public comment was heard. ## Attendance All members were present at the Council meeting on March 2, 2010. The following ten members attended: - Ellinger - Myers - Lawless - Beard - Feigel - Crosbie - McChord - Martin - Henson - Lane No members were recorded as absent or late. ## Votes and Decisions Two motions were brought to a vote during the March 2, 2010 Council meeting, both passing by voice vote. - **Amendments to the Cafe Ordinance**: A motion by Ms. Lawless to adopt amendments to the Cafe Ordinance passed by voice vote. No roll call was recorded, so individual member votes are not available. [timestamp: 1:00:00] - **Amendment to Increase Fine to $250**: A motion by Mr. Myers to adopt an amendment increasing a fine to $250 passed by voice vote. As with the previous motion, no roll call was recorded, so individual member votes are not available. [timestamp: 1:08:18] Both motions were seconded, though the names of the members providing the seconds were not recorded. No abstentions or dissenting votes were noted for either motion. ## Public Comment One member of the public addressed the Council during the public comment period of the March 2, 2010 meeting. - **Barbara Graves** spoke on the topic of yard sale regulations [timestamp: 1:57:30]. Graves expressed concern about the potential for such regulations to intrude into the private lives of residents. She indicated a desire to hear both sides of the issue before drawing conclusions. No additional public comments were recorded for this meeting. ## Contested Items - **Sidewalk Café Ordinance**: A heated discussion arose during the meeting regarding a proposed sidewalk café ordinance. Concerns were raised about the ordinance's potential impact on businesses, particularly during special events, as well as objections to an increase in fees associated with the ordinance. The structured data does not identify the specific council members or other parties involved in the debate, nor does it record a final outcome of the discussion. ## Sidewalk Café Ordinance [timestamp: 60:00] The Council took up proposed amendments to the Sidewalk Café Ordinance, with discussion covering ADA compliance requirements, the types of furnishings permitted in sidewalk café areas, and associated fees. Key speakers on this item were **Ms. Lawless** and **Mr. Barbary**, who presented and debated the provisions under consideration. The amendments addressed how sidewalk cafés must meet accessibility standards, what furniture and equipment operators may place on public sidewalks, and the fee structure applicable to sidewalk café permits. The ordinance was ultimately **approved** by the Council. *Note: Detailed arguments, specific fee amounts, and individual positions of speakers are not available in the source data for this item.* ## Snow Plan [timestamp: 1:31:22] The Council held a discussion on the snow removal plan, with Mr. Myers and Commissioner Webb serving as the key speakers on the item. The discussion centered on the town's approach to snow removal, with particular focus on cul-de-sacs and the possibility of establishing pilot projects related to snow removal operations. Cul-de-sacs present a recurring logistical challenge in snow removal planning, as their circular design and dead-end access can complicate plowing routes and equipment maneuvering compared to standard through-streets. The item was informational in nature, meaning no formal vote or binding decision was taken as a result of the discussion. The conversation appeared aimed at exploring options and gathering input rather than adopting a finalized policy at this meeting. No additional details regarding the specific structure of any proposed pilot projects, associated costs, or timelines were included in the available record of this agenda item. ## Yard Sale Regulations [timestamp: 1:57:30] The Council took up a discussion on Agenda Item 3 regarding yard sale regulations in residential areas. Ms. Henson was the key speaker on this item, addressing concerns about frequent yard sales and the issues they create in residential neighborhoods. The discussion centered on the problems associated with yard sales being held too regularly in residential areas and the potential need for regulations to address these concerns. While the specific details of the proposed regulations were not detailed in the available record, the item was brought forward as a discussion matter, indicating the Council was in the early stages of considering how to approach the issue. The outcome of the discussion was that the item was **deferred**, meaning the Council did not reach a final decision or take action at this meeting. The matter was set aside for further consideration at a future date. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Amendments to the Cafe Ordinance - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Amendment to increase fine to $250 --- ## Full transcript ... l-- a permit-type license, which means you all largely control, uh, the use of the sidewalk by the establishments that qualify for it. It's administered by the Building Inspection Department. It's my understanding, subject to Building Inspection saying something otherwise, that there's approximately 15 current permitees under your existing ordinance. Um, this stuff in no way changes the existing alcohol beverage control laws, nor is it intended to do that. Under the current ordinance, which is something we'll discuss what the changes do or don't do in a minute, under the current ordinance, the alcohol beverage control law is, is enforced by limiting the use of alcohol to those that are seated within the area. So, that's how they go about enforcing it. You have to be, actually be sitting down at a chair in order to have an alcoholic beverage within this area. That's the current ordinance. Um, the primary enforcement issue, to the extent there's been any problems with this, as I understand it is, um, in some instances, there has been a proliferation of moving around the tables and chairs that are in these areas, and sometimes those encroach into the four-foot-wide area that you really need to be ADA compliant. But other than that, I don't think there's been a whole lot of issues from an enforcement standpoint with the existing Sidewalk Cafe Ordinance. The proposed changes, which are in your packet, they're in a red-line strikethrough form, so you all will be able to tell each instance where it was changed. The, the additions are underlined. The deletions are stricken through. Um, first of all, what it does is it does specifically provide for a clear zone in order to be ADA compliant. Uh, essentially, you have to have a four-foot space that's, uh, allowable for pedestrian access, uh, wheelchair access in order to be ADA compliant, and that would have to be maintained and defined as part of this permitted area going forward. Um, it does expand the allowable type of furnishings that would be allowed to be, uh, permitted within this area. Pretty much what we have today is tables, chairs and umbrellas. This would allow there to be an expansion of additional types of furnishings that would be now legally allowed within these permitted areas. Um, one of the biggest changes that this makes is pretty much today, you're limited to your sidewalk space and keeping in mind that four foot or greater area to be, um, accessible from an ADA standpoint. This would allow, by definitional changes to sidewalk and some other changes to the ordinance, this would allow someone to come in if the space was available, and ask for a space up to 25 feet from the front of their building, or 25 feet in either direction. And now that would all be contingent upon the amount of space that was available in their particular location. Um, it's my understanding as a practical matter, that the, the businesses that this would most likely apply to, at least currently, would be those along the Cheapside Corridor, with the closing of that street. Um, one of the things that you all need to consider as you're looking at these changes is, unlike the existing ordinance, this current... the per- the, the proposed changes would not restrict the use of a supplemental bar or an equivalent type of arrangement within this area. That's a difference from the existing ordinance. If this is, this goes forward and it's proposed form, you all a- a- a alcohol licensed premise would, if they had the space available, would be able to legally have a supplemental bar, or a beer tub, or something like that within this area. And that would be perfectly appropriate and legal, um, under the ABC Law and under this ordinance. That's a difference from what you all have today. Um, this would require that the permitted area be clearly identifiable, either through barriers or another type of marking means that would be acceptable to Building Inspection. The main reason for that is to make sure that everybody understands where this area's allowed to be, and it won't encroach, and you won't set the place up to have unintended alcohol enforcement or other enforcement problems by the migration of the area outside of where it was proposed to be when it was accepted by Building Inspection. It's going to have a maximum number of people that will be allowed to legally be within the area. Um, that information is supposed to be contained on the permit going forward. That number will be, um, established by looking at the Kentucky Building Code. They have, uh, threshold standards that are, um, that you come up with those by looking at the number of tables and chairs, as well as standing room within the area, and then they just come up with a formula based on the proposal that would give the maximum number of people that would be allowed in there. You all may want to consider, although this is not part of the proposed changes, if you have a concern with an inordinant- uh, percentage of the area being devoted to standing room only, that's something you all could define what the minimum area would need to be standing room versus, um, versus sitting room. A rule of thumb, because it's an outdoor cafe ordinance, and the context of it is supposed to be to allow, largely allow seating and, and, and eating and drinking, um, I think if there's not gonna be a standard put in here directly from an enforcement standpoint, Building Inspection would probably take the position that 50% or more of the area would have to be devoted to sitting versus, uh, standing room only. This is gonna have a $200 annual fee versus a $50 current fee. Um, this is a, th- th- and this is consistent with how the current ordinance is enforced. This would restrict the operation of the area to that of activities associated with an outdoor café, and you're really not supposed to be allowed to move the furnishings within the area in order to allow some other type of event to take place. Um, there would be a $100 minimum fine for a violation, which is up from the current $20, uh, minimum fine. Some other things that are not in here that you all may or may not want to consider as part of your deliberations would be, I don't know if you wanna consider adding hours of operation to this or not. Right now, there are no hours limitations. It's assumed that they would run pretty much, um, in conjunction with the hours that the, the establishment is tied to would normally be in operation. There's nothing to preclude them from that. I don't, I'm not aware of there being any issues like noise or anything like that that would require you all to do that, but that's certainly would be something you all could do if you had concerns that these were going to be open later than perhaps you thought would be reasonable or something like that. Um, the other thing that may need to be clarified, although I think legally we can do this under the existing and changed form, um, there's been some, perhaps, confusion about what happens during a special event or if there's a public safety issue, um, under the existing ordinance as well as the proposed changes, the administrator, which would building inspection working with the other appropriate divisions of government, could make a decision that it needs to be suspended, either entirely or in part for a certain event, and then the, the business would be told in advance, "You all need to move the furnishings out of the public sidewalk area so that we can use it for the event." That may... You all may wanna clarify that at some point, because it doesn't really clearly lay out, um, that you can do it on a partial basis versus a total basis, and it just might be nice to be able to look at the ordinance and establish that, yes, the government can say that, um, it doesn't have to be a total suspension. They can say, for instance, um, "You only need to go back 10 feet for this event in the area you're in now versus removing it entirely." Those kinds of things. So in a nutshell, that's, that's what these changes amount to. Thank you, Mr. Barbary. There is some sign-up sheets in the back if you'd like to speak on this topic and the other two that are before us today. At this time, Ms. Lawless, would you like to have some discussion on this? Um, yes, if anybody has any questions, um, and I can talk a bit about the history and how this came about, and, um, the work, who I've worked with on this and... I think that'd be appropriate, right at this time- Now? ... sure. Okay. Um, I think this came about originally when they realized that, um, some things on, in the café, the old café ordinance, were not being, uh, enforced, because they, they just didn't realize it. One of those things being that you couldn't stand up with a drink in your hand, um, at a sidewalk café, and another being that it only, i- it defined cafés as eating establishments instead of eating and entertainment establishments. However, they were, um, being given these permits. There was also nothing in the old ordinance, uh, about the ADA requirements, and, um, I first found out about this at a meeting with the Cheapside Entertainment District Association on January 27th when, um, Harold Tate, uh, was showing it to the membership and saying, "It's good to go." And, and the council hadn't been advised of it. So th- there was a need to get it passed before good weather, because that's where they do a lot of their business. Um, I met with m- lots of business owners, um, about a week and a half ago. I found out, I was under the