# Council Public Safety Committee - October 18, 2011 > Auto-transcribed civic record · October 18, 2011 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/2214 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/2214?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2011-10-18 - **Last revised**: July 17, 2026 - **Length**: 14,014 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 Committee met on October 18, 2011, at 1:00 p.m., with Diane Lawless presiding. The committee considered three agenda items during the session. One motion was voted on, and the committee heard ten public comments. Of the three items on the agenda, the committee approved the Fireworks Ordinance. Two items were deferred: the Chronic Nuisance Ordinance and a review of items referred to the committee along with discussion of a special meeting. ## Attendance The following individuals were present at the meeting on October 18, 2011: * Diane Lawless * Doug Martin * Chuck Ellinger * Chris Ford * Julian Beard * Bill Farmer * Kevin Stinnett * K.C. Crosbie * Jay McChord * Peggy Henson No absences or late arrivals were recorded. ## Votes and Decisions **Ordinance 0130-26: Fireworks Ordinance** [timestamp: 1:39:05] The committee voted on the Fireworks Ordinance as written, with the motion to forward it to the full Council for consideration. Kevin Stinnett moved the ordinance, and Jay McChord seconded the motion. The ordinance passed by voice vote. Nine members voted in favor: - Kevin Stinnett - Jay McChord - Peggy Henson - Doug Martin - Julian Beard - Bill Farmer - K.C. Crosbie - Chuck Ellinger - Chris Ford One member voted against the ordinance: - Diane Lawless ## Public Comment Ten speakers addressed the committee during the public comment period, with testimony focused primarily on concerns about a chronic nuisance ordinance and its potential impact on homeless services. **Property and Community Concerns** B.W. Blanton, Jr. spoke on behalf of his uncle, a property owner near the Catholic Action Center, expressing concerns about public restroom use in bushes and requesting respect for property owners while emphasizing the need for humane solutions to homelessness. [timestamp: 1:00:10] **Support for the Ordinance** David Manning shared personal testimony of transformation through faith and supported the ordinance as a tool for order, while calling for outreach programs to restore lives. [timestamp: 1:04:31] **Exemption Requests for Nonprofits and Churches** Multiple speakers urged exemption of churches and nonprofits from the chronic nuisance ordinance: - Joy Bailey advocated for exempting churches and nonprofits, emphasizing their role in providing shelter and support to the homeless. [timestamp: 1:03:29] - Judy McLaughlin appealed for exemption of these organizations, citing their vital role in helping the homeless and preventing them from living on the streets. [timestamp: 1:08:18] - Dwayne Flowers expressed concern that the ordinance could harm services for the homeless and urged exemption to preserve access to shelter and food. [timestamp: 1:09:55] - David Christensen called for clearer documentation standards and urged exemption of nonprofits, warning that the ordinance could be misused to target service providers and harm vulnerable populations. [timestamp: 1:15:04] **Personal Testimony from Homeless Individuals and Service Users** Several speakers shared personal experiences benefiting from nonprofit services: - Benny Johnson, a homeless individual staying at the Community Inn, urged exemption for nonprofits and churches to ensure continued access to shelter and support. [timestamp: 1:07:13] - James Starrett testified that without the Community Inn, he and his girlfriend would be living on the streets, and urged exemption of nonprofits. [timestamp: 1:11:03] - Christy Harold shared her experience of becoming stable after being homeless, crediting the Community Inn for helping her avoid domestic violence and drugs, and requested exemption for nonprofits. [timestamp: 1:12:17] - Ellis Boatley spoke from personal experience as a former homeless person, emphasizing that churches and nonprofits helped him get back on his feet and urging exemption to preserve these services. [timestamp: 1:13:23] ## Contested Items **Exemption for Nonprofits and Churches** Multiple speakers, including homeless individuals and nonprofit representatives, strongly opposed the chronic nuisance ordinance as it applies to shelters and religious organizations. Opponents argued that the ordinance would jeopardize vital services provided by these institutions and unfairly target providers of social support. The community opposition centered on concerns that nonprofits and churches offering shelter and assistance programs could face penalties under the ordinance, potentially forcing them to reduce or eliminate critical services for vulnerable populations. **Documentation Standards and Enforcement Fairness** Councilmembers and public speakers raised significant concerns about the lack of clear definition for "documentation" in the ordinance. The disagreement focused on how documentation requirements would be applied and enforced. Speakers feared that vague standards could be misused to penalize service providers or result in unfair enforcement against property owners. The split vote among councilmembers reflected uncertainty about whether the ordinance's enforcement mechanisms were sufficiently clear and equitable to prevent discriminatory application. ## Chronic Nuisance Ordinance Councilmember Peggy Henson presented a draft ordinance designed to address chronic nuisance properties through individual case-by-case review. The ordinance requires property owners to collaborate with the city on abatement plans to resolve nuisance conditions. [timestamp: 0:02:05] The proposed ordinance defines nuisance activities broadly and establishes enforcement mechanisms including fines and potential property closure as a last resort option. **Public Concerns** Public comment raised significant concerns about unintended consequences of the ordinance. Speakers highlighted potential negative impacts on nonprofits and low-income housing providers, expressing worry that the broad definitions and enforcement mechanisms could disproportionately affect these sectors. Commenters called for specific exemptions to protect these vulnerable populations and requested clarification on documentation requirements and procedures. **Key Speakers** The discussion involved multiple council members and community members, including Keith Gaines, Kevin Stinnett, K.C. Crosbie, Julian Beard, Doug Martin, and Bill Farmer, in addition to Councilmember Henson. **Outcome** The ordinance was deferred, indicating that the council postponed further action to allow for additional review, revision, or public input based on the concerns raised during the meeting. ## Fireworks Ordinance Councilmember Kevin Stinnett presented a revised fireworks ordinance designed to align with state law while providing enhanced enforcement clarity. [timestamp: 1:28:23] **Key Provisions** The ordinance includes several specific regulations: * A 200-foot rule for fireworks use * Bans on possession of fireworks by minors * Extended permitted times for fireworks on July 4th and New Year's Eve **Speakers and Discussion** The following individuals participated in the discussion: Sergeant Clayton Roberts, Doug Martin, Jay McChord, Julian Beard, Bill Farmer, K.C. Crosbie, and Chris Ford. **Outcome** The ordinance was approved by voice vote and will be forwarded to the full Council for further consideration. ## Review Items Referred to Committee & Discussion of Special Meeting [timestamp: 1:19:23] The committee discussed the need for additional special meetings to address items that would not be completed by the November 1st deadline. A key focus of this discussion was the chronic nuisance ordinance and other referred items requiring further attention. **Proposal and Concerns** Councilmember Peggy Henson proposed scheduling a special meeting for November 1st to handle the outstanding items. However, this proposal generated concerns among committee members about the feasibility and appropriateness of the timeline. The primary concern raised was that a November 1st meeting would not provide sufficient time for stakeholder review of the materials and proposed ordinances. Committee members, including Doug Martin, K.C. Crosbie, Julian Beard, and Bill Farmer, expressed reservations about moving forward with such a compressed schedule. **Outcome** Rather than proceeding with the November 1st special meeting as initially proposed, the committee deferred this decision. A new special meeting was subsequently scheduled for later in November to allow adequate time for stakeholder input and review of the referred items, including the chronic nuisance ordinance. --- ## Decisions - **Ordinance 0130-26** — passed: Fireworks Ordinance as written, to be forwarded to the full Council for consideration --- ## Full transcript Music Thank you. Okay, it is 1 o'clock. and this is the October 18th Public Safety Committee meeting at 1 p.m. It's actually about 1 p.m. First of all, on the news today, they announced that the noise ordinance was going to be on the docket for today. It is not on the docket for today. So if you're here about the noise ordinance, you're a month early. The first thing on the agenda is the chronic nuisance ordinance, Council Member Henson, and a presentation by Keith Gaines. There's a synopsis on page 2 to 3 and the draft ordinance 4 to 19. so Mr. Gaines would you like to take the mic? Excuse me chair before we get I think we may need to address some decorum issues we have people behind that sign that cannot see and we normally don't allow signage. Oh I'm sorry I didn't even see the sign. Yeah, please keep your signs down. Thanks. Hi, I'm officer, or retired officer, Keith Gaines from the Lexington Division of Police. I retired about two months ago, and now I'm working for free apparently, so keep that going. Yeah, I know that there's been a lot of news on this issue in the last little bit. But some behind-the-scenes things that some people may not realize is this wasn't really designed to target anybody. It just happened to come out, and there was some areas that I guess appeared at the time that this ordinance was coming to completion because I think it all started before me in 2007. There was a draft ordinance that was started and never really went anywhere from there. I didn't know that that draft ordinance even existed until about six months after I'd started working on this, and that was in