# Council Public Safety Public Works Development Committee - May 10, 2011 > Auto-transcribed civic record · May 10, 2011 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/2002 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/2002?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2011-05-10 - **Last revised**: July 17, 2026 - **Length**: 8,875 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed with OpenAI's open-source Whisper large-v3-turbo model, run locally by The Lexington Times. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude. Verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Public Safety & Public Works Committee met on May 10, 2011, at 1:00 p.m., with Lawless presiding. The committee addressed 20 agenda items covering a range of public safety and infrastructure matters. One motion was voted on during the meeting, and the committee heard 15 public comments. The committee's actions on agenda items varied in outcome. Several items were deferred for future consideration, including updates on Fire Organization, Corrections Reviews Including Sheriff Review, E911 Review, Taxicab Ordinance, Itinerant Merchant, and Emergency Snow Plan. Three items were removed from consideration: Fire Disciplinary Process, Residential Parking Permits, and Horse Cruelty. One item—Review & Sign Off of Collective Bargaining Agreements—was withdrawn. The Paramedic Training: Emergency Medical Advisory Board (EMAB) item received a first reading. Multiple items were presented for informational purposes, including Items Referred to Committee, Re-paving Program, Todds Rd Widening Project Phase II, Newtown Pike Project, Erecting Large Utility Poles on Right-of-Way, Re-Paving List, and Loading & Unloading Zones in Downtown. One item, Sidewalk Specifications, was retained for further committee consideration. The Charitable Solicitation within Public Right of Way agenda item resulted in a failed outcome. ## Attendance **Present:** Lawless, Martin, Ellinger, Farmer, Crosbie, McChord, Henson, Stinnett **Absent:** Gorton, Beard **Late:** None ## Votes and Decisions **Charitable Solicitation Ordinance - First Reading** A motion was made to move the charitable solicitation ordinance to the docket for first reading on Thursday. The motion was made by Crosbie and seconded by Ellinger. [timestamp: 00:41:25] The motion failed by voice vote. Four members voted in favor: Crosbie, Ellinger, Farmer, and Martin. Three members voted against: Henson, McChord, and Stinnett. The ordinance was pending changes by the law department at the time of the vote. ## Public Comment The meeting included public comment and council discussion on several topics, with the charitable solicitation ordinance receiving the most attention. **Charitable Solicitation Ordinance** Three speakers presented in support of the ordinance. Darlene Thomas [00:05:20] spoke on behalf of the Bluegrass Domestic Violence Program and Bluegrass Rape Crisis Center, emphasizing community awareness, public safety collaboration, and the need for alternative funding streams. She highlighted Louisville's success with similar programs and requested support for the ordinance. Rhonda Henry [00:08:36] seconded Thomas's remarks, noting the long-standing success of similar programs in Louisville and the importance of community engagement and safety coordination. Matthew Stinnett [00:09:38] presented the vision for a partnership between law enforcement and nonprofits to raise funds through intersection solicitation, emphasizing volunteer participation and safety protocols. Council members raised several concerns about the proposal. Council Member Martin [00:11:45] expressed concern about the council administrator serving as the administrative body and recommended transferring the process to the mayor's office for special events. Council Member Crosby [00:18:57] asked about verification of nonprofit standing with the Secretary of State and questioned the need for police presence, noting that some events are reimbursed. Council Member Ellinger [00:22:50] expressed hesitation about changing Lexington's norms, citing concerns over public safety and the precedent of allowing solicitation in intersections. Commissioner Mason [00:23:59] raised public safety concerns, including traffic risks and staffing limitations, and stated opposition due to the potential for uncontrolled intersections and increased workload. Council Member Henson [00:26:43] expressed concern about relying on police enforcement and suggested alternative locations like storefronts. Vice Mayor Gorton [00:34:15] raised concerns about public safety and public sentiment, noting that the primary motivation may be fundraising potential, and questioned whether the city should assume the burden of enforcement. **Other Topics** Council Member Farmer [00:44:18] moved for a council member to be included in collective bargaining meetings to ensure transparency and informed voting on budgetary impacts. Council Members Martin [00:49:18] and Henson [00:51:27] requested a review of repaving practices and road conditions. Council Members Crosby [00:57:42] and Farmer [00:55:18] discussed sidewalk specifications, with differing views on whether the item should remain on the agenda. Council Member Martin [00:58:46] expressed concern about the visual impact of utility poles on scenic corridors. ## Contested Items The May 10, 2011 meeting included three items that generated significant disagreement among council members. **Charitable Solicitation Ordinance** The council considered a motion to place a charitable solicitation ordinance on the docket. The motion failed due to a split vote. Council members raised concerns about public safety, enforcement mechanisms, and the administrative role of the council administrator in implementing the ordinance. These unresolved questions prevented the measure from advancing. **Sidewalk Specifications** Council Members Farmer and Crosby engaged in a heated discussion over sidewalk specifications. The disagreement centered on whether the item should be removed from consideration. Crosby argued for retaining the item, citing inconsistent enforcement of existing standards and the significant impact such specifications would have on homeowners. Farmer took the opposing position, though the specific rationale was not detailed in the available record. **Erecting Large Utility Poles** Council Member Martin expressed strong concern about a proposal involving the erection of large utility poles. Martin focused on the visual impact these structures would have on scenic corridors within the community. He characterized efforts to preserve community aesthetics in the face of such development as a "shouting in the wilderness" effort, indicating his view that concerns about visual impact were being overlooked or undervalued in the decision-making process. ## Charitable Solicitation within Public Right of Way The committee discussed a proposed ordinance that would permit charitable organizations to solicit donations within public right-of-way areas, subject to registration, insurance, and safety requirements. **Key Speakers and Discussion** The agenda item involved input from Darlene Thomas, Rhonda Henry, Matthew Stinnett, Council Member Martin, Council Member Ellinger, Commissioner Mason, and Council Member Henson. **Concerns Raised** Several concerns emerged during the discussion: - **Public Safety**: Committee members raised questions about how the ordinance would protect public safety during solicitation activities in right-of-way areas. - **Enforcement**: There were concerns about how the proposed regulations would be enforced and monitored. - **Administrative Oversight**: Questions arose regarding the administrative structure and oversight mechanisms for the program. - **Processing Authority**: Committee members questioned whether the council administrator was the appropriate body to process and manage charitable solicitation applications and compliance. **Outcome** The motion to place the ordinance on the docket failed. The proposal did not advance to further consideration at this time. [timestamp: 00:02:32] ## Items Referred to Committee [timestamp: 00:43:39] The committee reviewed a list of items that had been referred for further discussion and analysis. During