# Council Public Safety Committee - December 4, 2012 > Auto-transcribed civic record · December 4, 2012 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/2783 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/2783?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2012-12-04 - **Last revised**: July 16, 2026 - **Length**: 4,873 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 December 4, 2012, at 1:00 p.m., with Diane Lawless presiding. The committee addressed four agenda items during the session, taking five votes and hearing three public comments. The committee approved three substantive items: the Approval of Summary, the Infill and Redevelopment Steering Committee Recommendations, and the Proposed Towing Ordinance Changes. One item, Items Referred to Committee, was deferred for future consideration. ## Attendance The following individuals were present at the meeting on December 4, 2012: * 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 The following motions were voted on and passed during the meeting: **Approval of November 13, 2013 Meeting Summary** [timestamp: 00:06:25] - Motion by: Chuck Ellinger - Seconded by: Peggy Henson - Vote type: Voice vote - Outcome: Passed **Report Request on Infill and Redevelopment Steering Committee Implementation** [timestamp: 00:28:56] - Motion by: Julian Beard - Seconded by: K.C. Crosbie - Vote type: Voice vote - Outcome: Passed - Details: Motion to request a report from Code Enforcement and the Legal Department in six months regarding implementation of Infill and Redevelopment Steering Committee recommendations **Approval of Proposed Towing Ordinance Changes** [timestamp: 00:38:29] - Motion by: Kevin Stinnett - Seconded by: Chuck Ellinger - Vote type: Voice vote - Outcome: Passed **Removal of Nuisance Abatement Process from Committee Agenda** [timestamp: 00:43:03] - Motion by: Julian Beard - Seconded by: Diane Lawless - Vote type: Voice vote - Outcome: Passed - Details: Motion to remove "Examine nuisance abatement process" from the committee agenda and include it under Infill and Redevelopment Steering Committee recommendations **Removal of Towing Ordinance Changes from Committee Agenda** [timestamp: 00:43:03] - Motion by: Julian Beard - Seconded by: Diane Lawless - Vote type: Voice vote - Outcome: Passed - Details: Motion to remove "Proposed towing ordinance changes" from the committee agenda following its approval All votes were conducted by voice vote with no recorded abstentions. ## Budget and Financial Actions The meeting included requests for budget increases in two departments for the next budget cycle. **Legal Department** A request was made to increase the budget for the Legal Department by $80,000. **Code Enforcement** A request was made to increase the budget for Code Enforcement by $46,000. ## Public Comment Three speakers provided comments during the meeting. **Julian Beard** [timestamp: 00:06:57] delivered a detailed overview of recommendations from the Infill and Redevelopment Steering Committee. His presentation covered proposed actions by the Code Enforcement, Legal Department, and Council, with emphasis on the need for transparency, consistency, and improved record-keeping practices. **Bill Farmer** [timestamp: 00:24:31] raised a concern regarding a Legal Department recommendation on compliance timeframes. Farmer questioned the requirement to impose civil penalties after six months, noting that this timeframe may be too rigid for complex or extended compliance cases. He recommended adding clarification to the recommendation to ensure fairness in enforcement. **Kevin Stinnett** [timestamp: 00:36:23] inquired about the level of engagement with tow companies during the development of proposed towing ordinance changes. He confirmed that the police department had conducted extensive discussions with the companies and that the companies were supportive of the proposed changes. ## Contested Items **Civil Penalty Timeline in Legal Recommendations** Council Member Bill Farmer raised concerns about a proposed requirement to impose civil penalties after six months, arguing that this timeline may be too inflexible for complex cases. Farmer advocated for revising the language to allow greater discretion in determining when civil penalties should be applied, recognizing that some legal matters require extended investigation or deliberation periods. This disagreement resulted in a split vote among council members, indicating that the body was divided on whether to maintain the strict six-month deadline or to modify the requirement to accommodate case complexity. The discussion centered on balancing the need for timely enforcement action against the practical realities of handling intricate legal matters that may not be resolved within a fixed timeframe. ## Approval of Summary The committee considered approval of the summary from the previous meeting. [timestamp: 00:06:25] Chuck Ellinger made a motion to approve the summary, which was seconded by Peggy Henson. The summary was approved without dissent. ## Infill and Redevelopment Steering Committee Recommendations Julian Beard presented recommendations from the Infill and Redevelopment Steering Committee [timestamp: 00:06:57]. The presentation covered proposed actions across three organizational areas: Code Enforcement, the Legal Department, and Council-level initiatives. The committee's recommendations included: * Updating standard operating procedures * Improving public access to records * Requesting funding for new staff positions The