probably 2009, kind of when I started on this. So I've been working on this for about two years. I've got about two years' worth of research into it, two years of trying to look at what best practices were, and two years of trying to draft what would be the best option for Lexington. don't have a problem beg, borrowing, stealing from other places, but on the other hand, not every place fits Lexington. And I think that trying to take the pieces from other areas, not reinventing the wheel, but maybe making the wheel for us better. So with that, this all really started probably four years ago before any of these things that hit the news came up and that kind of issue. but for me before I even knew there was another ordinance that existed that had been started I was writing this ordinance for kind of everyone in Lexington because when I took over I started in the clear unit which was a unit that was designed to look at problems we don't police in a normal fashion. We look at problem solving. We look to see what the root causes are, and then we try to figure out how to solve those root causes. One of the things that I realized was that a lot of the problems are a lack of communication. It's not issues that can't be fixed. It's just trying to get people together to communicate. So part of this ordinance is designed as just getting people to communicate, and then once the communication starts, working on solutions. So there will be as much of a burden on the government coming up with solutions that we want somebody to try to address that are reasonable for everybody to solve the issues that have come up as a chronic problem. And that's what this is designed to address, chronic problems. This is ongoing, multiple issues, and a lot of other cities have done this when I did my research. It's an up-and-coming issue, but it started really maybe from what I researched about 10 years ago, and a lot of it has been driven out of economy. A lot of cities have realized that there is, at points, a large drain of resources that are going out to same addresses, and there's not addressing a root cause to the problem. We're just responding over and over again. I think that the original ordinance that was started in 2007 was out of originally Day's Motel. It was a chronic problem. Just police calls alone in 2006, or we'll start with 2005, 516 calls for service to one location. That's almost two a day. I mean, when you're looking at dropping amounts of people that are working or you're trying to increase efficiency, and you've got one location, 2006, it increased to 534 calls for service. 2007, we actually started the clear unit sometime around that area, and we had an officer that started working on that, we dropped it to 452 calls. So it didn't quite drop 100 calls, but it dropped. And during the time frame of those years where it had the highest calls from 2005, 2006, 2007, it took that amount of years to try to get people to work with us to solve the problems. The problem was at that time there was no real incentive for the owners of the property to work with us. So it was really hard to get some compliance. Eventually that property through two, two and a half years of efforts on the local and state level ended up causing a majority of that property to be shut down. and then it was reopened or gradually as things were repaired and put into place. And you look, you dropped from 534 calls in 2006, and we're continuing to drop down 2010 to 97 calls. I mean, that's a huge difference. That's a huge increase of resources or you're dropping your grain on resources. Another example was 1340 Alexandria. And these are just a couple of examples, but 2008, 336 calls for service. I think there's a more understandable, that one there. You can actually read that one better. But 336 calls for service. We went in. We ended up taking more drastic measures on that. 2009, 53 calls. 2010, 77 calls. A little bit of increase because I think that in 2009, they were still in the opening up of more of their units on that. These are extreme examples, and that's what a lot of this ordinance was designed for. The last thing that when I wrote this ordinance that I want to happen is to shut anybody down. That is not the goal of this ordinance. as it states on the synopsis. It says each property should be examined on a case-by-case basis, and that's really what we have to look at. What is the overall issues of the property? And part of why I wrote this ordinance is to get the communication going because you have to have the communication. Part of it is communication not just with a few entities. We need to get everybody to take a look at it. If there's a chronic problem and a chronic nuisance that's going on that's affecting the lives of people who live around whatever this address is, the neighborhoods or other businesses, then we need to look and see why and what we can do from a root cause level. And that's what I did for the last five years in the CLEAR unit. That was our main goal and our mission was to look at root causes and not just put the Band-Aid on it, fix it, And then next time we go to the same call over and over again, we try to look at what the root causes were. And part of what I did with that, I know that a lot of times there's mistrust with government, was to, from my perspective and what I did, was build relationships. And that's what I think that we need to do here. This will help build relationships with people within the government and private business, homeowners, to open that line of discussion rather than all we're doing is just going out and giving fines, whether it's, you know, we're citing the individuals, somebody that's there, and we're doing that, but it's not solving a problem. We're just putting a small Band-Aid on it, and it's not working for long term. This is designed to open the communication up. It's designed to work together to figure out what the problems are and what reasonable solutions we can take as a group to solve the problems. And the group is going to be the government. It's going to be the individuals that are affected. It's going to be the property owners because we're all stakeholders in this. I mean, this isn't just something to do as far as trying to put places out of business. This is to open up the lines of communication, to work together, and to have a viable way of making that happen. All the research that I've done, Madison, Wisconsin was one of them that I used as an example. I don't think this is in the packet, but as an example, in Madison, Wisconsin, they have about a similar population. They got 233,000 people in 2010. and their geographic area is about 84.7 square miles, and I think that is more of an urban area, and that's about somewhat similar to what our urban area is. If you get kind of outside, we have in that close to 300,000 people, but they did the same thing, and they did some research on it when they did it. They did a study. And within that year that they did the study, they passed the ordinance in 2007. I think the study was in 2008 while they did this ordinance, there were really only eight properties that were actually cited under their ordinance where they actually were called, sent to letters of notice, come in, talk about it. Out of those properties that they called in, eight of the property people actually came in to work with them. They all came in to initially talk. Out of that, eight of them entered into abatement plans with the city itself. And the number of premises that made a good faith effort to implement an abatement plan were five out of the eight. And the five out of the eight, we don't worry about those because they're making a good faith effort to implement a plan. And that's what we want. We want some good faith effort and have the ability to work with people. That's the whole goal. The ones that we have to worry about are the three that aren't going to follow a good faith effort. And I don't think that when I've worked with property owners, business, and other groups, that the majority of the people, once you're informed of what the problem is and you work together on solutions, most people are very willing to work on these solutions together. So, and that's consistent with all the research in all the cities around the country that I found, was there's a big fear that all of a sudden there's going to be a blowup of these properties. And I think that we'll find that we're going to follow that same trend, that really when you look at all the properties and you see what's going on and you look at the big picture, that there's really not that many properties that are going to be hit on this. And if they are, it's not going in and just shutting them down. They have the ability to come in. We'll discuss an abatement plan. It's designed to go through the Commissioner of Public Safety. He will look and see who needs to be involved. Do we need to bring in code enforcement? Do we need to bring in the police department, the property owners? Are there any other stakeholders that are involved that need to be brought in to discuss what should be done, what the root cause is, and what kind of solutions that we can come up with? One of the things that we always were preached to was to think outside the box, to come up with solutions that aren't our standard solutions. And that's what I really think that this could help with is doing that. And the ones we're concerned with are not the ones who are willing to work and put a good faith effort in. I mean, if you're taking some place and you're dropping the calls from 534 calls in a year to 97, I think that's a pretty good faith effort now that is continuing, and they've dropped. I mean, it's continuing to drop, and part of that is implementing some plans that the police department has been requested that they put into place, looking at what the root causes are. Some of it's just making things look better. It's the broken windows theory that if something looks bad, it has a tendency to draw issues to those problems. And if you keep things maintained and looking well, then it has less of an issue to bring a neighborhood or property down. Once again, this is not designed to shut places down. Really, the goal is not to fine people. The fines can be put in advance. If somebody is willing to work and they're still working with it, you can continue to put a fine in abeyance as long as they're willing to work. And I think it has to be viable solutions. You're not going to be able to come in and just say, this is what we want. This is going to be cost prohibitive for you to do. That's not what's