this review, several items were removed from the agenda because they had already been presented to the full council or were awaiting reports from pending task forces. The committee retained a number of items for continued discussion, including: * Repaving projects * Utility poles * Sidewalk specifications * Emergency snow plans Council Members Farmer, Crosby, Martin, and Henson participated in the discussion of these referred items. The outcome of this agenda item was informational in nature, with no formal action taken at this time. ## Review & Sign Off of Collective Bargaining Agreements Council Member Farmer raised a proposal regarding the review and sign-off process for collective bargaining agreements. Farmer proposed that a council member be included in collective bargaining meetings to ensure transparency in the process. The proposal was not pursued further during the meeting. The item was determined to be outside the committee's purview, and no additional discussion took place regarding the merits or implementation of the proposed change. The agenda item was ultimately withdrawn. ## Update on Fire Organization Council Member Crosby presented an update on fire organization matters. [timestamp: 00:45:56] The update was deferred to the full council due to budgetary implications, as requested by the fire department. This deferral allows for more comprehensive discussion of the financial aspects of the fire organization with the complete council membership. ## Update on Corrections Reviews Including Sheriff Review [timestamp: 00:45:56] This agenda item regarding an update on corrections reviews, including a sheriff review, was deferred during the committee meeting. Council Member Crosby was the key speaker on this matter. Due to the budgetary significance of the topic, the update was not discussed in detail at this committee meeting. Instead, it was determined that the matter should be brought before the full council for consideration and discussion. **Outcome:** The item was deferred to the full council. ## Update on E911 Review The update on the E911 Review was deferred during this committee meeting. Council Member Crosby was the key speaker on this agenda item [timestamp: 00:45:56]. The update was not discussed in detail at this committee meeting due to budgetary implications associated with the review. Instead of proceeding with the presentation, the matter was deferred to the full council for consideration. **Outcome:** Deferred to full council ## Paramedic Training: Emergency Medical Advisory Board (EMAB) Vice Mayor Gorton presented information regarding paramedic training and the Emergency Medical Advisory Board (EMAB) [timestamp: 00:46:59]. A presentation was delivered on this agenda item. Following the presentation, a task force was formed to follow up on the matters discussed and to advance the work of the Emergency Medical Advisory Board. The outcome of this agenda item was classified as a first reading, indicating that this matter will remain on the agenda for future review and continued discussion. ## Fire Disciplinary Process Council Member Lawless moved to remove the Fire Disciplinary Process item from the agenda. The motion was seconded and approved by the council. **Outcome:** The item was removed from the agenda. [timestamp: 00:47:32] ## Re-paving Program [timestamp: 00:49:18] Council Members Martin and Crosby raised concerns about the municipality's current paving practices during this discussion. The primary issues identified included the lack of crack and seal procedures, inadequate preparation work prior to paving, and questions about the overall quality and durability of paving projects. Council Member Martin and Council Member Crosby advocated for a comprehensive review of national best practices in road paving to ensure the municipality is following industry standards. They also emphasized the importance of examining contractor warranties to better protect the municipality's investment in infrastructure improvements. Council Member Henson participated in the discussion, contributing to the examination of these paving program concerns. The outcome of this agenda item was informational, with no formal decision or action item recorded. The discussion served to document the council's concerns about current paving practices and the need for further review of best practices and contractor terms. ## Todds Rd Widening Project Phase II Council Member Stinnett provided a quarterly update on the Todds Rd Widening Project Phase II [timestamp: 00:52:39]. This agenda item was presented for informational purposes and remains on the agenda for ongoing review. The discussion focused on the current status of the project as part of the council's regular quarterly reporting cycle. No specific concerns or debates were documented during this presentation. The item was treated as an informational update rather than a decision point requiring council action. The outcome of this agenda item was informational in nature, with the project continuing under review by the council. ## Newtown Pike Project Council Member Stinnett provided a quarterly update on the Newtown Pike Project [timestamp: 00:52:39]. The presentation was informational in nature, with the item remaining on the agenda for ongoing review. No additional details regarding specific project components, timelines, budget information, or substantive discussion points were documented in the available meeting materials. ## Taxicab Ordinance The Taxicab Ordinance was presented as a discussion item but was not ready for full presentation at this meeting. [timestamp: 00:53:43] Council Member Martin indicated that the ordinance could be placed on the agenda for the next committee meeting scheduled in July. **Outcome:** The item was deferred to a future committee meeting. ## Itinerant Merchant The Council addressed the Itinerant Merchant agenda item during the meeting [timestamp: 00:54:15]. Council Member Crosby was the key speaker on this matter. The item was deferred pending a report from the task force. No further discussion took place at this time. **Outcome:** The matter was deferred until the task force reports. ## Residential Parking Permits Council Member Lawless moved to remove the Residential Parking Permits item from the agenda. The motion was seconded and approved, resulting in the item being removed from consideration [timestamp: 00:54:15]. No discussion or debate on the merits of residential parking permits was recorded, as the item did not proceed to substantive review. ## Sidewalk Specifications Council Member Farmer moved to remove the Sidewalk Specifications item from the agenda. However, this motion was withdrawn after Council Member Crosby argued for its retention. Council Member Crosby raised concerns about inconsistent enforcement of sidewalk specifications and issues affecting homeowners. These concerns were sufficient to convince Council Member Farmer to withdraw the removal motion, and the item remained on the agenda for discussion. [timestamp: 00:55:18] ## Erecting Large Utility Poles on Right-of-Way [timestamp: 00:58:46] Council Member Martin raised concerns about the visual impact of utility poles on scenic corridors during this discussion. Martin urged the committee to take action to prevent industrial-style infrastructure from damaging the community's aesthetic. The discussion focused on the placement of large utility poles on right-of-way areas and their effect on the visual character of the community, particularly in scenic corridors. Council Member Martin emphasized the importance of addressing this issue proactively to protect the community's appearance and character. **Outcome:** This item was presented for informational purposes. ## Re-Paving List [timestamp: 01:01:29] The Re-Paving List was discussed as part of the broader repaving program discussion. Council Member Martin addressed this agenda item. Rather than being treated as a separate matter, the Re-Paving List was incorporated into the larger repaving program conversation. No independent vote was taken on this item. The discussion served an informational purpose for the council. ## Emergency Snow Plan Council Member James addressed the Emergency Snow Plan during the meeting. James noted that the plan could be addressed in the fall, suggesting that immediate action was not necessary at the time of the meeting. [timestamp: 01:02:03] Based on this assessment, the council determined that further discussion and action on the Emergency Snow Plan would be deferred. The item was scheduled to be revisited in August. ## Loading & Unloading Zones in Downtown [timestamp: 01:02:33] Council Member James addressed the topic of loading and unloading zones in the downtown area. The discussion focused on this ongoing matter, which remains under study. **Outcome** The item was retained for future review. No immediate action was taken at this meeting, as a study of the loading and unloading zones issue is currently underway. The council indicated it will revisit this topic once the study is complete. ## Horse Cruelty [timestamp: 01:03:07] Council Member McCord moved to remove the Horse Cruelty item from the agenda. The motion was seconded and approved. The item was subsequently removed from the agenda and was not discussed. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — failed: Motion to move the charitable solicitation ordinance to the docket for first reading on Thursday --- ## Full transcript Music Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Merry Christmas. Again, it's one o'clock and we seem to have a quorum. This is the Public Safety and Public Works Committee of the Urban County Council. There's one item on the agenda today, and that is charitable solicitation within public right-of-way. and it is in the packets. This was brought to me because of my history with the Bluegrass Rape Crisis Center and the Bluegrass Domestic Violence Center. It's a program that is done in many of the areas in Kentucky. We're one of the few counties that, for some reason, and doesn't allow solicitation at intersections. So they had their attorneys research both state and local ordinance and other communities and came up with a proposal. Our law department, Mr. Santer, made some revisions and had some concerns. And so you all have that in your packet. What I'd like to do is see if the attorney from your all's attorneys here would like to, you've got a copy of all this, if you would like to speak, and usually we have about 15 minutes for a presentation. So if you want to take that much time or not, other people from the community groups can do this. I think it's important to note that Louisville's fire department has been doing this for years for the children's charities. And I think last year they made $6 million in one evening and one day a year in Metro Louisville and the surrounding counties that they serve. So the point is to try to start here in Lexington, working, of course, with all the appropriate safety officials, and then also because both of these organizations serve 17 counties, looking to, after the pilot year, go into other counties. So if you would state your name and your address. I'm Darlene Thomas with the Bluegrass Domestic Violence Program. I'm sorry, could you? Darlene Thomas with the Bluegrass Domestic Violence Program. And your address? 4400 Broward Hill Road, Lexington, Kentucky. Okay. And I'm here to speak on behalf of the three of us. I also have with me Rhonda Henry and Matthew Stinnett with our law firm, Greenbaum Doll McDonald, who will host any questions you may have specifically about the ordinance. And just quickly first to say thank you, Councilwoman Lawless, and to the committee for taking time to review this ordinance, which is very important to us. I just want to hit three really important points and then take questions. This became a collaborative effort between the Bluegrass Rape Crisis, Bluegrass Domestic Violence, and the Police Department, all who have a vested interest and strive to end domestic violence, sexual assault, and child abuse throughout our community. We do that through very specialized services, including the police department, who have DV advocates, St. Salt Nurse on staff, and they have a Crimes Against Children unit. So as you can see, we have a great deal in common when addressing these issues, which makes it for a very important collaborative in a sense. We're excited because, you know, it creates community awareness. It allows us to have a visibility throughout the community. It allows law enforcement to be visible throughout the community, being proactively working towards changing and ending violence against men, women, and children. And it allows the community to be part of the solutions and to engage in giving back and supporting services that so many of our community utilize annually. And last but not least, I think it's important to mention money. Because honestly, as nonprofits, we're constantly encouraged to find new funding streams and to explore new opportunities. entities, and we have to kind of face it, government entities right now are a tad bit tapped out with local resources. So this was our way to begin to address that creatively. This concept reduces dependency on government and increases awareness. It makes public safety in our law enforcement visible to be a change agent and transfers financial supports for available services to the community with little time and effort, which I think is imperative to understand. It's very little time and energy, and it's been extremely successful in Louisville and the surrounding counties that we could replicate. And that's the last strength, is the fact that it is replicable and that Lexington should not bear the burden for many of the outlying counties who also access services here in this community. And we hope to have Lexington lead the way and approach our sister communities to help engage in the same process in the next few years. We really desire to help ourselves. It makes us good stewards of the community's dollars when we're able to do that, and we request that you vote to move the charitable solicitation ordinance out of committee to the full council, and we greatly appreciate your support. And we would host any questions that you may have about this at this time. Does anybody have any questions? Ms. Henry, would you like to speak? Hello, I'm Rhonda Henry. I'm with the Bluegrass Rape Crisis Center. Do you want my home address or work address? Either is mine. My home is 2009 St. Stephen's Green, Lexington, Kentucky. And Darlene and I worked together on the presentation that she gave. and I really would just second the points that she made. I think that in doing our research and seeing the success that we saw in Louisville and in the other communities in Kentucky, we've seen that this has been going on for many years. In Louisville it's been about 50 years. They've been able to grow that. I certainly don't think we would start where they are this far into it with what we could make, but we've seen that they've been able to do that successfully, safely, and in a way that worked well with their public safety to make sure that it was an event that was not only successful for the agencies but for the community at large. And certainly we would entertain any questions that you all might have. Mr. Stennett. Thank you, Chairman Wallace. I'm here in dual capacity today. I'm both the president of the board for Bluegrass Domestic Violence Program, and I'm also counsel for Bluegrass Rape Crisis Center and BDVP through my firm, Greenbaum, Dahl & McDonald. We put together this ordinance. This ordinance is pretty much drafted, generally copying Louisville's ordinance that they have done successfully for the past 50 years. I believe the only tweaks that were done by the law department were to increase the aggregate insurance and add an identification provision to further protect LFUCG, which we have no problem with. And I just want to talk for a second about, from a board perspective, what our vision of what we want to do with this ordinance is. You know, the dream here is that we work closely with the police department day in and day out through our advocates. Chief Bastin is on our board of directors, has indicated his full-throated support behind a project which we envision partnering with LFUCG Police Department to one day or one day and a half a day, We haven't really fleshed out the details, but to solicit funds from intersections, similar to what the Crusade does in Louisville with