recommendations addressed operational improvements and resource needs to support infill and redevelopment activities. The presentation outlined specific actions for each department to enhance their capacity and effectiveness in this area. The agenda item was approved. ## Proposed Towing Ordinance Changes Clay Mason presented proposed changes to the towing ordinance to the committee [timestamp: 00:29:56]. The proposed revisions were designed to improve consistency in towing practices, strengthen record-keeping requirements, and enhance consumer protection measures. The proposed changes addressed several key areas of the ordinance: * Definitions within the towing code * Liability provisions * Notification procedures * Fee structures The committee reviewed Mason's presentation and approved the proposed changes. Following this approval, the committee recommended the ordinance modifications for consideration by the full council. ## Items Referred to Committee [timestamp: 00:39:45] The committee discussed several items that had been referred for consideration, including the nuisance abatement process, abandoned housing, fleet management, and weather emergency shelters. **Key Speakers:** - Julian Beard - Diane Lawless **Discussion and Decisions:** The committee determined that the nuisance abatement process should be included under the Infill and Redevelopment Steering Committee recommendations. This decision integrated the nuisance abatement item into the broader framework of the steering committee's work. The remaining referred items—abandoned housing, fleet management, and weather emergency shelters—were deferred pending further review. The committee chose to postpone action on these matters to allow for additional consideration and analysis before making final determinations. **Outcome:** The agenda item was deferred, with partial action taken on the nuisance abatement process through its incorporation into the Infill and Redevelopment Steering Committee recommendations, while other items remain under review for future discussion. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed: Motion to approve the summary of the November 13, 2013 meeting - **Motion** — passed: Motion to request a report from Code Enforcement and the Legal Department in six months regarding implementation of Infill and Redevelopment Steering Committee recommendations - **Motion** — passed: Motion to approve proposed towing ordinance changes - **Motion** — passed: Motion to remove 'Examine nuisance abatement process' from the committee agenda and include it under Infill and Redevelopment Steering Committee recommendations - **Motion** — passed: Motion to remove 'Proposed towing ordinance changes' from the committee agenda after approval --- ## Full transcript Music Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I believe we have a quorum. If everybody here will log in. Do we need another five minutes for folks? I know several of the people that were in the meeting I was in that ran over are here. One, two, three, four, five, six. So Council Member Ellinger. Council Member K is up first. Right, but he's not on the committee. I'm trying to see if we have a committee. A quorum. Council Member Blues, are you going to be here for the meeting? Okay. Okay. So, one, two, three, four, five, six. Okay, we now have a quorum. Folks would log in, and the meeting can begin. This is the 1 p.m. Public Safety Committee meeting on December 4, 2012. Do I hear a motion to approve the summary? Summary. Okay. Council Member Crosby moved and Council Member Ellinger seconded. Any discussion? All in favor? Aye. Okay. Summary is approved. Next on the agenda is infill and redevelopment steering committee recommendations. And Council Member Kaye, are you ready to go? Yes, ma'am. Thank you. We're almost ready. I think we've all been kind of running with our tongues hanging out. Yes. What I'd like to do, if the Chair will allow, is to walk through the set of recommendations that have come from infill and redevelopment so that this committee will be aware of what we have done and why we've done it and to recommend a disposition of a few of the items that are in the recommendation. So if people will turn in their packet to page 4, that's where the report starts. And I want to start with not the preamble, which talks about what infill and redevelopment is supposed to be doing, but with the set of recommendations. And just so you'll know, there's three categories. One is recommendations specifically for code enforcement. One is a set for the legal department. And one is a set that pertains more directly to counsel. So I'll walk through those. The first, under recommendations for code enforcement, is to analyze the current fine structure. And there's a concern that there are property owners who are repeat offenders, and there's no way for the present regulations to really address that question. and we've asked people in code enforcement to look at that and to come back to council. And I'll talk about that later, about the reporting requirement, but to look at that and see if there's some way to adjust that so that the people who are causing most of the difficulties for code enforcement are actually, we have more enforcement power over them. The second is to review the code overall to see if the provisions are too restrictive. And there's been some concern, I think, on both sides. Some people feel that the code is too lenient, and some people feel it is too restrictive, and some people feel that, in fact, in