designed either. And I think the commissioner is on board with that. I think that there's always a fear when there's any kind of legislation like this that is brought up. But that would be with any legislation or any law. I mean, anything can be abused, but I have faith in everybody here. I have faith in the people that I've worked with in the past. I have faith in the group of people here that if you are willing to work together, then you can come up with solutions and think outside the box, come up with some different ideas that are not cost prohibitive, that are viable, and that will be good for the entire community. So any questions? Are there any council members that would like to sign up to speak? Thank you. Council Member Henson. Thank you, Chair. I want to say Officer Gaines, Mr. Gaines, I really, really appreciate the work you've done on this, and I've worked very closely prior to being on the council with Richard Maloney, and then after coming on the council, had the pleasure of working with the clear unit. And, you know, I really, really like the way you've spoken about this ordinance and that people maybe shouldn't consider it a huge threat, but it is a warning. Wouldn't you agree that we all should have to live in this community and we should have respect for each other and each other's properties? Yes. I mean, I think that's what, once again, the whole issue is, is how do we go about doing that if there is a problem and coming up with the solutions and not just doing the normal police calls and putting the Band-Aid on it? it's working together as a community. The director of adult services with our social service division was concerned that it would increase homelessness if, you know, say if a multi-housing unit were not to comply and become shut down. and so I like what you said about you know we we need to have that willingness to work with property owners to become to come into compliance like you showed the example of the days motel that's a perfect example if you drive by there today it looks like a totally different place well, close. It looks a lot different. Yes, a lot's better. So, you know, I don't want anyone to have those fears that we're here to shut you down or run you out of town or anything like that. But we do deserve safe, high-quality of living neighborhoods. And we should strive for that as much as possible. I agree. I think that the community together should strive for it as much as possible, and that's what this is designed to do. And, you know, I also like what you said about the communication. It's like, because I have had communication with Jenny Ramsey at the Catholic Action Center, and they've been good communication, and I think we would be willing to work with them. So thank you. Thank you, Keith. Council Member Stenet. Thank you, Chair. Keith, thank you for coming back to us. I know you recently left, so welcome back. I just want to ask you a couple of housekeeping things about the ordinance itself. In here, it talks about documented cases, three or more documented times. I assume this applies to residential and commercial properties, because it doesn't specifically say commercial in here. It mainly refers to residential. Commercial is referred to as non-residential. But yes, documented, and just kind of some example or background on that. A lot of times when we go to some place, and I can speak to it from a police perspective, we will go and have a call for service, whatever the call is, and we'll go there and see, let's say it's a disorder, a call for a disorder. And we may get there, and there's no disorder involved. I mean, it could have happened. We don't know. but when we get there, there's nothing going on. So there's really nothing to document. I mean, but you have a call for service. Well, if there's nothing documented, that call for service will not count against that property. Things like suspicious activity. I mean, we'll come investigate it, but that's not really what I would consider something. I mean, we'll investigate it, but is that really a chronic nuisance? No, because I think people should call for suspicious people. I think they should call for everything, but certain things will be specifically domestic violence. But I guess where I'm going with my point is documented will be if we get there, we will have either a citation that's given for some type of crime that's been committed. It will be something that code enforcement has done that they've documented that is a violation. or through the police department, a lot of times, as an example, we can get somewhere and there may be something that's actually going on when we get there, but it's not something that we will actually cite for or we may not even do a report for. An example could be, let's just say, a fight between two people. And we get there and there are two people that have bloody noses. Obviously, they've been fighting. They've got scuffed knuckles on both sides. But under the state statute, unless we actually see that happen in person, we cannot cite for that. That's not, I mean, the assault, unless we actually witness that, we can't cite or arrest the persons for that. But we know that they had a fight. I mean, it just is obvious once we get there, there's enough evidence that we see that. So what we may do, we have a form that's called a field investigation form. We use it for various purposes. A lot of times if we see a suspicious person, we fill it out and say, okay, we stopped this person. They were in this area at a certain time. It seems suspicious. There was some kind of suspicious activity going on. We document that person or the vehicle. We can use it for a vehicle itself. But we also use it for things that we can notate on there, whether it might be gang-related or some other type of relation. and we could do a documentation where we would put chronic nuisance on here. So there was a fight. There was a disorder. But we didn't do any other paperwork. There was no arrest made. The people didn't want to file any reports. They didn't want to do anything, but there was an issue there. So we would put that on a field investigation form documented as possibly a chronic nuisance if that property is possibly a chronic nuisance property. We wouldn't do that on every place we go because most officers, unless they're working that area consistently and they know that this is a problem, that we're going to these places over and over again, they wouldn't just put that on top of every form that fell out. Well, the point is, I'm trying to ask you, I know in other ordinances, documentation is usually synonymous with being cited, and that's how we prove that there's two or more violations. And here it doesn't define what documentation is. I think that's a major issue that needs to be defined in the ordinance before we move forward. Because as you said, if you just show up and bring up a fight and leave, there's no documentation that there was actual action occurring. At the same time, I don't want to see a situation where we're constantly documenting with what you just described based on neighbors complaining against one another just to get back at one another. That's not going to help our community either. So I'm trying to figure out what really documentation is so maybe we can talk about that more and I can come back on my next turn to speak. But the other question I wanted to get in is who will hear these appeals of these cases? Because that's also not clearly defined in here. The appeals will go through the same appeals process that code enforcement uses currently. So we may need to define that board in here because I know, again, in other ordinances, we define what board hears because those boards change, and the membership obviously is appointed by the council. So we need to be clear as to what board will actually hear these cases because we do have other boards that could potentially hear them. And so, Chair, I'll wait till my next turn. But we do need to think about the documentation issue because I think that's a clear issue we needed to find in here. Thank you, Keith. Council Member Crosby. Thank you, Ms. Wallace. Thank you, Officer Gaines. I had a few questions, too. Mine are about the documentation, as I have a huge vacant property in my district where, you know, I'm not sure. It's been a drain on police and fire and where they have to have an officer, not now, we've worked it out, but for well over a year an officer was having to drive by daily and check the property and code enforcement, but I'm not sure that they were necessarily documenting if there wasn't any type of activity going on, but yet it was a strain on the government because we were having to use our resources to check it. So I have an issue with the documentation and the definition, but I do have a question as it relates under Section 1260, the findings number two, where it states upon or near their property. What exactly, if you could explain why we said near their property, because I'm a little held up as to why we would be trying to enforce or look at something that's near a property when a property owner can't control. What's going on? If there's something happening on the street in front of my house, I can't control that, but my address might be used because it's near my property. So can you explain why that's there? Yes. There's been other cities who have used the same kind of definition. And part of this is probably not for a single property or like a residential property as much. It could be, but it's more designed for a business issue. We have several properties or several businesses' addresses that we have consistent large disorders. and those disorders are a direct result of that property operating. Usually it's a party-type situation, and we can go there, and it's 200, 300 people, and you know that it's coming from that property, and it's causing issues on the surrounding or adjoining properties or nearby properties. So that would be to work with that property to address how they're affecting those adjoining properties or the businesses that are around them. And most of this is late-night type of issues, but it is an issue, and other counties or localities have done the same thing because if you can say it is a direct cause from this business operating, this business is usually making money from this activity, what can we do working with that business to say, okay, how do we need to adjust what's going on because you're having issues with the surrounding properties. So that's basically a documentation-type issue? Yes. Okay, thank you. If you don't mind, I'd