fire department using boots. That's kind of our vision. Chief Bastian signed on to that. We've talked about the fact that the police would participate by volunteering. Officers would volunteer and participate for a day and a half and raise these funds with us in partnership. I'm happy to answer questions both in terms of the ordinance or the vision, whichever comes first. No, I don't. Okay. Councilmember Martin. Thank you, Chair. Matt, how are you? Just fine. Good for being here today. Thanks for all of you here on the board. Did this go through our law department? Yes. Did it? One of the things, you know, this ordinance has the council administrator as sort of a party to whom the application is made. And, you know, we're a legislative body, and I know that's in a number of our ordinances, but I'm always just a little concerned about interjecting the council as sort of an administrative body into this. It would be great if you could maybe find another home for that. I don't know how my fellow council members feel about that, but, you know, we're a legislative body and not an administrative one, and we're not part of the executive branch. And so me personally, I'd rather see this someplace else, the Board of Adjustments or someplace where they can sort of administer this. We're not really set up that well to administer things like this. I think that, and I had some technical things, and maybe you and I could talk about this sort of afterward or something like that, But the changes in subsection nine, you know, there's talks about signing an indemnity and hold harmless agreement, but it didn't say in favor of who. So I think probably should list in who. And it says that shall sign each individual who solicits contributions shall sign a release of liability and hold harmless waiver and against, again, in favor of who, I think. That's an important part of that. There's a dollar sign missing in front of number two. But also I think the insurance, would there be a combined single limit on the insurance? I'm not that great, but I always have to get out of my insurance book. I think the way it's been edited, that provision was heavily edited by the law department. That is a $1 million per occurrence and $2 million aggregate, so it wouldn't be a million per event. Okay. And the identification provision was also added by the law department. Okay. Okay. So, you know, maybe I need to talk to our law department, but I think some of those, maybe some additional clarifications are needed there to really say who the indemnity is supposed to be in favor of. Absolutely, no problem with that. On the council administrator, I did want to answer that issue you raised. I believe we, yes, sir. If I may, I had asked them because this is a special event and that all goes through the mayor's office. and I had asked the law department to change it to that it would go to the mayor's office special event like all other applications for special events. So I see here it didn't get changed. So I agree with you. Okay. So the mayor's office would be somebody at the mayor's office? that any special event that occurs in our county goes through a process and an application through the mayor's office. Okay. So, you know, I look forward to working with you. I think this is sort of an excellent thing to be doing. I appreciate your service on your board. I appreciate both of you coming as well, and we certainly want to get this done and get it up and running. So I appreciate it. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. If there are any other questions, I'm still... Does anybody else have any questions for Mr. Stinnett? Vice Mayor Gorton. Thank you very much. Thank you for recognizing me, especially since I'm not a member of this committee. I have a question for our city folks, either law or someone else. Ed, do you? Well, Ed, Commissioner, CAO, have you looked at these ordinances in other cities? Do you know much about them? I'll be candid with you. Mr. Sanner had done the research on this. I have looked at his research, and I've also looked at this draft ordinance and the changes that he made. but I have not researched other cities' ordinances to compare. Okay. Would this apply to any charitable organization that wants to do this? Yes, it would. And do you know if there was any discussion of the certificate of registration process taking place in public safety, which seems to me the place where it ought to be since it's in the intersections? Excuse me. I was not a party to any discussions along those lines. I do know that it's more of just where is the logical place. Public safety would be logical. It might be logical also to run it through the mayor's office, as Council Member Law said. That's kind of just where does it fit best administratively, and it may well be public safety. And I also made note of Council Member Martin's comments about who's the whole harmless in favor of, And I noticed that, Doug, and I thought, well, if we hand it to them and make it in favor of us, we can handle it. But we should put it in the ordinance. I agree with you. Do you know, Commissioner, about other cities and whether they put this process in public safety or not? No, I don't. I'm not aware. I haven't looked into that at all. Okay. Okay. Well, I'll hold any other comments for later. Thank you. If I might, anytime there's a special event, there are many divisions, parks, public safety, streets and roads, et cetera, are involved in that process, which is part of that whole application that they go through. So I don't know that, I mean, they would have to be involved for safety reasons, traffic engineering, picking out the four, five, six intersections, as well as, you know, whatever, police, fire, et cetera, any public safety people that needed to be involved. And that same thing happens when the midsummer night's run happens. It goes through that application, and all those divisions that might be involved are involved. Does that help, Linda? I do know about that. Since it was specified in here where it would reside, I was just asking about whether there might be a more appropriate place. I agree with Council Member Martin that the council administrator is not the place. I, too, agree. And like I said, I'd ask them to change it to the mayor's special event. I don't know what happened with that. So are you? Okay, thank you. Council Member Crosby. Thank you, Madam Chair. I was curious if I was trying to read through this and see, and I'm not sure that I see it. Maybe you can tell me. Do they have to be in good standing with the Secretary of State's office to be able to apply for this? Yes, they would be in E501C3. Well, I mean, so they'll be checked. It'll be verified that they're in good standing. I mean, we run into it with our neighborhoods all the time where they want money, but they're not in good standing with the Secretary of State. So will there be a verification process? That would have to be part of the application, and that is what they do in the mayor's office with any of the special events. Mr. Stinnett, would you like to speak to that? I just wanted to help answer your question, Councilman Crosby. We put in some requirements in here that anyone that tries to get a permit here has to submit articles of incorporation, tax identification numbers, some financial disclosures. So we try to make sure that there's a hurdle that if someone applies for this, on a threshold level that they need to be a well-established charitable organization, in addition to the fact of the insurance requirements, which not everyone's going to be able to necessarily meet. Thank you. Sure. Council Member Martin. Thanks. Yeah, I think it would be easy to add, like, a good standing certificate or something like that in. They're $5 on you. You can get them on the Internet, and it takes a couple minutes to get them, so it's very easy to get those these days. And we do run across that from time to time. They may have their 5.1c3, and they may have articles, but they may have not filed their annual report. And that happens all the time with small associations and things like that. So I think now would be the time to fix it. I think we're going to do a little bit of cleanup on this. And so if you don't mind adding that in, or maybe our law department could add that in, that would be easy to do. Excellent point. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. I think probably between now and if we move this to be placed on the docket, that we get the standard form that they use for any special event, because I know all that's on there. Would that help? I think now is just the time to put it in the language of the criteria. It's got a lot of other sort of criteria, and it would be very easy to sort of add that in. We're going to do a couple little things to it, and obviously we have to change where it goes. So I think there's a little bit more work to do on this, and I think everybody is really supportive of it and appreciates you all bringing that up to us. And now is an easy time to do that. Councilmember Kruse. I was going to say, I don't mind making a motion to move this forward, but, I mean, just for timing reasons, but I would like to see, you know, in the next few days. I mean, clearly I'll only get a first reading on Thursday. And if we can hold off to get a second reading then to give us a few weeks to make sure that it's – do what? To make sure that – I thought somebody was saying we couldn't do that. I would be happy to make a motion to move this forward, so I will do that. I make a motion that we move this forward to be on the docket for Thursday night's meeting. So moved. Second by Council Member Ellinger. Does anybody want to speak to the motion on the floor? Okay. Council Member Ellinger. I appreciate the thought process that's gone into this, and I appreciate the people here on its behalf today. I'm just, I'm reticent to make this change in our city. And I don't think that there's been enough council discussion or public discussion about the change that this would make in terms of people being able to come up to your car and ask you for change, which is something that doesn't currently happen in Lexington. that I'm aware of. And that's what this legislation does, is it provides that opportunity, not just for this group, but for any group who would go through the process of becoming registered and do that. And I'm hesitant to move it forward, because I'm not sure, I'm personally not sure that's a change I want to make in the way that Lexington is. I understand the good reasons for it. I understand the good outcomes of it. But it is a, it's one of the things that we do that changes the way Lexington is. And I'm not sure I'm at that point with this issue today. So I may not be supportive of the motion either here or if it is reported out. I need some input for some people that say this is something we absolutely need and this is a change that Lexington would embrace. I mean, we're doing a lot of things differently this year for a whole lot of reasons. I'm not sure this is the thing to do at this time for these reasons, but thank you. Council Member Stinnett. Thank you, Chair, and thank you for recognizing me. No, I'm not a member of the committee. Commissioner Mason, I guess I'm more concerned from the public safety side of the house. I know being in the middle of an intersection, especially Manowar, Nicholson Road or somewhere has a lot of safety concerns, as well as staffing issues from your department. Have you all had time to vet this? And what's your thoughts on the ordinance and the practicality of it here moving forward? We have had some time to talk about this. I'm personally not in favor of this change. It creates, to me, some public safety issues in terms of traffic that would really prevent me from being supportive. Fire departments in the recent past have pulled out or pulled away from the Crusade for Children in some venues and have been doing collections in other places at the front of like a Walmart or somewhere like that as opposed to standing in an intersection with vehicular traffic going by. And the staffing side of it is also a concern at a time when we're looking at adjusting assignments for public safety personnel into our core functions. We are concerned about the buildup time for things that are getting placed on the agenda. There's a big change right now, and some firework statutes state why. It has created a huge amount of work for police, fire, and code enforcement, building inspection folks to get together to see how that's going to be handled in this community. So those types of things just continue to add on, And so we have not had a chance to really look at how that would affect, because you may be talking about an unestimable number of weekends per year. With a ordinance like this, it would open up intersections all over Fayette County to collection by one group or the other. So I think you have to look at the big picture, and at this point I can't be supportive of it. And let me ask you, I know we get the panhandling calls a lot. I assume if a group just went out there after, if this ordinance should pass and did it without a permit and someone asked for it, you all would respond and ask them to leave the intersection. Yes, we would have to be placed in an enforcement capacity at that point. So you would be the enforcement arm still, just like you are now? Yes. Thank you, sir. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Council Members. Stennett. Vice Mayor Gorton, were you there and then went away? Okay. Council Member Henson. Thank you, Chair. After, I guess, hearing the comments from Commissioner Mason, I certainly can understand the restraints that our police department is under right now with low staffing levels and so forth and we're possibly facing huge cuts within some very, very good community service divisions of the police. I also know how difficult it is to find funding to run a very good program that is very much needed for a lot of citizens. But I don't really think this is the route to take. I think that you could find other options of raising money, and I like the idea of maybe getting a store like Walmart or even Kroger where you could stand out front and solicit donations. If we did something like this, you know, I would be more in favor of identifying the intersections that you would be at. So it wouldn't be I-75, of course, which is Man of War and Nicholsville Road, I think, is very comparable. But other intersections, and I don't like the idea that we would have to depend upon our police department to enforce violators. So there's several things that I don't like about it. So thank you. Thank you. May I address some of those concerns? Thank you. And believe me, we had many of those concerns ourselves when we first had this concept and idea to replicate kind of what Louisville and all those counties were doing and the huge amount of influx of money that comes in through those efforts, not to mention the community awareness. Like, if you're in that part of the community. Chief Baston, of course he did have safety concerns, and we wanted to address those. Absolutely. That's first and foremost for volunteers and law enforcement. We decided at that point in time that we would follow the police lead in exactly how this needs to be done, because they're the experts in the public safety realm regarding this issue. Also, that there would be limited, it's not going to be, you know, 25 or 30 intersections. We were looking at four or five intersections. We were going to be responsible, if you read the proposal, to do a lot of the media around that, the awareness out into the community that this is coming to kind of engage and excite the community about this is your way to kind of give back, you know, give change, to make change. We haven't officially titled it yet, but to really begin to ponder and think about what we can do and embrace as a community on little levels. You know, the old days of fundraising where you could go ask somebody for a $10,000 gift or a $50,000 gift in order to help sustain our services in times where we're receiving federal cuts, state cuts, local cuts, those days are not amongst us anymore. It really becomes a way to go back to that community and say most of us can't give $500, but all of us can give spare change. And all of us together getting that spare change can make a difference for thousands. Last year, BDVP served almost 10,000 men, women, and children. We're not talking about just