impression that it was just around Cheapside because the way it was written it talked a lot about those establishments around Cheapside Park. Um, so, there were like 70 other businesses that we identified and I've passed out a map of the entire area that would be included in this, and contacted them and, um, tried to send 'em the, the ordinance. They didn't know anything about it, but it did impact their businesses also. Um, the reasoning behind the, uh, there are a handful, five maybe, businesses on Cheapside that, uh, from the inception of the streetscape were told that they would have, be able to have, in addition to the sidewalk, an area of about 25 feet from their facade, um, going out, so with the street closed, that they could use, um, and that the city does have permission at this time to request that they back that up during festivals, et cetera. Um, so there are very few, um... And then the barriers are there for identification for, um, both the alcohol sales and, um, the number of people allotted to be in the permitted area. Uh, talked to state ABC, local ABC, state building inspection, state fire, local building inspection, uh, many, many times, many, many business owners and I feel like this is... ... a very good-- we've come to a very good document that, and we also talked, um, with local building inspection about, um, in their application packet, um, putting what kinda restrictions and what they had to submit. Um, the outdoor bar or supplemental bar came about because mostly from those four or five businesses that are right next to each other and by the park, and because they are responsible for what goes on in their permitted area. Their big concern was if we have waitresses on a busy night going, you know, 10 feet inside the door and bringing, waiting 10 minutes at the bar for a drink, then our outdoor café is unattended. So if we could have a service bar on, and they will have to pay, it's either $1,000 or $1,800 for a supplemental bar, um, their concern was, you know, we're liable and if we have service people out there overseeing it, then we will be able to control people leaving with a drink in their hand, people coming into it with a drink in their hand, um, people buying a drink and going out into the park and then we get busted because our waitresses are inside. So that was a big concern from, from them as far as, um, their ability to obey the law and to, um, you know, take care of, of their business in a way that would keep them in compliance with ABC laws. There's nothing to prevent them from doing that in the ABC laws, state or local, uh, if we put this in here. Um, one of the things I believe, uh, and I worked with Dave Barbery on this. He worked really, really hard. Is he here by any chance? Oh, I'm sorry, Dave. Sorry about that. We talk so much on the phone, I forget who you are when I see you. Um, so, um, we talked about, I mean, they have to pay for the permit for an entire year and, um, there was some suggestion that they could only be open when, you know, they'd have to submit their regular hours of business and months of business and couldn't be open any other time, and that, that seemed, um, restrictive since they have to pay for it for a year if they wanna have a Mother's Day brunch but they're not usually open on Mother's Day or, uh, you know, trying to drag everything in every night. So I feel like this is a good document. I think that the first year we will find out, um, if it needs to be changed or tweaked in some way. Um, and I think that there's gonna need to be, um, there's gonna need to be some kind of design guidelines that over the next year we work on for these sidewalk cafes, because at this point unless they're fixed furnishings, um, they are not covered by any design authority. So at least in part of our downtown, um, I think, I'm hopeful that we can come up with some design guidelines, um, about what they can put in and what they can't. Thank you for that overview. At this time, I think we have other council members who would like to ask some questions. First one I have on the list is Dr. Blues. Uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman, uh, in, uh, thank you for allowing me to speak, though I'm not a member of, uh, of this committee. Uh, I have a concern of, about the relationship between the, uh, be- between the outdoor café ordinance and the smoking ordinance, and maybe this is a, a question for Mr. Barbery. Uh, what I'm particularly interested in is how, how smoking would be, would, would be controlled or regulated, uh, in, uh, in these sidewalk cafés where presumably you would have tables, uh, near, uh, near, uh, entrances and exits. Uh, our smoking ordinance of- I, I may have to refer to the smoking ordinance at some point, but off the top of my head, I think if it's, if it's all outside there, from a smoking ordinance standpoint, I don't think there's anything to prohibit smoking within the area. The, the smoking ordinance says smoking is prohibited, this is 14103, within a reasonable... Smoking is prohibited within a reasonable distance from the outside entrance to any building so as to ensure that tobacco smoke does not enter the building through entrances, windows, ventilation systems or, or other means. So the purpose here obviously is to, is to protect the folks in the, the, uh, the venue inside the building from secondhand smoke, uh, and it does seem reasonable to dis- to, to discuss whether, uh, uh, in, in, in some sense, uh, uh, a outdoor café is really a kind of a, uh, an extension of the- And let me, let me- ... of the, of the restaurant. This is kind of related to what you're bringing up, but it might give you a better idea on some of these areas what's being proposed. I think... ... on some of the larger corners, the idea is the public sidewalk is actually going to be adjacent to the building itself. In other words, the access for the v... what you'd normally use as a sidewalk is actually gonna be right directly in front of the building going four, five, six feet out. And then this, this café permit, outdoor café permit area would actually be further out from the building than that. So I don't think from a, from a service in the restaurant, you know, a, for the establishment that smoking, if that's the case, the smoking's not gonna be directly in front of the building anyway. There may be peripheral issues with someone loitering in that area, I suppose, with a cigarette. But the intent is to make that be a... on, on the larger areas, to make that the actual accessible area for pedestrian use. And that would not have the tables and chairs in it, nor wo... nor should it be used to be a loitering area. So, um, I think what would happen is you'd have this area immediately in front of the door, where there would be no uses, the, as the permitted café area, and then you're gonna have an area further out where there would be, absent there being additional restrictions, smoking would be largely permitted within that area. Thank you. Uh, um, it, it may be that the, that, that the committee would want to discuss this further too because wha... uh, I, I think that as, as these outdoor, uh, venues proliferate, which is a very good thing, we're nevertheless creating, uh, further s... uh, secondhand smoke hazards, even though, uh, um, eve- eve- even though the cafés are, uh, the tables and so on- Subject to conditions. ... are, are, are outside, and, and in many cases, immediately outside the, uh, um, the restaurant. So, uh, it, it does seem to be s- something that, uh, might be considered as, uh, as we think about this, this, uh, ordinance going forward. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Uh, Ms. Crosby. Thank you, Chair. Um, David, I have a question. I'm on, um, section 17.29.1, uh, letter G. Can- Page three? Um, yes. Right. Third page, G. Can you tell me, um, a little bit about the word, um, "if applicable," the perm... that sentence starting with that, um, change? Yeah. I don't... I, I don't think this is gonna happen a whole lot, but there was a specific instance as well pointed out to me. I don't... Number one, I don't know that this is really necessary to have this in here, but, but I think the idea was there may be some permanent-type fix- fixtures that would be lo... And, uh, my understanding on, like, the historical stuff is that's the, that's the, the thing that would have to be fleshed out as they're applying for it, is whether or not it's permanent or not. Because the historical review-type groups take the position that if it's not permanent, they don't really exercise jurisdictional review over it. But there are, there are going to be some things potentially that are arguably related to this concept of an outdoor café that would be permanent in nature that they should be exercising their review authority over. And I... The idea in having this in here was, I think, more to alert the, the potential permittees that they may have additional hoops they would have to jump through in order to do everything they might want to do under the auspices of the permit. Um, I don't know that that sentence is really necessary as part of this. It was really just to kind of let them know, depending on where you're located, you might have to get approval from somebody other than the administrator for what you're planning on doing within this area. So, for example, like Council Member Lallus said, if somebody wanted to do an outdoor, an additional outdoor, like, bar, um, that might be considered more permanent. So, eh, so technically, I guess, any business that wanted to do something outside would have to go through the Board of Architectural Review? No. Not... Well, l- let me, let me... I, I think this is more of a, like a, if you had a, uh... The example that was brought to my attention specifically, and you might want to ask somebody that actually does the historical stuff as part of the review process, but the example that was brought to my attention specifically was there may be a couple places that are gonna put in, like, wheelchair ramp, access ramp stuff that would be related to this and would be within the sidewalk area. In fact, I think they're gonna have to get an encroachment permit in addition if it is permanent. That's one of the extra requirements you'd have to do. But for your normal permittee, the stuff they put in here's gonna have to be removable because we may come in there for an event and say, "We need the space for the event. You're gonna have to move it out of the area." So I think most of those things are not gonna be permanent with respect to how the historical overlay is looked at. And so those aren't... So I, I think this may be worth it considering taking out, just because I think it might cause more of a concern than it's worth. I, I'm not aware currently really of there being anyone... It's, it's gonna depend on what they submit as part of their plan, I g- I guess is, is the answer to it. But this doesn't really change the status that they'd have to do that anyway. It was intended upon letting them know that if they happened to be one of those, in one of those areas, they might have to seek extra approval other than just from the, from the Building Inspection Department on what they're planning on putting into that area. I think Ms. Lallus would like to, um, add some input here. Ms. Lallus? Yes. Um, that originated with, um... Because at the CETA meeting, uh, Mr. Tate was talking about what they could and couldn't do and what they could and couldn't have in their area. So I started thinking, who oversees that? And I called Mr. Van Pelt, and he said... I said, "I'm working on a sidewalk café ordinance, and, um..." ... for downtown, and he said, "Oh, that's interesting. I have a meeting with, um, one of the business owners who wants to do a sidewalk cafe." And I said, "Do you all regulate furnishings?" And he said, in the courthouse overlay review area, and he said, "Oh, yeah." So few days lat- later I called him back, and he said, "Oh, only fixed furnishings." Hmm. I left it in there because I do think that looking at, especially in the center of downtown, uh, the courthouse overlay or, you know, our downtown, that we might wanna consider some design standards for what types of furnishings, et cetera, that go in there through this next year as we're kinda lookin' at this. And that that might be the entity that it would go through. But, so that's the only reason I left it in there. Okay, I just wanted to cl- clarify, mostly because if ... well, just to make sure that if it wasn't gonna be like a ... oh, you know, sometimes, um, we consider temporary structures, they become permanent and so on and so forth. And I think that if everybody who's getting ready to apply, if they were to have to go through all of this, you're not gonna have any cafes up in the- ... timeframe I think you're looking at or they're looking at. Well, and they, and we're trying to make it so it's business-friendly, community-friendly, um, promotes our vibrant downtown, having people on the streets, enjoying themselves. But e- even, uh, the supplemental bar would be a temporary. It's not gonna be like a ... it would have to be temporary also. Well, you mentioned, um, also this being business-friendly. I'm -- I was curious as to why we did a fee increase from $50 to $200 for the- That was, uh, in the proposal that Mr. Tate had first. Well, maybe Mr. Tate could explain to us why we're increasing this- ... from 50 to- ... $200. I'm certainly- Because I don't know. ... trying to flower in it. I mean, I don't know why we'd be increasing fees. I don't see any reason either. Th- that was one of the things when we were working with building inspection nem. The, uh, process had been in place for so long, administrative costs had gone up and they just felt it was important to increase. So we're just, so just for those 10 businesses that, or whoever decides to do this, it's, it's gonna be $200 for the outdoor cafe, but- No, it's everybody- Everybody? ... that's in that map. Yeah, anybody, anybody that would come out for a permit. Just in this map area? Yeah, but the colored parts. But lemme just say, this also, as we, as I dug into it, I found out it applies to places like Common Grounds Coffee House and, um, I, I think that $100 is pretty steep. I mean, raising it but from 20 to 100, um, that's five times. And I think for some of these smaller