like to respond to that. Also, just from a neighborhood situation, oftentimes there'll be a party at a house, and the party goers are smashing beer bottles or urinating in the street or any number of things, it's obvious what property that came from, and they are dispatched. So I think our police department, et cetera, uses very good judgment on those situations, but I think that would be another example other than a business in a residential section. And we have those kind of problem properties in every district probably in the county. And you need to quit throwing stuff outside your house and blaming your name. Council Member Beard. Thank you, Chair. this whole thing bothers me a little bit. How would you define chronic? Chronic sounds like a loosey, fuzzy kind of a word in the eyes of the beholder. And I don't see how you are able to control because what might be chronic over here for one type of violation, I'll read off one. Indecent exposure. Three instances would be chronic to me anyway. But some of the others, violation of noise organs, for instance, that might be eight occurrences or ten occurrences before anybody would get real excited about that, or parking violations. it seems like there are lots of loopholes here that people can crawl through well the chronic is just defined strictly as the amount of any of these together or combined with a code violation and it's broken down by property size so if you have a one to four plex type property it is three violations within a 60 day period or six violations within a year period and it may not seem as big of a deal, indecent exposure, as it is to violating the noise ordinance, but if you're the person that's living next door and you've got three violations of noise ordinance that's waking you up at 3 o'clock in the morning and it's within a 60-day period, I mean, that's one a month that you're getting, or a little over one a month, that you're getting woke up at 3 o'clock in the morning for a violation of noise ordinance. It's just cut and dry based on any of these violations in here based on how many units the property has. So it goes up from five to nine units, goes to six violations, or to nine. Six within a 60-day period or nine within a 12-month period. And it's looked at. That's where you've got to go back to looking at it on a case-by-case basis, and it would be mostly complaint-driven. and we're not going to look at every single residence in Fayette County on a regular basis to see if this is a violation. Because obviously if it's not causing somebody problems, it must not be that big of a nuisance. But if you're living next door to those noise violations and you're making the calls and we're getting there and documenting that there is a violation, then that meets the criteria, and it will be looked at on every case-by-case basis. How do you handle, for instance, church festivals that happen once a year? Is it impossible for that to be a violation then? Yes. Right. Because that worried me a little bit, being a parishioner of Christ the King. I wouldn't want that done away with. Yeah. In reality, you could have a festival twice in a 60-day period, and it would be five times within a year, and you'd still not hit the criteria for getting chronic nuisance. Well, you know, I don't think we're out to get these festivals by any means. And there are other activities for other churches. I know Quest Church, for instance, I couldn't figure out why they were having a firework check. Jay, you may tell me the big fireworks, with quest I had to go find it I drove and drove and drove and drove and finally got around to zeroing in on what it was just when it quit that's a balooza yeah yeah yes that's right okay I guess that's about all I need I just wanted to thank thought that a little bit more about it Thank you. Thank you, Council Member Beard. Council Member Kay. Thank you, Chair. Thank you for all this work, Keith. I've got a couple questions about the specific language. In Section 12-62, which is on page 8 of the packet, the language says in the third line, any real property shall recklessly, knowingly, or negligently allow. I'm wondering why the language, which seems to be making the case a little harder to make, why that recklessly, knowingly, or negligently language is in there. I think that that was probably based on using some language from another ordinance that was in there and looking at if you're allowing it to happen, it would go back to almost saying that you have no notice of it. And that's one of the things that we've discussed is giving notice and being able to say that now if you allow it to happen or knowingly allow it to happen, then we'll have to give notice. And that was one of the changes that we've just recently discussed of giving a notice before there's any fine, just like code enforcement does following their process. Or that would be the main reason. Okay. Could, without seriously weakening this, could recklessly and negligently be taken out and leave knowingly in? Law department says no. And I'm curious if I could ask law what the reasoning is for that. The recklessly, knowingly, or negligently language is prevalent in almost every other ordinance that I research to. The reason for that is you have to have all three in there to catch everybody. I mean, you have to have negligently in there because if you have an out-of-county or out-of-state property owner, then, of course, they wouldn't knowingly be allowing that because they're not in state. but they have to be held to some accountability by having a manager there or something to take care of their property. If you take the negligently out, then you're pretty much exempting an out-of-state or out-of-county owner from this ordinance. And again, if you took all three out and it just said any real property shall allow, wouldn't that cover all of that? Okay, so the reason I ask the question is it seems to raise the bar of proof rather than lower. It seems to make it harder. No, it does not. It does not. If it said recklessly and knowingly and negatively, then yes, it would raise the bar. But all we have to do is prove any one of these three. Okay, that helps me understand. Thank you. I've got one other question about the specific language on page section 9, section 12.6-67, and the same language in Section 12-68 at the very end. This section does not apply to hotels, motels, or other places of lodging. I presume what that means is that for multiple unit dwellings, this exemption would not apply to them. That is, they'd be held to a higher standard. Is that correct? That is correct. Because if it's a motel or hotel, then it's not an eviction process per se. Usually those are short-term leases, so you're not going to hold an eviction process or that's not going to be an exemption for them because those people are usually not there for 30 days. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Council Member Martin. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Officer Gaines, or former Officer Gaines. Appreciate you coming back. So fishing wasn't exactly what you wanted to do after retirement then? I've got too much invested in this to let everybody off the hook here. Well, I appreciate you coming back and talking to us about it. So help me understand some examples about things that would trigger the, like, three times a 50 day or 60 days. You know, I know that I've got the list here, and so I guess let me ask, put in the form of a question. Do you have to have a citation to consider guilty of one of the three violations in 60 days? No, and this kind of goes back to Mr. Stenet's question of documentation. And the reason being is, one, this is an administrative process. We're not taking this criminally. Okay, but I've got a short time, so let me sort of keep going if that's okay. Yeah. So you don't have to have a citation. You have to have, I guess, either a police officer or a code enforcement officer. Are they able to document an incident? Yes, and that's where police would use the F-5 or field investigation form at a minimum. If we did a citation or did a report for an assault or something, that could be used as documentation also. So you could, go ahead. So that's why we're going to require some form of documentation, and through the conversations with Chief Basten that we could use that, and that gets rid of the spike calls or the calls from the neighbors that are calling on a property because we have to show that there was something actually going on. But you are essentially aggregating together separate instances and creating a penalty for those activities that don't individually rise to the level of a citation. Correct. Some of them could be citations. Sometimes we just opt out of giving. But they don't have to. You could have three incidents, none of which would have a citation issued, but those three together would be sort of three strikes you're out. I was told not to say that, but sorry. Correct. Hence the term chronic nuisance because it's a chronic problem of some sort. So you have three of these incidents that come and then they get the high-level enforcement, but that's against the property owner, is that correct? Correct. So help me understand, what does the property owner do to prevent feature violations? Well, that's where it's going to be the communication and working together on solutions. It will be determined by the Commissioner of Public Safety. That's where once it's – there's a possibility that this property is a chronic nuisance. It goes to him. He will bring in whoever we need to look at it to calls for service, whether it's police department, code enforcement. We may bring in everybody. Pull the documentation together and look at the big picture. It may meet the criteria. It may not. So if I have an apartment building with 400 units and I'm in a low-income neighborhood, it's possible that someone's selling drugs at some point all the time on a property like that. Is that fair? Possibly. It's certainly more likely than otherwise. So what is the landlord supposed to do at that point to stop that activity? Well, some of the things that we've used in the past are trying to work with property owners, especially if it's a large apartment complex, just getting them to put up no trespassing signs, implementing some type of rules or regulations against people loitering around their property so that when the police come that we will have the signs already posted. And that's been, believe it or not, it's been a challenge sometimes to get some properties to post no trespassing or loitering signs on their properties. and