a few people. We're talking about a great deal that desperately needs sustainability. And this was a creative approach in partnership with our police department and rape crisis because we can't do this alone. approach to say there's something we could do different. We might have to think out of the box just a little bit, but we can create our own revenues, we can create our own awareness and take the burden off of government and other entities, if that helps address those issues. Vice Mayor Gordon. Thank you. Thank you all for being here. I have a question for Mr. Gardner from our law department. So if I understand this correctly, it would apply to any nonprofit. That's correct. And it would not require that police or fire be in the intersection. It would be whoever is worked out to be in the intersection. It would not require them to be out in the intersection, but there's a statute that requires safety, either an emergency vehicle with lights flashing or a traffic signal with flashing lights to be there to notify motorists that there's going to be a charitable solicitation at a particular intersection. So the police presence would be either through personnel having to man a car or the government responsibility for putting, it might not be police, but for putting in some kind of a signal or traffic control device that's going to notify motorists that there's something that's going on. That's a state statute. That's something that's not, you know, that preexists this ordinance change. So would that, you said there'd have to be some kind of safety vehicle? Yes. Or it can be signs. It can be a traffic control device. I don't know. They're very specific in the statutes as to how they define those things. But the statute in question says that no person shall stand on a highway for the purpose of soliciting contributions unless such soliciting is designated by the presence of a traffic control device or warning signal or an emergency vehicle or public safety vehicle as defined by statute, making use of flashing, rotating, et cetera, lights on such devices or vehicles. So there has to be something that tells motorists this intersection you're coming up on or something going on. So given, I'm just thinking about, some of us have been in the public safety budget meeting this morning. Given all the cuts to police and fire, are we going to assume there would not be a vehicle, since we're running real low on our budget, but there'd be a traffic signal? I can't address that. We don't know. I have no idea how it would be intended to be addressed. That's what the statute requires. Okay. Thank you very much. Well, as I say, I don't have a vote in this, but I think there's some serious concerns about it, one of which for me is the public safety concern and whether our citizens actually want to be approached at intersections for fundraising. I think it's a huge concern. And it sounds to me, and maybe you can address this, that the main reason for proposing this is because of the amount of money that can be raised. Is that correct? Well, I think we saw this multipurpose. Again, the first reason is that there's a huge partnership and a demand and an increased demand for our services, so we need to meet that demand. Law enforcement is a huge partner for us. They have specialized units themselves, domestic violence units. They have a Sane Start nurse that's employed through the police department, and they have the children's unit. So we have these goals in common, our three entities, which made it seem like a good fit. We don't know what capacity eventually, you know, in the beginning what this money could bring in. I know just from what Louisville has been able to achieve, it could be quite substantial. We thought of it as even grander than ourselves in believing that to end violence against families, against women, against men, against children in this community takes the entire community. So once the initial gets started and we're able to expand that into maybe 16 of our outlying counties that we serve, as the money comes in, there would be opportunity for other entities. If, let's say, somebody with a drug and alcohol program wanted to enter some anti-violence programming there, or you had a Girl Scout troop that wanted to ask for micro-funding or micro-money in order to do a project among Girl Scouts, so we could open that up, which is very similar to what Louisville did once the basis is met, the threshold. At that point in time, the community can then ask for dollars back specialized, which may even help the police department down the road, help pay for advocates. I have a couple questions in my 30 seconds remaining. Are you prepared to pay for a vehicle if a vehicle needs to sit in the intersection? Would you be prepared to pay that out of the donations, or had you talked about that? Yes, we're willing to set this. So the city wouldn't have to. And then did you question, before you brought this to us, did you talk about going, like Council Member Henson said, to a storefront, for example, a Walmart or a Kmart or Myers or some of those, or was this your first choice? This would be our first choice. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Crosby. I have a question, I believe, for Commissioner Mason. The reason why I ask this is because I noticed that there was a charity run of motorcycles on Sunday that I got held up at a light for. And I was just wondering, because they were escorted by police, I mean, do they go through a process to get a police escort? And then does that charity reimburse the city for the use of our vehicles to get them through the light safely? Which event was this? I'm not sure. I would imagine it would have been a process, and many events are reimbursed. There are some centralized citywide events that are not reimbursed for traffic control. But if you tell me what event, I can have the police. I really don't know who it was. All I know is there were several hundred bikers going through a major intersection in a very busy part of town, Mr. Stennett, on Mother's Day. And it was, I mean, and traffic was completely backed up. So I was just curious what the process was. I have no idea what the organization was. Okay. I'll try and find out. And I thought it was really very nice that they were able to do that. and they had, I think, one or two police cruisers and a couple sheriffs. I mean, there was major public safety support for the event. And what they were doing was rolling through an intersection, and then traffic was continued on after the motorcycles passed and went on through town. Yeah, but it was a good five minutes. I'll see what I can find. Yeah, I was just curious because I know a lot of different – I guess I'm not seeing the difference if there's police support for something like that and you're being reimbursed, and we have this. if we're going to be reimbursed for it, then to me that's really not that much of an argument. Now, I don't like to be approached in my car if I'm sitting there and I've got my kids in, but the people usually that I'm approached by have not gone through a stringent process of showing Social Security numbers and having insurance and doing all these things. To be able to stand on the corner, usually the people I'm approached by are people who have no business being there asking for money on the corners. I also have concerns because right now we see all kinds of groups trying to raise money, and they may not be standing on the corner with a bucket, but we have cheerleaders who are out in the middle of the roads holding up signs, trying to get people to their car washes. And to me, I think this defines more what you have to have to be able to do events like that. So as Council Member Martin said, I don't think this is a perfect document. But I think it really clears up the ability, and it gives us control, too, over who can be there and who can't. So I'd like to see the changes, but I don't think I have some of the same concerns. Thank you. Vice Mayor Gorton, I think you wanted to speak to that. The question about reimbursement, we talked about that this morning in our public safety link, and the city does get reimbursed by any groups that are not city groups. For example, the Central Baptist Run, the U.K. football, we