businesses that may only have enough room on their sidewalk for two or three tables, that's a lot of money. Well, it just seemed like a very significant incr- fee increase, you know, to do. Uh, it just seemed like it was pretty significant. Maybe that's something we can talk about. And then you mentioned also that somebody pays for the supplemental bar, 18 ... they're gonna pay $1,800 for. Is that ... who, who- It's either 1,000 or 1,800. ... are you- It's the same as if they had, if you had a, a restaurant or bar. If you have more than one bar, you have to buy a supplemental- They're paying ABC? Yes, ABC. And then there's like a- They vend the ABC, and I think we have a ABC officer here, if you could answer that question- Sure. ... please. The, the licenses are all, the li- the amounts of the licenses are all set by state or local law. It has nothing to do with this, really. If you have to, if you have to pull that type of license in order to vend the alcohol, there- I was just, yeah- ... is a cost to it. ... I was just clarifying 'cause I didn't know. She didn't say who, she just said they have to pay an extra $1,800, so I- Right, if you- ... just wanted to make sure. ... if you want to, if you wanna, if you were otherwise approved, you have the space to have a supplemental bar, if you chose to do that, you'd have to go to the local and state ABC offices and pay the appropriate permit fee in order to get one. Okay. Thank you. That answers my question. Would you like to add anything to that? And while we have you here, I guess you can kind of address any issues you might have. So just a reminder. Hi, um, I'm Jason Parks. I'm a sergeant with the police department ABC office. Uh, one clarification on the supplemental bars. Um, there are a separate, dif- or separate set of statutes that govern distilled spirits versus beer. If one of the businesses did want to establish a supplemental bar in that area or anywhere else on the premises, to serve distilled spirits or wine, they would have to pay an additional fee and obtain a separate license. That is $1,000 locally and 700 with the state. Beer, anything serving beer or malt beverage, they would not have to obtain a separate permit. So there will be no cost and also n- no, no limitation on the number of supplemental beer bars, so to speak, that they could have either inside their establishment or within the permitted area out of the cafe permit. Any other issues? Can I- Mr., Mr. Lane? Hey, c- could you, uh, address what, um, the regulations are about, uh, people that were on the outside, um, one of these outside dining areas. Do they, do they have to s- be seated to have alcoholic beverage service, and can they buy a drink or beer and then walk down to another outside area? Could you just sort of give us what reg- regulations are on just moving around? Sure. Under the, under the current cafe permit ordinance, uh, Mr. Barbee was correct, that they ... it is reserved for patrons seated at tables in conjunction with a meal, and for that drink to be brought from inside by, by a server to the patron sitting at the table. ... um, nothing in the current ordinance or within the changes, um, would allow any, any patron that has an alcoholic beverage that was purchased on that property or on that premises to leave that premises and walk up and down any street, whether it's Cheapside or somewhere else. Um, there's no license type that would allow for that, um, under the current ordinance or any changes, if, if that's, that's what your question. Okay. And the patrons, do we have to be seated or they can be standing? Under the current ordinance, they would have to be seated. Under the, under the revisions as they are before the committee now, it would allow for standing room. Okay. And that is, that a local or state ordinance we're dealing with? Local, local. Okay. All right. Thank you. Mr. Barbery, did you wanna add anything to that? Uh, I think that's it. You don't have any other questions about it. Any other questions for Jason? Thank you very much for being here. We might have some later. Uh, Miss Crosby, do you have any further? No, I'm done. Mr. Martin? Thank you. Dave, got some questions for you. Um, we gotta work through this. The four feet in the, on the, the first page of this, uh, for the clear zone, is, is that t- typically sufficient for Americans with Disabilities Act? I think that's the bare minimum. My understanding is in a lot of instances, and I think there's a design element that would be considered with this as well from my understanding of the approval process, I think it might be more typical that it would be more like six feet than it would be four. Well, I'm- But four feet is the, is the bare legal minimum that we could defend using. Did six come up? And, and first let me say, uh, I, I'm just very impressed with this and I appreciate Council Member Lawless working on this so hard. Uh, this is, um, these will really add to the vibrancy of downtown and, and I think it's a, a great idea. Um, did, did six feet get considered at all or? I think it's been considered on a general level. I think they went... I, and, and this may not be articulate, articulated as clearly as it could be in the ordinance. I think the expectation is, in a lot of instances, it's not gonna be four feet. It's gonna be six feet or more. I think Ms. Lawless would like to add some input here. Ms. Lawless? Um, in the area where, uh, Cheapside Park, it is six feet. Um, there's also, um, legislation that may supersede it if it is on, located on a state highway. So, um- We just, I, I see that language, "Shall be determined by the administrator on a location by location basis." Yes. Okay. Thank you. Um, D- Dave, you and I were talking b- briefly, um, down on section seven on the sidewalk down there. Yeah, that needs to be clarified possibly, but- Yeah, I was trying to figure that out. It says, "Where vehic-" The intent is, yeah, the intent is to take into consideration vehicular traffic, so- Yeah, "Where vehic- vehicular traffic would permit," I just, I, I think that just needs a little bit of work right there 'cause- Sure. ... um, I understand the, the extending, I think, the 25 feet, but then the, "Where vehic- vehicular traffic would permit," that's obviously not the sidewalk. That's, well, it's not on the sidewalk. So- Right. Correct. Yeah. So- Right. The other thing is that, um, r- port- portions of public right of way intended for the use of pedestrians extending up to 25 feet from the facade. And so that's away from the façade toward the street? Yes. Okay. And, and it'd be nice if we could somehow clarify that because- Sure. ... we've got another 25 feet, which is my next question. On the next page, in 29.1B, that says, uh, "A permit is intended to allow establishment to encroach into a sidewalk area located immediately in front of the establishment and up to 25 feet," I guess in either direction. Now, that 25 feet is sideways. That's correct. So if, if I have a, a, an establishment and so I'm allowed to put a café in front of my neighbor's? That's where the permission of the... It's, it's supposed to work like this. If you have a corridor where there's any number of these contiguous to each other, the idea is if one of the other ones contiguous also wanted to apply for the permit and was doing so, um, they would actually be the ones that would get the permit for the space in front of their building. Um- They get some sort of written permission for them- Right, right. Okay. And I, so I think the idea is to get permission and there may be instances, I don't have a specific one that was brought to my attention, where there's only one place along the entire corridor that could get one of these anyway. Right. And as long as it was okay with the adjacent businesses, they could go out 25 feet in either direction. Was, uh, was it considered, um... So this is not intended to actually encroach into the street, is it? Well, that's why sidewalks- Well, that's why I said- I think Ms. Lawless would like to put a little input in here if it's okay. I'm sorry. I've been living and breathing this for three weeks. So, um, the 25 feet sideways, um, there are some establishments that currently do that. Lucy's for one, uh, the furniture store next to them. Um, so that would, that's the sideways 25 feet. The only places currently with the vehicular traffic permits would be because Cheapside is closed, that they would be allowed to encroach beyond the sidewalk area up to 25 feet with six feet of it from the façade being the clear space to meet ADA compliance. Is that provided for in here or someplace else? It's provided for in here in that, uh, it says, "Where permitted." Now, they're, um, so that would be the only place right now where that would be permitted because obviously nobody's gonna go out in front of... So the administrator would know. ... where that -- I mean, nobody's gonna go 25 feet out in front of Main Street or they'll get killed. But is this what's intended by the definition of sidewalk here? As a practical matter, as a practical matter, in most instances, other than Cheapside, and I think someone was mentioning in the future there might be some other street closings where it would apply, um, the intent is it would normally stop at the sidewalk because vehicular traffic would prohibit you from putting anything in the street. There are going to be a limited number of cases, Cheapside being the immediate case under the changes that have already been made to that street corridor, where it's no longer -- the street's no longer being used for vehicular traffic. And this would allow the actual encroachment to take place into what used to be the street. Well, I mean, we went to Ann Arbor -- not Ann Arbor. We went to Madison, Wisconsin last summer with a chamber trip. And on State Street, or whatever the big street up there, they actually have movable posts with chains, and, and they go out and actually occupy, I guess, what would be parking during the day. And so they would extend their cafe out into the street and they'd have some ... And I thought that was a, you know, provided we have a right-of-way wide enough, that was a really terrific way to use that space at a time when it wasn't really otherwise being used. This would not preclude that concept. I think the only thing, however, that I'm aware of right now, would be the Cheapside situation. My last question, um -- Well, two more questions. One is, I didn't see anything in here about hours. Would that be determined by the administrator? There's absolutely not -- That's something for you all to consider. There's nothing regarding limiting the hours of operation currently on the books, nor is there a proposal in this draft to limit the number of hours. If you all have a concern that there might be an abuse or it should be open only up to a certain hour, that's certainly within you all's discretion to put that in here, but there's nothing in there like that currently. That would certainly be more relevant if we allowed them into the street. That would be probably something where -- Sure. ... you'd really want to limit what the hours were. Um, is there any concern about the supplemental bar? 'Cause I guess if these are along with the street, and maybe I'll direct that to Council Member Lawless, but that, that, uh, for example, on, on some basketball game days, it might get rather rambunctious. And is there any concern about folks wandering into the street and ... Well, the -- First of all, the business owner, and this is part of why some of them would like to be able to have a supplemental bar, be able to serve from outdoors, they would be responsible if, say, a patron was over-served or came from someone -- some -- another place and was over-served and went out into the street when they weren't even the ones that served them. There will be a barrier there marking it off. But, um, again, that, you know, whether or not they get the drink inside or they get it outside, the big issue there is if they get it outside, they have service personnel that can watch over their premises all the time instead of having their waitresses go inside and wait 10 or 15 minutes at the bar on a busy night to get a drink to carry right back out to them. So that was the major impetus. Now, there probably won't be ... I mean, most of ... I can't even think of any other places that will have a large enough space to even accommodate such so -- and they're right next to each other. So they want to be able to watch that their patron -- people aren't coming from someplace else with a drink in their hand, going into the park or leaving their establishment with their drinks. So that, that's the purpose of that. I guess my only last thing is that, uh, we ought to maybe consider six feet rather than four feet in that clear zone. Um, I'd hate to see all, all that end up too small for folks to get down, you get, you know, tray tables and things like that, and just people scooting their chairs back. But, uh, again, thank you for working on this and I'm just delighted that we're doing this. Thank you, Chair. Mr. Beard? Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, Dave, could I have you again? You ought to sit right up, right there at the corner where you can pop up and down more easily. Um, I want to talk about the smoking situation a little bit. Okay. Um, at least from what I heard, it means that the non-smokers are going to have to go inside and they're not going to be able to enjoy the ambiance of the outdoor cafe if in fact they're surrounded by smokers. Is that correct? I don't believe there to be a local regulation at this point in time that would prohibit the establishment from deciding whether it's smoking or non-smoking or half of each. That -- Right now, absent there being some other additional regulation, it would be up to the establishment whether they allowed smoking in the area and how much smoking they allowed in the area. And that's primarily because it's outside and under your existing smoking ordinance, you don't regulate the smoking of, of those implements in an outside area. But you do regulate that they cannot smoke within a reasonable, uh, distance from the entrance. Is that correct? That's, that's correct. And it's reasonable? Because I see these, um, pots with the extensions on them that are right next to the door and then others that are 10 feet away from the door and, and ours, the only one we have out here is 25 feet away from the door. I, I don't know, and I think we could find that out for you, but I don't know how that provision of the smoking ordinance has been interpreted normally- So, that -- that would be something that -- that we could try to get an answer for you on. But I don't know if they have a operational rule of thumb in enforcing that particular aspect of the smoking ordinance or not. Well, it -- y- you know, it just seems a shame that, um, uh, nonsmokers can't enjoy the -- the, uh, again, the ambiance of a -- of the outdoor café. Um, second thing, I -- I think you mentioned, um, that there was some extension past the curb into the parking area. In the -- on the -- let's use the Chief Side as the example again. This -- because there's been a street closing where that is no longer being used for p-vehicular traffic, it would potentially allow the businesses along that corridor to encroach into the right of way beyond what would be physically described as a sidewalk normally, and that's by the different definition that would be used by -- for sidewalk in this -- in this ordinance. What do we do about the ADA situation when you -- they have curbs that they're gonna have to, uh, deal with? Who -- who- I think the curb , I think the curbs has been a topic of discussion. It's less than clear to me exactly how the curb situation is going to be dealt with as a practical matter, because I think you're correct. You could have a situation where you have some number of the furnishings located on the sidewalk. You would then have a step down into what used to be the street, and they would have the ability to locate further furnishings, tables, chairs, umbrellas, et cetera, within that old street area, if the street was closed to veh-vehicular traffic. Ms. Lawless, would you like to give some input on this? Um, all the streetscape design is ADA compliant. So, um, there -- anywhere there is a curb, there is a wheelchair accessible- At an inter- at an intersection though, isn't it? It's not in the middle of the block. Well, in the middle of the block, um, I believe the l- latest drawings, there will be no curb. Originally, they weren't gonna have a curb at all, but because of some draining issues, there is -- there are sections of curb, but they're all ADA compliant. And the -- the six foot, they're 25 f- from the inception of the streetscape around Chief Side, it was meant to have those businesses be able to go out into the 25-foot. And the six-foot will be clearance, will be from the façade to the -- to the sidewalk café area. Mr. Tate, would you like to add something? Council Member Lawless is correct. On Chief Side, at the middle of the block, because of the topo, because Short Street's gonna be higher than Main Street, right there at the middle of the block, there is not a curb because of the topo change. But then it goes back down, and there's a curb again. So there is at that intersection. All right. What -- what about, uh, restaurants and -- and bars that are not o- on Chief Side, facing on Chief Side? I'm sorry. Um, I didn't hear you. Apologies. I said, what about bars and restaurants that are not on Chief Side, but have this same situation? They have to, uh, i- if the street is closed, they would have that option for that 25 feet, but if the street is open like it is on most of the streets downtown, they would have only from façade to the curb, and then within that space, they would have to keep the minimum, the minimum four feet, um, for- for the clear zone. Mr. Barvery was mentioning though, that they were encroaching into the parking space along, uh- I- I misspoke if that was... I think -- I think there was a discussion about potentially if the area was only used for parking that in the future we could have a scenario where the street is closed for vehicular traffic for certain hours, and during those hours, the tables and chairs and other furnishings could be wheeled out into an additional area. I don't know that anyone's really studied the issue of the curb impact for those potential areas, to answer your question. So, but I think as a practical matter right now, Chief Side is the street that would be, that's closed, that would potentially have this curb issue, and I think Mr. Tate addressed it. If you had future street closings, whether they're on an hourly basis or whether they're permanent street closings, you may well have an additional issue with how those curbs are utilized in- in trying to use- have one of these café permits. Okay, that, um, I think that about does it for me. Thank you all very much. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Lane. Mr. Barvery, not so quick . Uh, just one quick follow-up question on page six, in, uh, paragraphs or section 17A2.3. It's regarding, uh, y- you know, noise levels for the outside area. Um, it didn't- it didn't seem to specify live entertainment, unless you call the sounding of any device, uh, th- that means live entertainment. But I would presume that live entertainment is not permitted in the o- outside area. I- I might have to look at... Well, under this specific... If you wanted to prohibit it specifically, this section could be tightened down to do that. Otherwise, it would def- for that issue, I think would just defer into whether it's actually a violation of the noise ordinance or not. ... um, I think even though this is normally used as a sidewalk area, once it becomes the permitted area, we would not consider it to be the right of way at that point in time during those use and hours. So unless it was creating a noise disturbance by the activity, um, unless you all further tighten that down and wanted to prohibit that, I don't know that it would really prohibit that type of activity from taking place. Well, I'm not necessarily opposed to live entertainment 'cause I think that's a nice amenity. But if it's amplified under this one, I think it would prohibit that from, from taking place. Okay. I think Ms. Lawless wanted to add a little something here. Ms. Lawless? Um, currently, non-amplified entertainment is allowed as long as it doesn't violate the, um, noise ordinance that's already on the books. So it doesn't... This doesn't change that from what's currently by law allowed. Well, I mean, it does say sound, which could be live entertainment, I believe. Yeah, like acoustical guitar, or somebody singing. Certainly, this can be clarified to address whatever or however you all wanna view that issue. I think the con- overall concern would be not, not setting yourselves up to have a, a true noise ordinance violation by allowing- Right. ... the operation in these areas where you wouldn't allow it somewhere else. Well, I, I would suggest that it would be better to take- What number are you on again? ... more of the detail out and leave it more not to violate the noise ordinance for the Irvin County government. The benefit of that is I think that would give you the greatest amount of flexibility when we already have an ordinance that addresses noise level. And it could be that we could then justify having live entertainment, you know, outside, uh, if it's in a area where there's no residential and nobody would be impacted by that. Yeah, and they can, they can do that now, if there's no residential. What, what number was that? I'm- Thank you, Mr. Barber. Sure- Section 17-29.39. Thank you. Uh, Ms. Crosby? Um, thank you, Chair. Uh, you mentioned also that we talked about the outside portable bars and just some of the, um, issues with even perhaps if there's music or whatever it did. We take into consideration, will they be inspected for, like, outdoor wiring if they're trying to run... I mean, I'm just thinking of hazards of wires and if they're trying to run electricity outside, if they've got an outdoor bar that's serving more than beer perhaps, and they're doing blended drinks or something, they m-... They've gotta get- I'm not, I'm not sure what type of inspection. I think it would be whatever normal type of inspection would take place for that type of facility, but I don't know what's really required in, specifically in that area one way or the other. 'Kay. It's not requiring anything extra in that area. So if they would otherwise be required to, to comply with a code or something along those lines, they would have to do it anyway, but this doesn't require any additional regulation in, in that. Um, I don't know as a practical matter whether... I'm... They're gonna s- they're gonna submit a plan as to the facilities they have out there. I guess I'd defer to building inspection on, at this point on whether they think as part of the plan review, they would actually be looking at that type of issue as part of the plan review or not. Well, I think that's kind of important to know if they will or not, particularly if it's outside and you have people walking and- And, and doing... Overheaters, yeah. But from an ABC standpoint, they do- Hey, Dewey, could you help out on this by any chance? And also, I think, Jason, you wanted to... Go ahead, Jason. I have one comment real quick today, yes. Um, as a part of the supplemental bar application, it is just a one-page application whereby they would fill that out, complete that, submit it to the state and us, and pay their fees. Um, one of the questions we always ask or inquire about is whether or not as a result of that supplemental bar, are they actually doing construction or is it just whereby they're just setting up a table by where they- they're serving the drinks from. If they're, you know, if they indicate that they are doing some kind of construction, either inside or outside, then, then that would trigger a separate form to be completed where a building inspection would be required to go out to do the inspections, sign off on that form. Fire Department would have to go out again. Um, Health Department, if they're serving some kind of food or if the Health, Health Department felt the need to go out, they would even go out and conduct another site inspection. That form that I'm talking about is a current part of our local application process for an ABC license. So if they were applying for a true supplemental, again, that would be for distilled spirits or wine only, not beer. Then that may trigger that, um, inspection process by those other offices. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Crow, did you wanna add something to that? As to whether you would have extension cords or other things that could become a, a trip hazard, they are gonna have to maintain that clear zone. We would consider those type items to be an impediment to ADA clear walkways or access areas. So we wouldn't allow anything within the clear zone that's gonna be a tripping hazard or impede, uh, ADA-required movement through that area. Thank you. And then, um, thank you. That answers my question. I appreciate that. The other, um, comment I had just to follow up was with this, with the fee. I think there are several of us who kind of had little sidebars that think that the $200 is pretty steep increase, if anybody has any suggestions. I know, um, maybe to take it down to 100, I think is what I've heard from a few people up here, but I, I mean, that's just, that's, that's just what I'm hearing. I have no... I just think 200 is an awfully steep increase right now. The fee is totally within you all's discretion to set what the amount is for- I think at this time, I'll have... Ms. Lawless, you, would you like to make a motion? And if we will make amendment to this, then we could and, and include that in there. Ms. Lawless? Uh, yes. I would like to make a motion that the Services Committee, um, pass the amendments to the Cafe Ordinance as written, and certainly will en- entertain any amendments. We have motion and a second at this time. Any discussion? And before we vote, I wo- I would like to hear from the public, and I do have one individual who has requested to speak, so we will give you an opportunity to speak. Is there an- any discussion? Ms. Crosby? Did you say ... Did you, did you go ahead and say with the reduced fee, or the amend- 'cause you didn't really amend it. The ... Uh, I'll be glad to amend it now- You're, you're wanting someone else to- ... 