they'll call us for these issues. Now, once again, if it's a property management or property owner calling for these issues, that's not going to be held against them either because they're attempting to help clean up their issues. So, but largely this is complaint driven. I think you said that earlier. So if you have a, you know, let's say our new noise ordinance passes and my son is no longer allowed to practice trumpet at 9 o'clock at night in my basement, Unless I don't get along, my neighbor just wants to do something. They call. So technically that would throw us into this chronic nuisance if we get three calls from my irate neighbor about my son practicing trumpet at 9 o'clock at night in our basement. If when somebody gets there, that's still going on. If he's still practicing and it meets the criteria to, and some of that will be judgment. If it's citable under the new noise ordinance, then that would be one thing. Now, if an officer gets there and you're standing over at the neighbor's and you've got to be on the property line with your hand up to your ear to hear it, then the officer's got to use some judgment in that like they do with everything. Thanks, Chair. I'll come back. Councilmember Henson, you've already spoken. I'm the chair, but is it okay if I... I have made some notes. One of the things that I have said even before I was on council was that our government has been operating in silos, and the same properties are often called by many divisions, but they get a small fine, small fee, and it really doesn't help the situation as far as sustainability of our neighborhoods, regardless of where they are in the community. One question I had is listed on these waste management. There are a lot of problems with trash and debris. Herbie's left out and turned over. And I know Officer Turley from Waste Management is unbelievable, but they have to have three violations in a year to get a $15 fine. Yet, gas mileage, she does the whole county, it costs the city over and over again. And many of the landlords say, well, it's just the cost of doing business. Also, I'm assuming that multiple divisions will be crossed over in this building inspection, code enforcement. I'm hoping waste management and other divisions that respond, such as police and fire, to these kinds of activities. So trash and debris, waste management, HERBEE, is that, can that be listed? because they cost us, you know, we'll have three properties in an area that have many, many calls and responses that are legitimate that cost our city a fortune. And, you know, there's not much we can do about it. So would those be considered also, and could they be put in here? Well, in my opinion, they are in here. Under the last section, the list of things on there under F, I don't know what page it is because I'm not going off of the... Any condition that negatively impact health and sanitation? Yeah. So that would... That would be, that's why I put that in there, because I am familiar with Ms. Turley going around and the amount of effort and the multiple calls. And I agree with you 100% with the way silos are, and we all work in our own little silos. And that's one of the things that I worked really hard on with code enforcement and with sanitation and with streets and roads and everybody to bring everybody to the table. So all the divisions that respond to problems will be included in this? I would hope so, and I think that I'd have to leave that up to the commissioner on that to refer to him that he would bring those people in. Okay. And, again, I want to stress that this impacts probably every district in the city. And there are nuisance properties. Mostly, I'm familiar with nuisance properties that are in neighborhoods, not businesses. And it does really impact the quality of life and sustainability of that neighborhood. And we haven't been able to tackle it. So I thank you very, very much for all your hard work and those that helped you. I think this is excellent, and I'm very excited, and I think that most of the constituents of Fayette County will be excited. And I also would like to reiterate that this was never intended to target any organization or any one business. It was about neighborhood sustainability. Thank you. Council, it's almost 2 o'clock. Council Member, and we have several people signed up from the audience to speak. So, Council Member Henson. Thank you, Chair. I just have one quick thing I want you to put my mind at ease. if I'm in an apartment complex that is potentially a chronic nuisance problem and my landlord tells me not to call the police but we really need the police. What are we going to do in a situation like that? say, you know, my irate boyfriend's beating, crashing in my door, and we've been informed, all the residents, you know, would that be a violation on that property? That one particular instance, I would say, depending on whether it fell under domestic violence or not, domestic violence is totally wiped out of this. I have about a 30-page report that totally exempts domestic violence. but that would be where a lot of times we've had this before and we had residents tell us, hey, I'm not supposed to call the police because if I do, the property management gets involved and they don't want us to do that and that's where we have to, without naming names after it becomes a pattern of conduct at the same place going to the property management. Okay. Thanks again. I believe Councilmember Beard would like to make a quick comment on this. Just that we struggled quite a bit over the last two or three years with the problems. I actually share your area with the celebratory activity after UK wins a significant football game. and that's been leveled. We don't need to worry about that anymore. Thank you, Council Member Beer. Council Member Martin, and then we'll go to people in the audience that would like to speak. Thank you, Chair. Former Officer Gaines, sorry. Have you or folks on this project met with any representatives from, I guess, the apartment community or real estate community? Because this is an aggregate of owners who are going to be under this. Has there been any meetings or communication with those folks? Not on this particular ordinance, no. I have spoken with him in the past on other issues, but not this. When I saw this, I gave a call to the head of the department association. He was unaware of it. And so I think that's probably some communication that needs to be had. Are repeat offenders, do they follow under this, or is this directed solely at property owners? Repeat offenders as in the people? Well, the actual perpetrators, because these aren't. The idea here is that you've got perpetrators who are, I guess, either tenants or around some property, and that the government is going to basically fine the property owner from what's going on on that property. Is that fair? Yes. So are the perpetrators themselves, do they have increased liability under this, or is this directed solely at property owners? Under this, there is none for the people themselves because that would fall under the existing laws that are already in place, whether it's a state statute. They would be cited for those every time that we would have the opportunity, if need be. So they could be, but it wouldn't, it would be just like under code enforcement, they already have that standard in place. I guess one of the things that I'm concerned about is whether this is going to make the ownership of low-income housing unattractive to owners. And so I'm trying to – because obviously we want to make places safer, and I support that and I appreciate you work on it. It's kind of a tough nut to crack because you want to increase the safety and to cut down on illegal activity. But at the same time, you want to respect due process, which means respecting that someone who hasn't been found guilty of a crime is being punished or someone else is being punished for something that's not a citation yet. And so I've got to sort of work my way through that. But also that the landowner is being punished for something they may not be aware of that's going on or may be able to control. Because if you have, I guess, the larger property you have, the more likely it is that they're going to be a permanent part of this program. That, you know, if I have one unit that's on a separate piece of land, it's easier for them to avoid three strikes you're out than it is an owner of a low-income housing project or in any apartment complex where if you have 300 units or 500 units, it's much more likely to have repeat offenses within a 60-day period. So I'd like to continue working on this because I think there are some issues that still need to be addressed because the larger the project is, the more likely it is that there are going to be a permanent recipient of fines under this and that they're going to be basically put under the caretaking of government on a permanent basis? Well, when you get up to larger, it's not three strikes. Fifty-one or plus units is 15 in a 60-day period. I mean, that's two a day. And if you've got two calls a day in a 60-day period, that's one every other day. I believe that would be correct. So if you've got anything larger than a 51-size unit, you can have 15 or more nuisance activities within a 60-day period. So that means you're going there every other day. And I think that they should be able to work with that. Or 18 in a year. Now, I just got a printout, or I was emailed, it's probably, I don't know how many pages it is, of multiple high-call volume areas, and there were very few of them that would really hit this criteria. I've got a couple places in my district where you get 135 calls in a month. But that's calls for service. You have to also figure out which ones are verifiable that there was an issue because we do have a lot of calls that we get there, and there's nothing going on. I appreciate you coming with us today. I look forward to working on this. Thank you. Okay. I can't help but to make another comment. First of all, a low-income neighborhood deserves a high quality of life and a safe quality of life just like a wealthy neighborhood. And oftentimes what happens in many of the areas is that the landlord just chalks it up. It's a small fine, cost of doing business, And he could remove those people or say, you straighten up or you're gone, but they don't want to because they know they're not going to be able to rent out the property, say, mid-year. So in that case, I understand what you're saying. But on the other hand, just because someone lives in a low-income neighborhood