get reimbursed for all those services. The only thing that we don't get reimbursed for is things that are sponsored by the city, like the Fourth of July Festival when they have to have police and fire. So, yes, we do get reimbursed by the groups in the community. And I'd like to speak to that also. If there were police officers who wanted to volunteer to do this, obviously they wouldn't be paid and would be volunteers. So, but like any other special event, this too would require reimbursement, and in fact, usually they have to pay before they are allowed to do it. In other words, they pay up front rather than after the fact, the expenses. If that clears that up at all. There's a motion on the floor by Council Member Crosby and seconded by Council Member Ellinger to move this to the docket for first reading on Thursday. Casey, would you like to restate your motion? I made a motion to place this on the docket for Thursday night, pending changes by the law department to the ordinance. Thank you. It does not go to Thursday night. It gets reported out in the committee report in two weeks. Whatever the next meeting is, that it can be on the docket. Thank you. And a second by Council Member Ellinger. Any other comments? All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed? Okay. Could we do that electronically? because... Okay, all in favor? Did somebody... Okay, so the motion fails by a vote of three to four, and maybe we can come up with some other creative way to accomplish the same thing. Thank you all for your time, and thank you all for your input and your energy, And also many thanks to Mr. Stennett for your hard work and volunteerism. And the next thing, I'm sorry, you erased yourself, Mr. Farnett. The next thing I was going to say. Oh, okay. The next thing on the agenda is to look at committee referrals. Mr. Farmer, did you want to speak to that? Yes, ma'am. Thank you. The top of the list is the review and sign-off of collective bargaining agreements, which is the subject of a previous special meeting of this group and is part of the readout today during our committee meeting as a whole. and the conversation there had to do with specifically whether the council would vote on the collective bargaining agreement. And that's a discussion I didn't get into and one I'm not specifically wanting to address now. What I do want to address is the fact that if we want to have input on the collective bargaining process as a council, I think that we should put ourselves in a position for one of us to be at the table for those discussions. because unless one of us is there, we are presented with a blind draw, no kidding, when it's time to vote on a huge amount of our budget. So mine is relatively simple. I would just like to make a motion that a council member be selected to set in as part of the collective bargaining meetings so the council can be aware of those conversations and their implication. Excuse me, point of order. What we're doing now is looking at the items referred, not discussing them. It's my understanding that that's something that Mr. Lane is not in this committee that there's a proposal he's bringing forward to the entire council. So if we could. Well, if it's not in this committee, you need to take it off this list. Well, that's what we're doing. and that's the purpose. Okay. So we can scratch that off the list. Council Member Crosby. I was going to suggest that we remove update on fire corrections, including the Sheriff's Review and update on E911, because they're going to be part of our presentations today. So moved. To remove them? Mm-hmm. Okay. Second. All in favor? Is there any discussion on this? Is there any discussion? Aye. May I have a question? I was kind of curious why the presentation was being done at council and not, when I saw these, why it wasn't done before this committee, which sort of has a supervisory role over public safety. Initially, when I made the motion, it was to come back to this committee, but the entire council, because of some of the major budgetary impacts of these divisions, that they requested that it come before the full council. So we just revised that, and I'm not sure if you recall that meeting, but they – Did the council vote on moving it back to the full council? Yes. Thank you. Paramedic training, emergency medical, Vice Mayor Gordon, you put that on there. We had a wonderful presentation. I kind of recall we were going to ask them back again. I'm forming a task force, remember? And I am guessing it will report back to this committee. Okay. Yep. So it stays. Fire disciplinary process, I'd like to go on and remove that. Did anybody actually vote on the removal of the updates? I know the motion was made, but I don't know if we actually voted on it. Okay. Council Member Crosby, would you like to make a motion to remove those? Okay. All in favor of removing those? Aye. Opposed? Thank you. I'd like to make a motion to remove the fire disciplinary process. Oh, thank you. Any discussion? All in favor? Opposed? Council Member Lawless. Council Member Lawless. Over here. This way. This way. Oh. For clarification on the removal of the motion that Council Member Crosby made with the removal of the E-911 review and the fire update and the corrections, the corrections review will be on the 24th. That one will not be today with the E-911. and the shares report. I understand when I made the motion. Yeah, I was just making sure. Thank you. Excuse me. No worries. Thank you. Next on the list is the repaving. So we voted on that last motion. Council Member Martin, you had repaving program. Would you like to? Time you're ready. Okay. If the Chair would let me know when it's available to come on before the committee, I will bring the requisite number of people. You know, the thing about the repaving is that, you know, we spend a lot of money each year repaving, And I think that I'd like to examine whether or not we're following national best practices and to what extent we're adequately preparing our roads before we pave them. I think we're sort of painting over a lot of things, and I'd like to know to what extent we're fixing them. I don't know whether you guys, but for myself, I haven't had crack and seal in my district since I was a counselor. And so, you know, I think this is certainly ripe for our discussion. Councilmember Crosby. I agree with Councilmember Martin. I would like to see this at one of our next meetings. I know that a lot of us are dealing with huge paving issues right now, and I think that year after year we're having to determine what really is the priorities when in reality if you have a terrible road in your district, that's a priority, but you may not have the money to do it. So I think we need to look at alternate best practices and try to start coming to better. I certainly agree. And if, Paul, do you see if we can get the troops together? Yeah, things like whether we have warranty from our contractor, how long the paving is supposed to last, because I think it's at least possible that some of the paving that they're laying down is a half-inch thick. because some of it has been flaking off. Council Member Henson and I had an area over on Lane Allen near Alexandria that the whole paving flaked off. We got it done on my list this year, but I think this is ready for review and a number of things. Absolutely, and I think the roads especially are in a bad situation due to the horrible winter we had. we've got even more problems than we did before. So, Council Member Crosby? I also would like to request that maybe they don't have to present the information, but if we could get a list of public versus private roads. I know that I have some situations in my district, and I even heard of another one this morning, where a business wasn't really aware that they own their road, which prevents us in many cases from doing a paving project because we will not pave a private road. but there are some things that you can do where they can reimburse government for those expenses. So if we could somehow get some examples of where that is so people in their district know why maybe certain roads are not, or parts of bad roads are not making the list, that would be great. Thank you. Any other comments or questions that