'cause there was one other amendment- Okay. ... I wanted to make to it. That'd be great. You want me to do that now? It's fine. If you just ... It'd just be easier- Okay. ... and cleaner if you just make it part of your motion. Um, I also, uh ... Okay, let me change my motion. I move that we pass- Well, withdraw the first motion, then. Withdraw. The second one accepts? Okay. Now, Ms. Lawless. I'd like to, uh, make a motion that we pass the amendments to 17-29, um, Cafe Ordinance with the amendments as follows: that 17-29.5E, um, that the fee be reduced to $50 and the, and the fine $50 ... not less than $50. Um, and I'd also like to amend, um, 17-29.1D. Um, the last sentence that is underlined, instead of, "If an establishment is not located on the ground floor of a pu- of a building, it must provide sufficient proof that it has permission of the owner of the building and all other tenants," I'd like that last to read, "and the ground floor tenant in order to apply for the permit." We have, um, a motion. Do we have a second? Second. We have a second. Now a discussion on the, the motion? Mr. Martin? Thank you, Chair. Um, I'd ask that, uh, I guess, section 17-29, uh, sub 7 on, under sidewalk on the first page be amended so that the third line of that reads, "Extending up to 25 feet in front of the facade of the permitted establishment." Th- that sentence end with that period after establishment and strike, "Where the vehicular traffic would permit." Could you repeat that one, please? I'm sorry. Sure. So that, uh, uh, this is the first page, uh, 17-29, uh, sub 7, the definition of sidewalk. So on the third line of that, uh, it sort of reads, "Extending up to 25 feet from the facade." And I would just add the, uh, take out the word from and in- insert, "In front of the facade." Dave, does that op- ... Does that work with y- with you? That's fine. Yeah. That's fine. Um, and then, uh, "Of the permitted establishment," and I'm thinking put a period after establishment. Is that gonna be okay with you? Yeah, that's fine. Okay. And then strike, "Where vehicular traffic would permit." Ms. Lawless? And that's what, that's what I have. So that would allow people to be permitted where there's parking spaces, or something? Is that what you're getting at? I don't think that w- ... Well, I- I'm happy to do that and I'm open to that, that idea. Uh ... I just don't know that that la- those last five words do that. Uh, and I'm happy for maybe we could in- e- we could do an amendment when it comes to Council, or we could try to, to write it now, but, "Where vehicular traffic would, would permit." I'm not sure that is clear enough to, to c- c- Yeah. The intent was just to clar- well, to let ... put somebody on notice that they weren't gonna be able to ask for the permit- Yeah. ... to be put out in the street that was being used for vehicular traffic. That's, that's what the intent was. Yeah, that was the intent. So I, I guess I would, uh, put a period after establishment, and we could put a separate section in there somewhere. I think by doing the, the, the proposed changes of Council Member Martin that it's, it, it wasn't necessary to have that in there because it's, it, it clarifies that it's for pedestrian use, so if the street's, the street's not normally used for pedestrian use anyway, so I think that as part of the permit application process, they would be, if someone decided to, to seek that type of permit, they would deny it and say they could only have it up to the, the normal sidewalk, so. And, and if a street was allowed for pedestrian use, then they would be able to show that, I guess- Correct. ... I'm assuming. Ms. Crosby? S- so why do we take out that next ... Between the curb lines and the lateral lines? I mean, 'cause that's what we're talking about. Why was that language- Which variant? ... on, um, on page two? The three lines that were- Top of the next page. ... deleted? Continuing from what Council Member Martin said after ... Uh, I didn't ... I mean, that was that way when I got it, so I, I don't know i- if Mr. Barbery thinks that ... I think at this time, we'll, um, have Ms. Jackson come forward. She wanted to comment. I think you wanted to make comment on this. I have to take down - Yeah, why ... Would you come to the microphone and ... And I mean, this is what I remember from- Could you give your name and your address please, for the record? I'm sorry, Renee Jackson, 275 South Limestone. Thank you. The reason that that specific language was removed, is because once Cheapside Street was closed, we didn't know, or the city did not know what to call it. Because when one bar owner went to ask that he could go ahead and extend his premises, we had to declare the street closed. But then if we called that park, there's another ordinance somewhere that says you can't have an open container in a park. So we had to be very clear that we didn't define the edge of the park with that curb. So that's why we took out, "Curb lines or lateral lines of the roadway." Because in this particular instance, and it could occur in other situations if other street closures closed. So that's why we took out the curb line language. David, can I ask you a question? Sure. I guess I don't understand though. A curb line is a curb line. I mean- I, I, the, the general idea in taking out a curb line was, the curb line is kind of ... If you're gonna go into the street that's closed, the curb line's probably not a good demarcation point. That, that's why it was taken out. Or then why don't ... I guess what Doug was doing though was just defining the, the, these exact parameters in so many- I, I think the, the, the current proposal, which would cut it off at the, at the, um, at the end of establishment, from a legal standpoint, it's perfectly fine to do that. It'll have the same exact application that, the, as, as what you all been talking about doing. So I think that, I think if you include that curb language in there, it's gonna add some confusion in the situations where you have a street closed that could otherwise be used as part of this type of process. And I'm more than happy to add additional ... If you're struggling with it, it's not clear that it's, it's for pedestrian, it's gotta be for pedestrian activity only, I, I don't know if we're gonna come up with the perfect language right here, but certainly that's something we can put in there before you all vote on it as a council, if that's your concern. And I could just follow up by, it was not, not my intent to stop it at the curb, but was simply to, to clarify the language that was written here, 'cause I ... And, and I didn't wanna do it in a way that was gonna change the substance of it. Y- in most instances, what's gonna happen is, you're gonna be limited by the curb anyway, 'cause there's an active vehicular street right there. And then you're gonna have a limited number of instances right now where it's only, I think it's only Cheapside, as far as I know, where they would be able to go into the, into the administrator's office as early as the date you all adopt this and say, "I would like to go ahead and seek permission to go beyond the curb line." What would be your, what's left of the curb line, I guess, 'cause it's not gonna have a curb in all of the areas over there, and go out into the pub- closed public street up to the 25 feet from the s- ... I think it- ... From the, from the front of the building into that public right of way. Any further, Ms. Crosby? No. I'm just not real comfortable with that, with the language, that's all. And if we need to clean it up before it comes to council, we can try and do that at the work session. Thank you. Um, Mr. Lane. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, with the consent of council member Lawless, I'd like to also amend the ordinance section 1729.3, paragraph number nine, to delete that paragraph and to add, "Violate any music or sound ordinance enacted by the Irvin County government." Okay. Any other amendments to this? Uh, Ms. Henson- Is that, uh, okay with you, uh- Yes. Well, that's, that's agreeable. Yes, yes. Thank you. Do you get that, Mr. Barberry? Could you read the- I, I didn't ... Music or s- noise ordinance, or did you say noise ordinance? I, I put, "Violate any noise or sound ordinances-" Okay. That's fine. "... enacted by the Irvin County government." Ms. Henson? You, you have the liberty to tweak that if you need to. Okay. I had a question for Council Member Lawless. Did you say reduce the fines as well? Yes. Uh, the fines were $20, uh, a minimum of 20. I reduced it to a minimum of 50, and the fee for the license to a m- $50 from, raise it from 20 to 50, but lower it from the proposed 100 to 50. Okay, so the permit would be 50, and the fine, on, it says, "Not less than $100." You're gonna lower- I think you're get- I think you're getting confused on the two different ones we're dealing with, 'cause to, on this one here, it was 50 and we'll just keep it at 50. Oh wait- And, and the fined, um- These two? ... was 20. And now you wanted to make that 50, correct? See, and I was looking on page 10. It says, "Shall be fined not less than 100." Right. And I think she's making- Or more than 500. And she's making that 50. Okay. I'm not in agreement with reducing that really, because- That's fine. And that's, uh- Okay. We'll keep that one the same then. Thank you. It was the, uh, permit fee. And that was $50, and we're just keeping that the same. Okay. Thank you. Any, um ... Mr. Myers. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So are we gonna keep that fee, uh, the fine at 100? 'Cause that was my question also. Yeah, we'll keep that then, yes. We'll keep that at 100. Okay. A- and actually, I'd ask, um, if we wouldn't make that 250 to 500, instead of 100 to 500. ... it seems like we're asking... I'm talking about the fine, not the fee. Um, in different areas of our planning ordinances, we're asking the state to enable us to raise the fines, or have the state raise the fines. And it seems like, in some instances, we have situations where the fine is so small that many businesses would view it as the cost of doing business. I'm fine with leaving it at 100. Right. M- my, my question was- What we can do is, we'll vote on the motion as is, and if you want to include that as amendment to 250 instead of 100, we can do that then. So, I think we're in agreement at this point with all the others. The only one where we want to, and I think we can do, if you'd like to make an amendment to that, to 250, then I will at that point hear this. So, you'd like to make a motion to raise it to 250? So moved. We have, we have a second. Any discussion on that? All those in favor of the amendment to raise it to 250, say aye. Aye. All those opposed? That passes. So, that will be included in the overall motion. Now, we're back to the overall motion with all the amendments that have been included with Ms. Lawless. Is there any discussion? Mr. Martin? I'm sorry, I just had one last question. Um, Dave, on 29.1 sub E, it says, the third line, it says, "The permittee may be required to remove some or all objects." Who would require them? I think the idea would be, it would be the administrator, and if that needs to be put in there. And they would have the authority to do that? Um, well, there was a discussion, and this is, this is in here now. There was a discussion, a-at one point in time, we had wanted them to potentially put in their, their anticipated hours of operation. The idea being that if, if, if for instance, it may be in you all's best interest, if they're not gonna operate at all for three months, to order them to put the furnishings somewhere other than on the sidewalk, so we can use it as a sidewalk at that point in time. Um, that's the intent of that. But if it needs to be clarified who could make that decision, uh, the administrator's pretty much making all of the other decisions under this. Right. So, it would be that part, particular person. I just, I didn't see who, who did that. So, I just thought we might get that in there somewhere. Sure. You wanna clean that up then? Sure. C-could we say, may I, um, make a motion to amend that? That we say, "The administrator may require a permit fee to remove..." Okay. Is there a second? Well, I think we're on agreement on that. And we'll just put that into the overall motion. Also, the, um, festival committee would, at this point, I think, has the right to ask them to move their café if they're having a certain kind of festival. So, in that instance, it would be the festival committee, I guess. Is that correct? Th-th-that- Special event commission. Th-that, that whole sec-... Just, it, it, I've had multiple discussions with different people about that. It may be in you all's best interest to have that section modified. Because I think there's gonna be some confusion about whether or not, w- who can tell them to move the stuff for that purpose, and w- how, what discretion they have in telling them to move it. Um, I think there hasn't been a problem really to date, because it really hasn't been that big an issue. But if you're gonna have a situation where nine months of the year, you've got these places, um, using this four, five, six days a week, it probably is in our best interest to clarify who can do that, and what their ability is as far as notifying them and everything else. So, I would, I would recommend actually that that section be redrafted to make sure that it's clear that, um, the administrator for a public safety reason, or, and I'll work with, uh, with Penny on who the appropriate personnel would be for the festival situation, that they notify them in advance, and, and that we have the ability to either, um, suspend it in its entirety, or partially suspend it. Because I think what's happened operationally is, they may, if a place had a supplemental bar, that may be their only issue with that establishment during an event. Because you've got a situation where they may have a hardship because of the use of the park, and allowing part of the permitted area's use that would normally be allowed during that event, but they don't have a problem with them seating people there, and having, having, allowing them to eat and other things. So, you can bring that to us? Yeah, maybe at council. But I think that, uh, the supplemental bar issue isn't tied to the festival. It, but they might have to move it. W- W- Well, no, my under- and I could have misunderstood this, I think in some festival instances, there's a desire on the part of the government to restrict the sale of alcohol within certain areas. And that may include the supplemental bars. And one of the reasons that I would like to clarify this is, if that's the case, what you're gonna have in some instances is not them coming in and saying, "You can't operate as a permitted café" at all, it's just gonna be, "For this event, you can't vend alcohol directly within the area, because of the event taking place. But you're otherwise gonna be allowed to use it like you normally would, or you can use half of the area and still vend alcohol, those kinds of things." But am I misrepresenting that? Penny, did you wanna add something to them? A-a-an... Given the amount of people that are downtown during some of these big festivals, I mean, it may be appropriate to perhaps not have cafés on certain, like Fourth of July days. 