doesn't mean that they should have to live under conditions that are unsafe and unhealthy and dangerous. Well, Council Member, I'm not sure what I said would lead you to believe that I thought that folks in low-income neighborhoods deserve to live in less safe places. And I guess I feel strongly about that, that I don't believe that. I think the question here is, you know, who is going to be penalized for wrongful activities? Well, getting kicked out of your apartment is significant, and the landlord has the right to do that. And I may have misunderstood what you were saying. Well, I mean, I think the issue here is are we going to turn landlords into private enforcement? I mean, that's what this is, is you're requiring landlords to do the job of the police or to basically enforce criminal statutes against their tenants. And I don't know if their leases would allow them to do that. No, they will be criminally charged. individual. The nuisance ordinance is a civil matter. So thank you, and I'm sorry if I misunderstood what you said. My apologies. We have quite a few people signed up to speak. The limit is three minutes and because we also have a lot to get through and another ordinance if you will use your three minutes we're not going to allow people to yield their three minutes to other people and if you have something if you're all going to say the same thing if you would try to limit your comments to something different, something new, something new to add. Thank you. The first person I think I have here is B.W. Blanton, Jr. Okay, wait a minute. I'm trying to I'm fighting laryngeal cancer, so I'll take a chance to have a little bit of water before I get started. I understand. I'm taking allergy medicine. I'm thirsty all the time. If you'll state your name and address. My name is B.W. Blanton, Jr., and I'm speaking on behalf of my uncle, who I am power of attorney for. I brought a copy of that power of attorney, and I'll introduce that into your records today. Whoever needs that. I'm speaking on behalf of my uncle, Fred M. Hale, 86 years old, who's now hospitalized in a rehabilitation center. And we have nine properties that are near the Catholic Action Center shelter on Winchester Road. And let me be understood from the very beginning, I'm about helping people. I love helping people. In fact, I've served Thanksgiving dinner at the Salvation Army. I've been honored to do that. I've been honored to help out at Christmastime. I believe in helping people, all people. But speaking as a property owner on behalf of my uncle, the world has changed on Winchester Road near Dayton and Detroit Avenue. I've recently had to trim all the shrub bushes in front of my uncle's property because I have personally walked out of his business door and observed people using the bathroom in plain view in the bushes. so I cut all the bushes down. And the people that I saw doing this followed where they went when they left and they went two doors down to the Catholic Action Center shelter. And I feel sorry for these people that they can't get in the center when they need to use the restroom. I don't the dignity the indignity of that is horrible I have type 2 diabetes and sometimes I have to use the restroom really quick I'm sure that they have problems as well but as a property owner we don't deserve this we're not about not helping the people we're about helping them but we would ask that they would certainly give us the respect that we deserve as property owners, as tax-paying citizens in this community. And this is not about the police. It's not their job to set up bathroom patrol. They've got many more serious things to do. It's about us coming to you and asking you to do the right thing. And we recently received a letter identifying one of my uncle's properties as a nuisance property. Thank you. Thank you to the police department for letting us know that so that we could, in fact, take action to clear that nuisance up as property owners to make it a better neighborhood for the people who were suffering the nuisance. So I'm about helping people, but I'm about helping my elderly uncle. Thank you for your time and your attention, and I would love to be part of the committee that helps to work to refine this thing to be what it really is, and that's about making our neighborhood safe. Thank you. Thank you, and thank you for being a good neighbor and a responsible landlord. Thank you for chairing the committee. Next on my list is Robert Lindsay. Robert had to leave and go back to work. Okay. Joe, Don Poplin. Don. Okay. Joy Bailey. My name is Joy Bailey, and I live at the community inn, 824 Winchester Road. I'm a child of God and a citizen of Lexington. The Community Inn provides shelter for people who have nowhere to go or anyone to turn to. They provide medical attention, medication, needs and necessities for anyone who has nothing. They keep the homeless from freezing to death on the streets and the railroad tracks. I can call my family and communicate with my friends in a spiritual atmosphere. We're getting ourselves together every day by the purpose of the Community Inn. Please exempt churches and nonprofits from the chronic nuisance ordinance. Thank you. Thank you. And David Manning. Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. My name is David Manning, and I have recited the community in for the last month to have a place to stay. I study the Word of God on a daily basis, and I serve the Lord. I've just come out of minister school at the Wings of Life in Mobile, Alabama for the last eight months. God has changed my life. I used to be caught up. I see things today. We are living in a perverse and crooked nation. What this community, I feel, needs is an outreach program for restoration to change lives through the Lord Jesus Christ. I can't do it, but God can because he changed my life from being drugs and alcohol and bound up and by the power of the Lord and the Holy Ghost, He has changed my life. Miss, she is helping the community as well. But the law does have to come in because we do have to obey the law. And it does need to be hammered down because people need to follow the law. God is a God of order. And I'm fully with that. I do try to work. I worked at Labor Finders for the last two weeks pulling up floors because I'm not scared to get out here and work a job. Because God says if a man don't work, he don't eat. But I am trying to help myself. There are some that are not trying to help themselves. But I do seek the Lord with all my heart and I am for the people to try to help one another. And I feel, you know, God has given me a vision. If I had the money and the funds, I would open up a program for a restoration to bring those in for mandation. To get into the Word of God. To let the Lord Jesus Christ change their lives like He did mine. and you know it's by God doing it not me because I can't save anybody but God says the Lord says come unto me all you that are heavy laden and burdened I will give you rest he said love thy neighbor as thyself and sometimes you know the program that I was in in Mobile Alabama they didn't play the radio either you follow the rules and regulations or you went on back out that door and that's just the way it was and I'm gonna be real so when we love the Lord we'll follow the Word of God. But Miss Jenny is trying to help the homeless and those that are in need. But y'all be blessed, okay? Thank you. And if you all would please limit, I appreciate your comments and your thoughts. If you would limit your comments to this specific ordinance, that would be helpful. Next I have Tim Scruggs. Is Tim here? Okay. Benny Johnson. How are y'all doing today? I'm Benny Johnson. I'm 31 years old. I was born with cerebral palsy. Right now I'm homeless and I stay at the community end, 824 on Winchester Road. I didn't choose to be homeless, but now I am. But through Jenny's help and people through community end, I'm willing to learn and work harder and help our community to be better. So if there's a way that you can help us with this matter, I would appreciate that and thank you. And so can you please send the nonprofit and churches from this noise of this? Thank you. Thank you for your comments. M. McLaugh. my name is Judy McLaughlin and I'm the co-director of the Catholic Action Center and I am here to speak on behalf of the people that we have here who are homeless and I would like to say that I do think if possible there could be an exemption for us churches and non-profits. This would certainly make this chronic ordinance a lot different for us. When Mr. Gaines was talking about this ordinance, he mentioned the Day's Motel, and without an ordinance, they went from hundreds, over 500, down to below 100. So it seems like by speaking and talking, and we, of course, are here and are very, very willing to do what we can to help with all of these things. Unfortunately, we can't do everything, but we really do try to keep people off the street, to feed them, to help them start whatever new life it is that they are capable of having. And there are many unintentional consequences from this ordinance that we see, and I think some of them have already been brought up about properties in the area. So I really hope that you can think a lot more about this and that certainly we can be exempted as church. Thank you very much. Thank you. Dwayne Flowers. My name is Dwayne Flowers. I'm 49 years old, and I do live at the Catholic. Excuse me, I'm sorry. Could you speak up into the microphone? I think you need to pull the microphone. Sorry, I got a cold. Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Dwayne Charles. I'm 49 years old, and I do live at the community inn. My wife and I were on our way down here on a vacation. My car broke down, and there was some gracious help. I got down here to the Catholic community inn, And I thank Jenny and her organization to have a place for me and my wife to live. I mean, it's been a God sent to me to have this place to live. And if this ordinance goes into effect, it's going to hurt the churches because the churches are going to not be able to feed us people who are homeless or hungry. So I appreciate the help that the churches and organizations are doing. But if this ordinance goes into place, it's going to take it away from the people that really need the help, to basically need help. So I would appreciate you guys exempt to the churches and non-profit organization from this ordinance. Thank you. Thank you. Sure. Don Moplin, but I think we've already heard that he left. James Starrett. Hi, my name is James Starrett. I live at the community center, community inn at 824 Winchester Road. I'm a child of God and a citizen of Lexington. I'm 49 years old. and of 10, 13, 11. If it wasn't for the Catholic Action Center and the community inn, me and my girlfriend would be living under bushes with nowhere to go. So please exempt churches and nonprofits from the chronic nuisance ordinance. Thank you. Thank you, sir. C. Harold Hello, my name is Christy Harold. I live at Community Inn at 824 Winchester Road. I am a child of God and a citizen of Lexington. I'm 26 years old and I broke my ankle in a car wreck in May, which caused me to be homeless. Without community and I could not be stable off the streets, I would still be in someone else's home worrying about their bills and their kids. And it also keeps me away from domestic violence and drugs and had made me want to be an independent and better woman and appreciate the little things in life. Please exempt churches and nonprofits from the chronic nuisance ordinance. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Harrell. Tim Scruggs, gone. Norm. Oh, I think that's done. Robert Lindsay. Left, okay, I'm sorry. Ellis Boatley Hello, my name is Ellis Boatley My address is at Stone Bridge Apartment 1261 Billis Drive I'm the chairperson of the Street Voice Council. I'm a child of God and a citizen of Lexington. For eight years I lived on the streets of Lexington, living in the Bannon House and in the bushes. The Catholic Action Center and the churches of Lexington helped me. They put me on my feet and got me in an apartment. You can't close these places down. But one day you should need them too. Need that service also. So please exempt churches and nonprofits from this chronic nuisance ordinance. Thank you. I'd like for y'all to accept these cards to the next council meeting. Is it all right to pass them out? He'll make sure we get them. The last person on the list I have is David Christensen. Hi. My name is David Christensen. I live at 4844 Brennan Drive in Lexington, and I'm making a regular habit of coming down and seeing you all. I think a lot of the right questions have been asked by council members. One of the real documentation on this is really unclear. One of the things that's come up at the Central Kentucky Housing and Homeless Initiative about this is concerns of providers who make calls and whether those are documented. I talked to Councilwoman Henson about this, and it looks like on page 7, the provision seems to be trying to say that, but it really needs some clarification. our service providers need to have the capacity to call when there's an emergency without that counting against them. As Mr. Gaines has said, there is a national effort. Over the last 10 years, there's been a lot of efforts to do this. Some of those efforts have been driven by concerns about poverty and homelessness. The National Law Center on Poverty and Homelessness is keeping track of these things and scores communities how they deal with these issues. This particular vehicle of a nuisance ordinance has become one of those vehicles that has been and can be misused to target. There's a lot of confusion about this particular ordinance. From what I know, it never started out with that intent. but clearly there is risk there and that's something I think the council really needs to address number one, how we as a community are viewed by ourselves and how we deal with those who are most in need in the community but also whether we work collaboratively and cooperatively or whether we go to bat and start pounding heads with each other In the past, I think we've found really good ways to find creative solutions and deal with issues. This is a tough issue. Everybody deserves safe places to live. But also we need to be very conscious of the unintended consequences of folks who really struggle. And there's a lot of misperceptions about folks who are struggling in our community. And a lot of places that provide services get blamed for a lot of stuff that happens around them that really has nothing to do with them. So how we enforce this, how we document it, how service providers are dealt with in this, I personally think that it would be swell if nonprofits were exempted because there's no way that anybody can say this ordinance is being targeted to services and being targeted to prevent people from being helped. So thank you for your time, and I actually made it under the right amount of time. I appreciate your insight, and certainly I appreciate all those that spoke today. and certainly if an organization that houses people who are in some type of despair or trouble, if they call the police because that person is causing problems that are dangerous to themselves or others, that would not be a call against them because they're working toward the problem. And all you folks from the Community Action Center, I hope that you'll reach out to those that do cause problems and make sure that everybody is safe. So at this point, I would entertain a motion. Council Member Henson. Thank you, Chair. I actually was not going to make a motion, but I wanted to keep this item in committee. Mike Sainer with Law Keith Gaines and I have discussed a few little tweaks to the ordinance that we would like to also give the apartment associations an opportunity to view it because we want to make sure it's a real good document before moving it forward currently I think it is a good document but it just needs a few minor changes Do you think you would have this ready November 1st at our special meeting? If that would be okay with you, I think we've had quite a bit of discussion on it today and don't anticipate a lot more. Because we have several big items coming up. Correct. Or it would have to be December, right? Right, and it seems to me that this is a good document, may need some tweaks. However, if those could be made by November 1st, we could hear it at the 10 a.m. November 1st meeting, and it could be on the agenda then. Okay, we'll get it done. And I would suggest to all council members that any questions or concerns you have, committee members or council members, please contact Council Member Henson, and she'll forward them to the appropriate parties. Would that be okay? That's great. Thanks. Thank you. Next on our agenda. Madam Chair. Oh, excuse me. Ms. Ellinger. Council Member Martin. I'll defer to Council Member Ellinger. Thank you, Chair. I just wanted to relay, I think, what Ms. Henson said about the apartment association and the universal housing. They contacted me, and they were supposed to send a representative down and have not been able to review this yet, but they wanted an opportunity to do that. But the person that was supposed to be here on their behalf had to go to the hospital for their mother, so they weren't here. Who was the other person? Dick Murphy was supposed to be down here on their behalf for the University Housing and also the Department Association, and they weren't able to come, so they want to review the documents too. So I think in the interim, and make sure that they're apprised of when the next meeting will be. Okay. I don't have their contact information, but... I'll pass that along. Okay. Thank you. Council Member Martin. My question is whether this has to be rushed to November 1st. We're talking 10 days, and according to Mr. Gaines, that there's been really no beginning to the discussions. This is going to affect basically all property owners, and yet there's been no property owners who have been engaged in discussions about this. I think it's inappropriate to rush this on for November 1st. I think we should give them a fair chance to even meet to discuss it. Some of these groups just get together once a month, and being that no one had reached out to them, they were unaware of it until today, I mean, I think it's appropriate to allow them to, you know, a bit of time to meet with Mr. Gaines and some of the other folks involved in this to discuss what impact this might have. Well, Council Member Farmer. Noting that the November 1st meeting is a special meeting anyway because of the amount of issues that face the committee, And knowing that people will be here for the noise ordinance that day, I would... That's the 15th. Is it the 15th? Well, I still am going to go with there's plenty of time for process angle because I think we can give time for these people to come back a little bit later rather than sooner and give time for, I think, more public discussion about it. And if we go ahead and run the first, that's fine with me. I just think there's more time and maybe not an overlap. Okay. Excuse me, Council Member Henson. What are you saying? Pardon? I thought you were... I think we should go ahead and stick with the 1st, November 1st, to have it ready. You know, there's been quite a bit of media coverage for this issue. and I will get in touch with the folks that have contacted me to make sure they have a copy of the ordinance so they can review it and bring forward any concerns they may have. But as far as I have also discussed this with some department management companies and I didn't get a great deal of response as far as opposition. There won't be a December meeting. So the other option is to schedule another special meeting if we want this done before a week from never. So do you want to try to see if you can contact these people by November 1st, and we can always take it off the agenda if you're not ready? I'll see that they get the document by the end of the week so that they can review it. And it's also available online. i'm sorry councilmember beard i said that's a week's notice and i don't think that's adequate two weeks the first yes okay okay we will discuss this the november 1st meeting may be canceled so we may need to schedule another special meeting later in November before we go on break. Does that make everybody happy? Okay. I'm just not sure what the rush to judgment is on this thing. It seems like a fairly fuzzy ordinance to me. Okay. Council Member Farmer? You're not on. Council Member Crosby? Thank you, Madam Chair. Can you just explain to me? I was a little confused by the timeline of meetings because you said November 1st was the noise ordinance. No. I know it's the 15th according to our, but somebody said it was on the 1st, but you're saying the first may be? We scheduled a special meeting for the first to take up the things that we didn't get through, the taxi ordinance and some of the two issues on corrections, and I don't know that they're going to be ready for the first. So there will be no point in having the meeting. So I will let