you all would like addressed, maybe you could email Paul and he can see if he can get that information. There may be other council members. I know we certainly are in a difficult situation in the third district also. The next item on the agenda is the Todd's Road Widening Project, Phase 2. That was referred by Council Member Stennett. Council Member Stennett. And it's my understanding that it's like a quarterly update. Yeah, that's part. We share that, and I'm finally moving that on and just continuing the quarterly updates. Okay. And I think the same holds true with the Newtown Pike project. Taxicab ordinance. That was going to be ready in February, and so I was told by Mr. Curtis that it still wasn't ready. I don't know, Commissioner Mason, if you have any information on when that might be ready. I think it can be placed on the next committee meeting, July. Thank you very much. Itinerant merchant, we've been meeting, or I missed the last one because task force, so we'll wait until the task force is ready to report out. So I'm assuming that will stay on there. residential parking permits would someone like to make a motion to remove that any discussion all in favor opposed okay I think we can remove that The sidewalk specification, that was, as I recall, changing the standards for new, that they were using the same standards for new subdivisions as they were for older neighborhoods and was put on by Council Member Feigl. And I think code enforcement kind of worked something out. Yeah. Council Member Farmer, would you like to keep that on there? I would make a motion to remove it from committee. Do I hear a second? Any discussion? Council Member, I'm sorry. Thank you, Chair. I didn't see your button, so. I thought we were waving hands. The sidewalk specifications, one of the reasons this came up is that we were getting complaints from various homeowners that they were getting sort of singled out for having a crack in their sidewalk or a sidewalk slab that was an inch higher than something else, and that there was no really sort of reasonable specifications about how to address this. And I think that we had a conversation about it at one meeting, And I think everyone seemed to agree that we won something that was reasonable but not perfect. And I think that that was, I think the enforcement was when it was being addressed to a particular homeowner was that, you know, this has to be perfect and this is not. And I think everybody would agree that the city's sidewalks aren't perfect either. And so we were sort of excluding ourselves but dinging the homeowners for this. So I kind of like to see this go somewhere, at least hear from the law department about or from building inspection of code enforcement about where this ended up so that we can at least assure ourselves that the reasons that brought it before us have been taken care of. Because I think, folks, it's a significant expense when they get hit with it. And so I'd like to just know that this is sort of being sort of evenly applied and that we're not excluding ourselves from the enforcement as well. Council Member Crosby. Once again, I agree with Council Member Martin. This was brought up, and we've had many situations in the 7th District where oftentimes they're cited and there's not any type of education or anything that goes out to let them know of the alternatives, which there's a huge cost difference in some of the technology that's available to make these repairs and having to replace. So I think this needs to stay, and maybe we can look at some of those. I think Council Member Feigel, as I recall, was looking at different requirements and different things as they resolve to repair. So I would like to see a presentation on that and not remove this from. So Council Member Farmer is going to withdraw his motion, and we'll leave that on there. And probably won't get to it. It looks like the next meeting's getting pretty full. Erecting large utility poles on the right-of-way. Council Member Martin. Yeah, this relates to the large distribution lines that were put up, particularly on Euclid Avenue in the Chair's District. And we had a meeting on it, and we had some folks come in and talk to us about it. But I'm not really getting any sort of effort from anybody else. I'm sort of just shouting in the wilderness on it. And so let me give it one more try and see if we can get KU to make some progress or get the administration to be able to help us put this together. But, you know, I think what we're looking for is a way to prevent our scenic corridors particularly and especially from turning into what is now Euclid Avenue. I think that's just none of us really want to see that done. And to be honest, there's not that much in the 10th District right now like this, but that's the whole point. I don't want this going down Pasadena, and I don't want this going down Harrodsburg Road. If you go out Winchester Road, you see lines and lines and lines of utility poles, not just one set, but two and three sets. And we need to find a way as a community to preserve our scenic corridors. We spent an immense amount of money on Newtown Pike to keep utility lines off what we did over there. And I think we can make at least a modest effort to keep these sort of industrial-looking utility lines from really ruining some of our scenic corridors. And, yeah, times are tough. Money is tough. And we need to find a way to do that that sort of has the least impact on our businesses. So you're wanting to keep that on the? I guess I do. I guess that's the longest. Okay. Motion to keep, I guess. You don't need to make a motion to keep it. We had talked about whether or not it was more appropriate for planning, and you said you felt like you would prefer to have it here. And I think at the last meeting you said you would let me know when you were ready for it to be placed on the agenda. We'll work it up for the next one or whenever the chair says we have time for it. It looks like the next one's pretty full, so it'll be after the break. It'll be like in August. Okay. Thank you, Chair. Okay, thank you. And, yes, I am very passionate about this. Yes. I think we're all a lot of passionate people or we wouldn't be here. The repaving list, would someone like to make a motion to, I think that can be rolled into the repaving program. So would someone like to make a motion to? Why don't you just make it part of it? Do we have to have a motion? Okay. So that will be part of it, of the repaving program. Emergency snow plan, that was placed there by Council Member James. It seems like it's something hopefully we can wait until the fall to address, or at least August. Does anybody have any? Well, I think that if we can address it before we start having snow again, that would clearly be beneficial, but clearly I don't think we need to do it in July. Okay. And I'll try to also talk to Andrea and ask her if there was anything specific. I don't recall. And the loading and unloading zones in downtown, that's certainly something she put it in committee but it's something that I've been looking at also because much of downtown is in my district. So Paul, would you be willing to get with Council Member James and see where she was going? Yeah, it's a one-way and two-way street issue primarily. But I can try to see if you change it, One-way street foot two-way that changes the configuration and the ability to have load. Right. Okay. And there's a study going on about that right now. So we can keep it on there and just not do it immediately. And Council Member Beard, horse cruelty. And. Okay. Okay, so Council Member McCord made a motion to remove. Council Member Ellinger seconded it. Is there any discussion? Okay. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed? Okay. Thank you very much. Council Member Ellinger. Thank you, Chair. Paul, could you, like we have in the past, kind of put in when these were put in, and also if you can give an update of status so we know where everything is at the present, that would be great. Thank you so much. Do I hear a motion to adjourn? Councilmember Crosby moved to adjourn, and Councilmember Martin seconded that motion. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Okay. Thank you all very much. Thank you. I'm out.