'Cause the four or six feet would not be enough to, to allow that amount of traffic, and, and that, uh... Well, I think basically what w- we wanna make sure that w- we have the ability to do is to, you know, for the bars and restaurants, if they are interested in becoming a vendor during a festival or during a special event, that there are steps that they have to take in order to do that. One would be to go through the event organizer and actually be permitted to do that and pay whatever, you know, vending fees there are. Two, would be that they would have to get whatever state and local, um, license through ABC for a temporary-type permit. And three, and this is, I think a lot of the confusion that, you know, Jason and I have been talking about, is that, you know, for th- for these folks located within a festival area, for them to be an off-site vendor, or to come out, you know, into the park to be a, um, a beer vendor or an alcohol vendor, they actually have to be off of their regularly permitted area. This would not allow that at all. I'm confused as to what you're saying, "Would not allow that." There's nothing in this ordinance that would allow them to serve or sell alcohol outside their permitted area. But what we're saying is that if they want to do that, to become a vendor for maybe the Fourth of July festival- Then they can do that. Well, following those procedures. But what we wanted to make sure was that there was no confusion that if they have a supplemental bar as a part of their, their sidewalk café, that there was no confusion that that bar could stay there, you know, because it was permitted as, as a part of their supplemental, you know, their, their café permit during a festival or an event. Because as long as it's in their area they're allowed to operate. But as part of, when we declare a festival area for a festival or an event, we, or the event organizer has the authority to say who vendS or who sells products within that- So do they have to close the restaurant? No. Because they're inside. But once they come outside into the public space, then they're- Where they paid for a permit. What I'm saying is- They would not be able to use, they would not be use the permit on those, on those specific days, is what you're saying. Correct. Well, um ... Because- That, that really doesn't have anything to do with whether or not they have a bar. If you take away their ca- sidewalk café, then they can't have it anyway. But I think that's what David is saying, is that, is that- I think what, what's, what's happened normally, my understanding of what normally happens is they will still allow them to make some use of the property as a sidewalk café, they just limit their use. And right now, what the ordinance suggests is we can go ahead and suspend it in its entirety, but it really doesn't talk about doing less than that. And I think legally, you can do less than that under the existing ordinance. It just probably would be better to spell out, here's all the different ways the government can treat the establishment during a festival so that everybody's on the same page. Well, when we read this out on Tuesday, can you all get together and bring that back to us to clean it up for us? Sure. Sure. Thank you. Ms. Crosby, did ... Mr. Myers, did you have a question, or were you from last time? That's from last time. Okay, thank you. Ms. Crosby, did you want to ask something on this issue? Well, I mean, they clarified it. I just think it's wrong to ask people to, um, have a license, you know, where they're paying the fees and everything, and then at a time when they would want to do business out on their sidewalk café, we're gonna tell them, "You can't do business because we're closing you down." Not us, somebody who's in charge of a festival that we have no authority over, and tell them that not only can you not do business on this day, but you're gonna pay if you, if you wanna be a special vendor for our, our festival, then you can pay these fees to be able to do business, if I'm understanding this correctly. The, e- everything that was just discussed is consistent with the current practice. Nothing- But we don't, but currently we don't, uh, we're not charging them to do- No, no, currently, currently they pay $50. They would pay $50 going forward under your most recent amendment 2016. I think the change that would happen though is now you could have a supplemental bar out there. You could. That would be, that would be this thing. And you could have your own beer tub out there and sell. Right. And what you're saying is you could not do that because you would not want them competing with who is doing the festival, and that's what- And operationally, operationally, that's exactly the same as what happens today, other than you are correct. In most instances, legally, they would be able to have the beer tub out there for any other day they were open as a outdoor café. But that's the difference. They can't do it now. We're giving them the ability to do it now if we pass this, and they pay the- I think all they're trying to do is keep status quo for events. That's, that's all they're trying to do. And if the, if the council wants to make that change, I, I think if you all could clean it up, bring it to council, and I think at council we can determine if that's how we want to deal with that or if we want to change the procedure how it is presently. Ms. Lawless? I think we also need to get- Oh, I'm sorry, Ms. Crosby. Yeah, I'm not ... Uh, I'll be done in a second. I'm sorry. I think we also need to have a better understanding of who, who declares the festival, who's ... And, and then who ultimately is in charge of determining who gets to do a certain type of business, since it's clearly not us, who is that authoritative- Let, let me- ... figure, if we can have that? Let me clarify one aspect of this. And you're correct. We probably do need to spell out who can tell them on the festival issue. But what's gonna happen is if we take it back as a public venue during the event, you can't vend alcohol in there, period, without going through whatever process we have to get a temporary permit. So, I mean, that's the way it's been looked at. It hasn't been looked at as them losing the event. It's, it's ... They can still choose to do business on those days. They're gonna have to go through a separate process if they wanna do the alcohol, but- Well, if we take it back as a- area of land that we need to use for the festival, they're legally not gonna be able to vend alcohol in that area, absent them getting the- the special permit from the local or state to- to vend anyway. Well, I guess my concern is that who ha- who has the authority to tell them what, how much, you know, when they can't- they- they can't, even though it's consistent with what they're doing now. This is not consistent with what they're doing now, because they are going to have the ability to do business outside. And then, also, who determines what they're gonna pay? Because that's- that's not very business friendly. We're try- we're trying to open it up to make it business friendly, then we're gonna tell 'em, "You have to pay more." And what that figure's gonna be and who- who- Well, they're get- ... determines that? ... they're getting the large use of the sidewalk for $50, for every day of the year they choose to be open, I guess, other than the festival days that we declare, and they're only paying $50 to do that. So I don't know that it would be ... It- it just needs to be in everybody ... It's in everyone's best interest for them to understand what they're going to have to do during those events should they choose to serve alcohol, if you all maintain the existing process that you all have now, which is a- a- and you don't have any choice if it gets used as public land, is what I'm trying to tell you. If we need this for the park during an event, if we make that determination, the only way legally they're going to be able to vend alcohol, period, is to go through the process that was described by Penny. And I'm not saying that I would hold up this process because of the event. What I'm saying is, though, we don't know who determines ... For example, say somebody, uh, who's in charge feels like it may be a detriment to the- to what they're able to get from a certain vendor who is sponsoring the vent- the event, and they choose that they're gonna make the- the cost for selling for th- these people to do business, um, there- there's no set dollar fee. There's- we- and we don't determine that. So you have somebody making decisions that could hurt our businesses ultimately, and you're saying, "No, that may not happen, that may not happen." Well, yeah, it could, because it's not clearly defined, and we have no idea who makes those decisions. Well, um- And we didn't know that was part of this, even until just a second ago. Go ahead, Penny. Oh. Currently, during an event, the sidewalk cafes do serve alcohol. So I don't know what the heartburn is. I know that, because it's going 25 feet out, there's been some discussion that, during an event, they may have to pull their sidewalk cafe in some, but that has nothing to do with them serving alcohol. They can serve alcohol now during an event. Okay. And to go back to answer your question, the Special Event Commission is- is the body that approves all of our event applications for events that are ha- taking place downtown, and for event organizers who request, um, services from the Irvin County government, like closing a street, um, trash cleanup, you know, parks and recreation support. They all have to fill out an event application, and that goes through the Special Event Commission. Um, basically, right now, for the Fourth of July, it is- that's a- an Urbin County government sponsored event, and there's a festival committee that oversees that event, and they are the ones- the body that has decided what fees, what vendor fees are, you know, food vendors or arts and craft vendors or beverage vendors. And we declare a festival area. And so to come inside that area and vend, you must fill out a vendor application, pay the vendor fee, and, you know, be approved to do that. Now, a lot of the businesses that fall within that festival area do understand that that's how we support the festival. In other words, we're bringing 100,000 people to your doorstep. That's a benefit of being inside the festival area. And so a lot of businesses, um, Radisson now, the Hilton, for example, when they want to come outside of their business and set up, you know, hot dog, hamburgers, and sell beer, they go through the festival committee and complete an application and- and pay that vendor fee. Does that help you? I- I understood it- Okay. ... before you gave me the explanation. That- that's not my point. I- I don't- I think that you guys are- are missing my point, um, and hopefully by Tuesday we'll be able to clear it up. It- it- it just seems very, um ... Well, we'll just find out exac- uh, who's on the commission? How many people are on it? Who appoints the commission? Who chairs it? Who- I mean, who's making these- these decisions? The mayor appoints the Special Events Commission, um, and there's an ordinance that you can read that- that tells who, you know, are members of that commission. And how often do they rotate? Well, you know, there- it's ... I mean, I can't tell you n- now because they're all on a rotating basis. In other words, depends on when they were appointed as to when they go off. Could you bring that information to us? And if you have some questions you want, I can forward them on or give them- Thank you. ... to Miss Ebel, and then- Sure. ... we can- we can deal with this issue, and then if that one has to be something we deal with at work session, we'll deal with that and need to address that one. Is there, um ... Ms. Lawless, did you wanna- I just have one more comment. The Hyatt, when they sell their hot dogs, they don't have an outdoor cafe. So it is very different than somebody who already has one. Thank you. Mr. Martin, did you have ... Thank you. Um, I mean, it seems to me there's two ways we could do it, uh, or three. We could either not have any provisions for special events- ... or we could delegate, um, the -- the creation of guidelines for special events to this -- this, uh, Special Events Commission, who -- who could create guidelines that applied to, um, out -- all outdoor cafe licensees within the festival area or something like that. Or we could draft that into h- into this -- this guideline, um, and I guess we could even delegate it to the -- the administrator, uh, which under this. So there's a number of ways to do it, but it seems like that might be a -- a special class of -- of activities that -- that should probably be thought through. Thank you. Well, I agree, and I think we deal with the sidewalk cafe knowing that we're gonna have to deal with the special events and 'cause that's gonna address this. But I'd like to get this one taken care of, and then we might have to do something with that. Is there anybody else who ... Mr. Lane? Okay, well let me, uh, play devil's advocate for a moment. If I were a business in downtown, and I could pay 50 bucks or 100 bucks to get a permit to operate out on the sidewalk, then I would get that instead of participating in ... If we're gonna give everybody's that's got a sidewalk permit can, uh, can be a vendor in one of our major events, then the fee would only be 50 or 100 bucks, whatever our license fee is. And everybody that has a restaurant downtown, um, would be eligible to get a -- a sidewalk permit. So for example, the hotels, they'll have bars and restaurants, and now they could all get 'em. So we're -- we -- we have to think about the overall ramifications, you know, and I guess we can discuss that at our next meeting. Thank you. Ms. Crosby? Well, I would just say in response, we don't know what the fees are gonna be from festival to festival because we have a commission that's setting fees and determining what -- what it costs to do business, um, in town. So that's ... Go ahead. Ms. Hinson, I think you wanted- I just wanted to throw my thought in. I -- I see it as being like g- a scenario of you, you know, my neighbor needs to park their car in my driveway, and I'm gonna let you do that. This is a public sidewalk, correct? Mm-hmm. So I'm gonna let you use my public sidewalk $50 for the entire year as often as you want, except when I need it on certain days. And you can still participate those days 'cause you're gonna make a lot of money by participating, but it's gonna cost you a little extra fee. All right. I think that's a good analogy. I ... Ms. Crosby. I think we just ... We just have to, I think- I understand your analogy, but we need to just clarify it before Tuesday- And I think we need to clear up this one area- ... because I do not agree with anything as far as the festivals and what we're doing. And, Mr. Barber, I think you'll help clear that up and bring that back Tuesday. I -- I think, um, all the council members have spoke at this point. I did, um, say that I was gonna let Ms. Jackson ... Did you want to add anything to this conversation? You were on the list to speak and ... Okay. All right. D-do you all have a specific direction on that issue or do you just want us to propose something and see what you think? I think there's a lot of different directions. Yeah, why don't you, um, come up with some -- some language and bring it back to us on Tuesday when we present this to the full council? All right, thanks. Ah- Ms. Jackson. And then after this, we will vote on this motion with the amendments. Thank you. Renee Jackson, 275 South Limestone, and the President of the Downtown Lexington Corporation. And for full disclosure, I am also the Chair of the Special Events Commission that you've been talking about. And I would just like to say that, you know, I've been involved since last July when we began talking about this. DLC is a membership organization. We represent a lot of the businesses that are gonna be affected by this ordinance. And, you know, while there might be some unintended consequences that have come up that need to be dealt with, with you know looking at what type of barriers there are, we overall feel that it's a good nor- good ordinance as presented with some of the changes. Um, we respect the police department, and they've been extremely helpful to the DLC and to the Downtown Entertainment Development task force, but we feel like that we need to be business friendly, and we need to move this forward. And if, you know, we really don't know what the changes are gonna do until we try them, so we are- we're willing to try them. And certainly what, um, Ms. Crosby brought up, I think we can address, and that is something that I think once maybe Penny makes a presentation on how that process works, hopefully, you'll be more comfortable with that. And thank you. Thank you. I think Mr.