you know ASAP if that meeting is canceled. November 15th, the noise ordinance will be on the agenda. I just don't see how we can get this in with the noise ordinance. Oh, it can't be. And I also would agree with Council Member Beard that I think that the first is just not enough time to give people who, I mean, for better or worse, maybe they could have, should have known that it was coming up because we've been discussing this for a long time. However, I think that it would benefit us to go ahead and iron it all out and not try to rush it by the time they get notice and do something in a week. That's just my personal opinion. I'd rather, I can't believe I'm saying this, have a special meeting to take it up later. I will send out another doodle about a special meeting later after November 15th. Okay. Anybody else on this issue? The next item on the agenda is the fireworks. Ordinance, Council Member Stennett. Thank you, Madam Chair. Just a couple quick synopsis from our last meeting. There were three things that we all wanted to see at our last discussion on the Public Safety Committee. The first being a cleaned-up revised version that showed the charts and everything clearly. I hope, Council Member Farmer, I hope this suffices to that cleanup that's in our packet. I hope everyone can read it clearly now. The second item was hearing from our Division of Police on enforcement. Will this aid in that enforcement? And the third item being, I know David Barbary emailed the state laws to all of us afterwards. Some people just wanted to review what the state law said, and that email was sent out after our last meeting. Again, just to recap, this ordinance addresses a burn ban, limits fireworks during a burn ban, addresses litter, addresses no one under 18 can possess fireworks. It addresses the time of days in which fireworks can be emitted given the 200-foot rule that the state currently enforces. And then the other thing in here that's different from the last time is that it takes out Memorial Day as one of those holidays that goes until midnight, being that always on that Tuesday is another workday, Memorial Day was taken out given that consideration. So it just lists the two Fourth of July holidays as well as New Year's Eve as an extended time in which fireworks can be ignited. But other than that, the audience is the same. And I know our Division of Police is here, Chair, if we want to go ahead and hear from them about the enforcement side. Yes, please. I believe Sergeant Clayton. Good afternoon. Clayton Roberts with the Division of Police. As far as the enforceability, I've read through the ordinance, and it does very closely mirror what the state's doing, with the exception of the things we've added to give us more enforcement powers and to clarify a little discrepancy on a couple of things that the state law lacked. By far, the biggest issue that we faced this year, and I believe are the same complaints that you all heard from the constituents, were issues on the noise. and we had very few calls for property damage. I believe Division of Fire had a low number of incidents of property damage related to that. The noise ordinance... Excuse me, I'm sorry. Could you speak into the microphone? Sure. Okay. Is that better? Okay. Thank you, ma'am. By changing the times, it gives us a little bit more clarity on telling people when they have to to stop igniting the fireworks and give us some more enforcement power that way. And also, Chair, I would add that Sergeant Roberts sat with us in drafting the ordinance, so he has been at, as well as the vision of fire each stage of the ordinance. We currently do not have an ordinance. I think a lot of people were confused about that last time. So this is a first attempt to get something on the books. And later on next year, after we beef up the enforcement this next Fourth of July, if there's still issues, we can always make it tougher. But it's hard to go the other way on any type of ordinance. So I'm open to discussion today and would like to move it forward. if there's no further changes to be made. Any questions? Oh. Okay. So your son doesn't practice with fireworks. This dude has been the best. May I speak, Chair? Yes, you may. Thank you, Chair. You just now showed up. Thank you. I have a lot of constituents who's communicated with me about fireworks, and they just don't want us to sell these large high-power fireworks in Fayette County. The state law gives us the ability to opt out of this, and I think we as a community should do that. I don't know the overwhelming reason why we should promote the sale of these large and, I think, dangerous fireworks in the community. There's plenty that come in anyway. but to allow the sale of them provide the sale of them here they you know there some of them are are seasonal and they're they're irregular and they sell to miners and things like that and i understand that you know they are to be permitted and things like that but i tell you i got cleared structures from my constituents and they don't want it and so i just i appreciate your work on is Council Member Stennett, and it is the first attempt to bring reason and some order to fireworks in Fayette County. But I can tell you my constituents don't want these large fireworks here, and so I'm not going to be able to support it. Council Member McCord. Thank you, Chair. I think, Council Member Martin, I've heard the same thing, But what I'm appreciative to Council Member Stennett and why I support this is because it's not that simple. It's not as simple as people who call us want it to be of, well, just don't let them sell it. Because literally in my district, Jessamine County sits a few feet from my doorstep, and the tents go up right there. And so everybody is, if we don't pass this, if we don't put this on the books, then we don't have anything to react to from the fireworks that is brought in, literally from 100 feet away from Fayette County, arbitrary lines. So while I appreciate the sentiment of where you're coming from and what your constituents told you, because mine's telling me the same thing, the reality is that we need to do something that addresses some of these other issues, because these things are coming. And if the state law says that you can sell it, then they're going to buy it right across the way and come on in, and you're going to have the exact same problem with no opportunity to do anything about it. So I fully support the motion, and I appreciate the effort on this, because as I say, during the budget cycle, while we were dealing with all these very large issues, probably the number one call was about fireworks. And so, again, I appreciate Council Member Stenet and all the work that's gone into it. Thank you. Council Member Blues. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm not a member of this committee. That's okay with that anyway. I appreciate being able to speak. I take Council Member Martin's point, and I've heard the same complaint as well as in my district. I think here the key to the potential of this ordinance is the 200-foot rule consistent with, I think that's consistent with state statute, so that anyone attempting to set off these bottle rockets and other loud explosive devices within 200 feet of any building will be in violation. And I think that if that doesn't work to seriously curtail this nuisance, to coin a phrase, then as Councilmember Stenet says, we can review the ordinance in the wake of the next major holiday and perhaps strengthen it if necessary. Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember Blues. Councilmember Stenet. Thank you, Chair. I would just add once again that we currently have no ordinance. In the absence of any other amendments or changes to this ordinance, we don't have anything on the books. We need to get something on the books to enforce, one, to protect our young people out there under the age of 18 for possession, and those people selling to those young people. This is an opportunity to educate the public over the next six months about an ordinance. We currently don't have that opportunity out there right now, and we didn't have that opportunity this past year. So we're still dealing with the unknown in terms of what to expect this next year, even if we get this ordinance in place or substitute it with a different ordinance eventually that bans sale and use of these fireworks, we still have the same enforcement. The enforcement is still there. So I think some changes to our enforcement this year as well as an ordinance that can be displayed at places where we sell. And, again, the selling is limited to only three weeks. It's not the two months that we all saw this year. I think that will be a major change out there this year in curtailing a lot of the issues. So I'll go ahead and make a motion to move this forward to the whole council as written. So moved. Any discussion? Are you speaking to the motion? Thank you, Chair. This may be the first and last time I quote Nancy Reagan, but as former First Lady Nancy Reagan said, just say no. Thank you, Chair. It worked really well, too. I'd like to speak to this. I agree with Council Member Martin and Council Member Blues. I would like to see the ban of sale and use in the county, but I'm willing to support this to get something on the books and amend it later. but I do believe that we should ban the sale of them and the use of them in our county because they are extremely dangerous. And if people come across the county line with them, then they're violating the law. So I'll support this reluctantly, and we can see how it works, but I do agree that a ban of the sale and use of these high-powered fireworks would be in the best interest of the safety of our community. Is there any other discussion? Okay. The motion on the floor made by Council Member Stennett and seconded by Council Member McCord to move this as written forward to the full Council for consideration. All in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? No. Okay. So we have one nay. and nine yeses. So it passes and will be forwarded to the committee of the whole place on the agenda. Thank you. And if I hear a... We have a lot of items on the referred to the committee. And most of those have been scheduled, and I will send out an email about an extra meeting to hear some of the things that may not make it by November 1st. And that being said, do I hear a motion to adjourn? Okay. Council Member Crosby moved to adjourn. Council Member Martin seconded. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Thank you. This meeting is adjourned.