- Ms. Crosby would like to- I would just like to ask Council Member Lawless, as you worked with these business owners, maybe if you could contact them as well, um, since- Yeah, I- I- ... we're not hearing from them on this issue. I mean- A couple of 'em are here, I think, and- Maybe they can't get- ... 1:00 in the afternoon's really a hard time for a restaurant- Maybe if you could just get- But yeah, I will continue. I sent out an email to 'em this morning, and I will continue to engage with them about this. Thank you. Thank you. Any more comment with that? We'll go ahead and vote on the motion with the amendments as presented. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed? That passes, and we will move on to our second item on the agenda, and that is the ... Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Lawless. And the next item is the snow plan. Mr. Myers, you put this into committee. I'll let you go ahead and- Mr. Chairman. If you'd like to. Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Commissioner- I'd like to, uh, suggest- Yes. ... maybe we move the snow plan over to the next meeting because there's not gonna be that much snow between now and, uh- Well, they've been waiting here for an hour and a half. I think it's only fair to- Okay. ... let them have their opportunity here. We, the ... We do have an advantage of not having to work session at 3:00, and if we need to go a little later, I think we'll all probably be willing to do that. So- Okay. Well, I was only gonna suggest the yard sale- ... is probably gonna be more ha-- uh, pressing, but, uh, just a suggestion here as a chair. Okay. Well, Mr. Meyers, you brought it in. Is th- is that okay with you, or would you prefer to go ahead with it? Uh- I'm okay either way. Let's go ahead and go ahead and continue. Okay. Committee, commissioner. Commissioner Webb? Commissioner Meyers- And I will say, the i- the fourth item that we have on the agenda, the Mayor's Commission on Mortgage Lending Practice is going to be moved to a later date because, uh, Ms. Jackson was un- unavailable, so we had to reschedule that. And so, we will not be dealing with the fourth item. So, Mr. Webb, if you could move on. Okay. Uh, we have a, we have a presentation that has to do with, with courts and dead-end streets, uh, and what we can do to, to work them into the snow plan. Uh, we'll get on with that shortly. However, uh, also brought a group of people here, including the police off- uh, folks from the police force to address the snow emergency that was called. I- is that on today's agenda also? No, sir. That is not part of this agenda. And- The schedule for this, me- an issue from a- uh, Council Member James and scheduled it for the April meeting. For that apr- Or no earlier than the April meeting. Okay. Uh, with that, we'll let Kevin Wientke to get, give a presentation. Sam Williams will show you the plan that we developed for the budget. As, uh, the Commissioner just noted, I'm just gonna go over in brief description how we got to some of the, um, the numbers that Sam will then present to you and elaborate on. Um, I apologize, and this was something that, uh, Paul had actually brought to my attention in that when you're... In your packet, the presentation was actually in black and white, but the color gives it a better definition if you can actually see that any better. The, um, the process for selecting the cul-de-sacs in, uh, question from the last meeting, I looked at all of the snow routes within our current program. The, uh, cul-de-sacs that were immediately adjacent to a corresponding snow route were selected. From there, I was able to analyze the contour or topography among each of those individual cul-de-sacs. Now, now bear in mind, as we move to each slide, this is the same fixed geographic area, just so to, that you're aware of that, just to give a, a context to how I, I went about this process. And then finally, from that review of the contour information, the, the highlighted areas in red were the ones that were determined by me as those areas that were of s- of steep slope. So with that information collected, we were able to get some firm numbers. Um, among the cul-de-sacs, or excuse me, among the snow routes, we had 1,181, um, cul-de-sacs along snow routes that were intersecting. Uh, let's see here. 322 were determined to have moderate to steep slope and based on, a, that number, I was able to delineate that of those 322, 295 were actually maintained by Irvin County government. That equated to, uh, 31 linear miles and then from there, we were able to get the numbers that you see before you. So, with that information stated, and you can see there as far as what that equates to as far as tonnage of salt, um, a, an additional 75 tons will be required to treat just those 295 cul-de-sacs. Now bear in mind, there's a couple of factors with these numbers. This is gonna be a very minimum of cul-de-sacs. The area, the data that I was using in order to calculate these numbers was 12 years old. The, um, the contour information was actually collected back in 1998, which b- I know there's no change in topography, or at least any radical change, but the, the area, geographic area to which we have contour data is actually smaller than area of growth that we've had within the urban service area. So there might be additional cul-de-sacs, I just don't have data to cordon out that information. With that said, I'll, uh, turn it over to Sam for some additional information that might be to your aura of your interest. Thank you. Thanks, Sam. What I've, uh, got for you there is a little handout that kind of summarizes what we're gonna talk about. I think what we first, uh, while Mike's handing those out there, I guess the last bullet on, uh, on Kevin's presentation, we, uh, are addressing the 295 cul-de-sacs and, uh, estimate it would take, uh, eight to 10 more vehicles and staff to accommodate. Uh, we estimated it would take about 150 equipment hours to plow and salt the cul-de-sacs within a 24-hour time period. That's based on, uh, we, we looked at, uh, a few cul-de-sacs during the last snow event and I think, uh, one of 'em took us about 15 minutes or so to, to, uh, to address and the other one took us about 50 minutes, so we took an average of about 25 to 30 minutes per cul-de-sac and, uh, uh, basically come up with those, uh, uh, estimated equipment and, and staff, uh, manpower requirements to, to do that. Okay. And, and let's ... We wanna kinda plow that back in, too, and, and come up with, uh, some, uh, dollar figure estimates for that. Uh, the eight to 10 vehicles, we f- we figured eight, eight vehicles, as you can see on the first, uh, line item, um, estimate about 40 to $45,000 for each, each vehicle and, uh, eight of 'em figures out to be about 360,000 and amateurize that, uh, linearly over a 10-year life. You're looking about $36,000 for the, uh, vehicles, the annual, annual cost there. And we, uh, plugged in the, uh, the maintenance and fuel, the next two line items for the entire fleet. Uh, the, uh, labor required, of course, that was 16 employees, uh, uh, two were figuring on working two 12-hour shifts, and, uh, that number 565,760, uh, is that, uh, annual number. Uh, the overtime, uh, uh, we, we figured there, uh, basically time expended over, uh, th- the normal eight-hour shift that we, we work, which is a four hours overtime for each, each shift. The thing that we use there too is we, we used 25 snow events that we experience annually. Just to give you a little bi- bit of perspective there, that's about the annual average that we've used is r- usually runs between 22 and 25. Uh, this year, we're, we're already have exceeded that substantially. We're at 37 snow events this year, so, uh, just to kinda give you a, a perspective of what we've, what we've done this year. And then, of course, the, uh, material investment was the additional salt and, and again, based on 25 snow events and using our current, uh, pricing for salt. So as you can see, that, uh, totals up to almost $800,000, 785,110. And, uh, referring to our second, uh, sheet there, uh, we, we looked at ... We had a ... We received a unsolicited proposal this year from a, uh, a, uh, a company that does snow removal. They c- they gave us a, a hourly price and, uh, it was, uh, right at $75 an hour, so we took the s- our same numbers that, that we based our internal estimate on and, uh, and, of course, using salt as ... that we were to provide them the salt in, in, in this, uh, situation. So, uh, just, just contracting out, uh, for 24 hours of snow removal with eight vehicles, uh, just a shade under half a million dollars to do the, the same level of effort we, we estimate. Thank you. I think we have some question from council members. Mr. Myers, um, did you, um, want to continue here? Okay, go ahead. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for your presentation. Thank you. Um, commissioner and I had a kind of a sidebar before the meeting, before we brought this presentation forward today. Um, Commissioner, could you come up for just a second? One of the things that I did was ask the council members to, um, submit the list of streets that they have in their district that, um, are cul-de-sacs. I, I s- I guess I shouldn't say streets, cul-de-sacs in their districts that they have received numerous complaints about each year when we have snow events. Um, similar to the two that I have in my district, which brought this, this issue forward. Right now, I have about eight on that list, and I think I've got one council member who just stepped out, who said that she didn't have a chance to respond, but she has a couple in her district. So you and I talked about a number of 25. What I wanted to talk about was a pilot project that we could imp- implement next year to see what it would take to manage the streets that we have on the council list of, um, problem streets, but maybe from a different perspective. Instead of ... It looks like the way that you put this together, these streets would be priority streets somewhere in that mix. I'm not sure exactly where or how you did that. But what I'm- Yeah. Go ahead. Yeah, whenever we took a look at this, uh, there is a sequence for snow removal, and if you don't follow that sequence, you do have some problems with snow removal. Uh, for one thing, we pretreat or try to pre-salt all priorities, not just priorities one and two. The reason for that is so that the snow does not bind with the road itself. And once, once that happens, it's very difficult. We do not have ice removal equipment. We have snow removal equipment. And if you will look at our plows, they actually ride on two wheels above the, above the snow. They have to sink in. If that... If you have a bond with the pavement, our plows really aren't too effective. The wheel rides over top of the ice or, or packed snow. So that pretreatment, uh, is very important. It's actually why our sh- our folks that executes the snow plan, we execute prior to the, to the snow falling. Generally, we try to get that coordinated right before the snow falls so that we're not putting out salt we don't need if it doesn't fall. But we will go out and salt all of our priorities in order that the snow is removable at some point. So that's basically why we looked at it like this, is it's not just the removal of snow or the salting of a street that has snow on it, but also the pretreating of that street. Okay, thank you. I know also that when you did, uh, sort of a pilot, you did a couple of streets during this last snow event or last two events. One of the issues that came up with is where you push the snow from a cul-de-sac. Yes, we knew we had a issue with that from the very beginning. Right. Uh, that, that makes the, uh, the work on a dead end or a- ... on a court specifically much more difficult because you can't plow down because you'll leave a pile of snow down at the bottom of it. So you have to go into the court and plow back out twice and around any parked cars. So I guess one of the things I want you to do is look at what it would cost. You know, we talked about if you treated these streets as non-priority, so that at the end of getting all your priorities done, one, two, three, four, then you would look at doing these. And so I want to look at it from that perspective two different ways. One, because I think you said at that point it would just be overtime, salt, and fuel. That would be an equation for- Let's, let's talk about, uh, what happens at the end of the plowing of the priority fours. We get completely around, the snow has quit, we go into what, where we start to manage slick calls. Uh, they, these courts could be done during that, that period where you still have snow and still have issues with snow. That will increase our labor and our overtime for that. Uh, it's not a straight one-to-one correlation. If you haven't pretreated those streets, they, they will take longer to do so. But we can work, if that's what, what, uh, this committee would like, we can work up some kind of plan for a pilot program and a cost for that, if that's what, what you choose to have us do. Okay, could you do that? And then could you do from one slightly different perspective , and that is, I know you talked about... Can you talk a little bit about the temperature slot at which salt works- Oh. ... or is effective? Uh, actually, salt is not the be all and end all for snow removal. It's, I... It only works effectively, what, down to 27 degrees? Yeah. 27 degrees, you go out and you put salt on snow and i- it begins to turn to water. It's a chemical reaction. It takes heat, takes a certain amount of heat to get it started. When you blo- drop below 27 degrees, you start to lose that effect. Frequently what you see, well, we'll mix calcium chloride with it at times to make it go lower, but i- it's just not the application of salt. Things slow way down when you get below 27 degrees. And, uh, a good example is the, uh, the event we experienced three weekends ago, I believe. It lasted for about, uh, from Saturday through about Thursday, where we had snow on and off and had temperatures of 17 degrees, and really never getting out of the teens. And what you saw a lot was we would plow, but you just have a pathway, uh, in the snow. You, you could see tire tracks. We got a little bit, uh, little bit of sun or, uh, radiation from the sun coming through the clouds at points, and they would turn to water then. That's heating up that pavement enough, you can keep those tire tracks open if there's those lower temperatures, but you can't clear a street. So, uh, issues under those kinds of conditions when you haven't pretreated a street make it very difficult to do anything with. Okay, so finally for the second one, could you look at what it would take just to salt only? Um- Well, salt only prior or salt only after? After. Or, well, let me, let me put it this way, whichever way you think is, is best. But what we're gonna do is when we come back with that, look at maybe only doing that when the, when the temperatures and the event are gonna be appropriate for salt to work, which I know you can't. But, and, uh, the committee might like to sit down and, and talk about just what, what you wanna do if, if, if... Council Member Myers, is, is this... if, if everyone... so we can do this one time, we can look at pre-salt, we can look at salt at the end of, at the end of, uh, our priority fours. Uh, 'cause th- there is a difference. If you do it during the beginning of event, you need additional vehicles. If you do it at the end, and it's after we're done with the fours, it'll... we wi- we potentially have vehicles to do it at that point. Uh, so there is a difference there. Uh, the parameter of streets that you want this done on, do you want it done on the streets or, or are we just talking about cul-de-sacs? Cul-de-sacs. And those will be cul-de-sacs that you all provided is my understanding. So we, we don't have to go out and evaluate any particular ones? Right. Uh, and those will come through you, Council Member Myers, is that correct? Yes. Let's just round it up to 25 'cause I've got, I've got one, two people that, that said they... Actually Peggy's back now, said she has a couple streets. Um, I've got eight on the list right now, so let's just round up to 25 and see what, what you get. And this will be considered a pilot program? Well- Is that my understanding? ... I wanna see the numbers first though, and then yes, we wanna look at doing a pilot fa- pilot project, which would start next year. Now, wh- what we'd be glad to do is, is do similar to what we did here, put together some things, bring back to you all. Uh, would like to have your streets or your cul-de-sacs, because it'll make a difference to us what kind of equipment we have to have. Well, we'll gather that between the next meeting and Mr. Meyers can work with Paul and I- Right. ... and we'll get that back to you all, and then we can come up with that because as Mr. Lane said, uh, hopefully our snow events- Yeah, I'm hoping too, I'll tell you. Yeah, that's wishful thinking. But, um, Ms. Michael had a question then we'll get to the next issue. And one thing I, I saw in here, we talked about and there was an issue in our packet, I don't know if you all saw it, about the colony and that one of the people that were there prior to it had some documentation in there about that. So- They actually did, and I have, I have Brad Fraser here, uh- Brad was not a part of that, uh, negotiation for speed humps with that neighborhood. Uh, the negotiations we have now, uh, as part of that- Right. ... make it clear that we will not take snow equipment past those speed humps. But some of this documentation looks like it was maybe grandfathered in or was- Not sure what happened. Uh, uh, basically, at this point, not since I've seen that, but what we've tried to determine is we have not done snow removal in there, and I think they went in in 2005, so, uh, I, we'll w- I guess we'll have to deal with what it, what, because we actually found the documentation- Right, yeah. ... in the file, our file. Let's go ahead and finish that, and then we can come back to this issue. Ms. Figal, did you have a question? Just a, just a quick question for Council Member Miles, Myers. Um, what is it that we hope to learn from this pilot? What impact it has on our snow removal services and what, financially and otherwise. Just the financial impact? And otherwise. Well, if it's worth the, if it's worth the effort to, to do, to clear the cold section off for the money that it's gonna cost I think would be the, the reason we would try to do it. Okay. Any other questions on this issue? And now I guess on to Colony, if we could look at that briefly, and how we're gonna address that 'cause I know the, the people out there, when they were brought this, I, I think by the documentation, they thought that snow removal was gonna be part of that. The, uh, what I found in the file is what Commissioner Webb was saying, was the, uh, what you had, what was presented by the Colony subdivision was a list of questions and then a, uh, response list from my predecessor at the time. And I think point number 22 is what came into question as far as about being snow removal. What we, uh, found in the file is that, uh, what they presented was, uh, e- exactly what was in here. So th- that s- response seems to, uh, be with what their questions that were generated at the time, basically saying if these went in, then, you know, would that affect, uh, the maintenance as far as snowplowing and snow removal. Uh, at this time- Which would be what? ... uh, basically, looking at the communiqué that, you know, that that maintenance, it was understood that that maintenance would still be provided. All right. That's, that's how I read this. The, uh, about, and, and that's just with the file, but at the same time, you know, with, uh, Streets and Roads, I don't know if there was any other type of communication that was done. You know, when we do this, and when we, when we, when we set these out a- and do these humps in particular, uh, anything that's communicated we try to go ahead and make sure the less-communicated to the people saying, "If, if you're going to do this type of traffic-calming implementation, then this is some of the things you need to think about." Uh, with, uh, what Streets and Roads has communicated to traffic, what the, the, uh, school board communicates to traffic, so on and so forth. So, uh, I think from here, about the only thing we can, uh, possibly do is try to sit down with, uh, uh, the person that was in the position prior to me, uh, and possibly get with Streets and Roads and kinda figure out what the exact communication was at the time. But the, what we have here at this point is, wha- what I'm saying is what was in this file is, is verified as what the information that was g- I mean, I think it was given to Peggy. Uh, so it was in there. So basically, the list of questions that they had before they acted on the design and the responses coming from that engineer. Peggy, did you have anything? Ms. Henson, did you wanna follow up? C- or can you all come back with us and try to get the information? Because, uh, the way it appears, I think the Colony has a good reason to believe that we were gonna take care of the snow removal by the, the way the answers were- Well- ... presented. ... right, and as it is right now, if, if you do have humps, you know, it, you know, the, uh- I think, I think that we- Right. ... we try to make that very clear to people now when, if they want the speed humps, that snow removal won't be allowed, but I think they might be under misconception that, by us, that they were gonna be, um, provided snow removal. And I don't know if, uh, for Streets and Roads, from anyone that was here prior to that time that can give any type of, uh, information or not, but th- that would be, certainly, I think, you know, worth looking into to make sure we have all the information. Uh- I guess at this point, Commissioner Webb, what's your response then to what, what they've presented, and what, what will we be doing for them now with the Colony? Uh, Councilman Ellinger, uh, this past snow event, we did have an issue in the colony, and we actually had a truck, one of our salt trucks, and we salted over the humps, over the speed humps, went on up and addressed a, a steep area up there that, that was a concern of, of the, of the citizens out there. So yes, we are looking at ways of accommodating the intent of, of the original agreement here. So, uh, and I understand talking with our driver, uh, you know, he just has to watch his speed across those humps and, and, uh, but we were able to salt the humps and then address the, uh, the steepness of one of the streets there that was an issue. Thank you for your help. Ms. Henson? Ma'am? D- they had mentioned possibly putting markers, you know, beside where the humps are so that the driver would be able to see it in case of a large snow, a deep snow. I think, I think if, if we start l- looking at these areas, that will be imperative that we do that because of the fact of the potential damage to our- ... our, our plows, uh, and, and that sort of thing. So, you know, I think that's something as we go forward here, if, if, if, if it is your, your pleasure for us to accommodate those areas, that, that is something that will have to be in place. And -- and would you not agree, I don't know if you've driven out there to see the colony, it's, you know, but it is, uh, curvy- Yes. ... and, um, slope-y, and - It's -- it's kinda like rural Fayette County inside New Circle Road. Yeah. I love it, actually. I mean, it's a beautiful place, but- Okay. ... it, uh, I could only imagine if it were straight. Not -- not the classic subdivision, where we have curb and gutter and that sort of thing. Right. Yeah, uh-huh. Thank you all for your help. Thank you. Last issue on the agenda is the yard sale regulation that Ms. Hinson put in. Ms. Hinson. I know there are some council members that need to leave in a few minutes, so we'll try to- Yeah, we're going to ... I was gonna suggest that, if we could get it on the agenda for April's meeting. I -- the only reason, I wanted it heard today because there I know folks are gonna start having yard sales pretty soon, and I had some issues last year in the 11th District with folks having yard sales every weekend, and, um, a lot of it, you know, was, like, laid out on the grass, upon the bushes, um, and pretty much operating, in some cases, a business out of their home. They had trucks pulling up, unloading, and things like that. I'm not against- Well, we can put that on as our first issue, and we can address it. Right. Um, in the April- And I think Barbara Graves, I don't know if she's signed up, but she wants, she's been sitting here patiently, wanting to speak about yard sales- Would you like to make some comments or can you wait? Well, you need to come to the microphone if you'd like to talk. Thank you. I'm Barbara Graves. I know most of you, and have for quite some time. I haven't been down here in a few months, which is, I don't know if that's good or bad , but anyway, thank you- Welcome down. ... for your time. Thank you. Um, I came, my daddy used to tell me I had two ears and one mouth, which I did not pay as much attention to him as I should have, but I'm trying to today. And I wanted to hear both sides. This has upset, and by the way, I'm speaking for myself only, not in, on behalf of any organization at this point yet. Um, beginning to sound like a politician , qualifying everything, but I wanted to make sure that you all realize that. Um, we are, some of us are very concerned that this may be an intrusion into private areas of our lives. Um, I know I am a political, uh, yard sale junkie, and flea markets and all this, but I understand, after talking, um, to Ms. Hinson and others, that there have been some issues with this, and I'd like to hear both sides of it, and get other folks involved too, that would appreciate knowing. If -- if we are having a problem with it, maybe we could deal on an individual basis in fairness and reasonableness and all this, and use our existing statutes. I don't know. I was waiting to hear the full story before we took a position. So, thank you all. Thank you. Mr. Martin, I think, had some comments. Yeah, I was just wondering, we can perhaps have legal look at this before next time, but, uh, it may be that the, uh, frequency of doing this might run afoul of flea market rules or something like that, might actually tip them over into some sort of regulated area. Well, Mr. Barbaree's in the back, and I know he, he'd love to look at this, and, um- ... and Ms. Hinson, um, you had a comment? Well, that was exactly what I was going to comment, that this is a very, very rough draft ordinance, and maybe I can get with Dewey Crow and Mr. Barbaree, and we can work on it to clear it up. And since it was, I first introduced it, I also had some other things, such as organized yard sales that wouldn't be required for a permit and so forth, so- Good, we'll look forward to seeing that next month, and we'll put that on the first. I'll -- I'll entertain a motion to adjourn. So moved. Second? Second. All right. All those in favor, say, "Aye." Aye. We are adjourned. Thank you.