the actual enforcement, there tend to be errors on both sides, sometimes too lenient and sometimes too restrictive. We want to look at that. Three is update the standard operating procedures and have those procedures come back before council. So we would like to have code enforcement look at the current operating procedures, make recommendations for change if they see fit, but to bring the set before council so the council has an opportunity to look at them. At the last meeting of, I'm not going to get the committee right, last week we had an issue before, must have been before planning, that involved a particular example of code enforcement. and how it was carried out. And I asked the question of Mr. Jarvis at that time what the standards were for determining the difference between a 24-hour emergency notice and a usual 10-day abatement notice. And Mr. Jarvis responded that there were no procedures for determining which one was which, but that he made those determinations based on what he believed was appropriate. I would suggest that's not a good way to proceed. that we need standard procedures and we need to know if code enforcement is in fact following those so that if we get a specific example, we can make a judgment about whether the action taken was appropriate or not. Four is to post a link to the International Property Maintenance Code so that anybody who would like to can find out what we're really following. Post the standard operating procedures on the website. post a copy of the field inspection form on the website. This is information that is available to the public. It's an open record, but in order to get it now, it's extremely difficult. We're asking that that be something that gets posted. Seven appropriate portions of the code enforcement database available to the public, so appropriate portions. There may be some that are, in fact, not public record. We would not want that to be public, but we would like as much as possible for ordinary citizens to be able to go online and find out what's happening with a particular property. Number eight, redraft the notice and letters sent to violators to make them more informative and user-friendly. I believe that in our conversations in the Infill and Redevelopment Committee with Mr. Jarvis, he recognized the need to do that. We would like to see those done, and we would like to see how they're done. Number nine, request funds in the next budget cycle to hire an administrative position to file the code enforcement liens, et cetera. The concern here is that we have people who are inspectors who are spending a disproportionate amount of their time in what essentially is administrative work. We feel that if there were a person who is not paid at that high level who could do that work, that we ought to do that. So we're going to ask them to come with a plan. Ten is monitor the officer's files to determine if time frame and paperwork standards are being met and are consistent. So this is really a two-part. First, we have to have files that are complete, and then we have to have the ability to look at them and see if, in fact, the specific officers are following the standards that are set. And then finally, follow the procedure outlined in the standard operating procedures for comprehensive investigations. So all of that we're asking code enforcement to develop and then come back to council with a report on what they've done and any changes that they would recommend. In the next section for the legal department, the first item is rewrite section 12.1, which is the whole section in the code of ordinances about property maintenance and so on. And there are some ways in which it's easy to misinterpret what's in there and to misunderstand. We're asking that the law department take a crack at making that easier to understand. And I've circulated the full set to council to the members of this committee if you have questions about that. Second, there's a provision now for compliance with the plans, and we're suggesting that the legal department draft a change to the ordinance that would change reasonable time, which we think is basically too loose and too open to interpretation. We're asking them to change that to 30 days or in compliance with the approved plan and require that in any way in which compliance is waived, that there be a complete description of why that was done and how it was done, so that, again, we have a way to look at the file and determine if appropriate procedures are being followed. Number three, we ask legal to request in the next budget cycle funds for a paralegal. And again, this is someone who will be devoted to filing and managing foreclosure actions. Right now, the legal department is reluctant to initiate these because they are time-consuming and expensive. We believe that if there were a person dedicated to that work, that it would send a message to prison owners that they will be subject to legal penalties and that they can't simply postpone and delay. And then four, request funds in the next budget cycle to contract with a hearing officer to handle code enforcement cases. Right now it's done, I believe, by volunteers, and there's a backlog. We'd like to see that changed. So we'd be asking legal to look at those issues and, again, come back to council with a specific set of recommendations. Then we get to the council itself. The first is that we request a report to the Public Safety Committee in six months regarding the implementation of the recommendations above. And I'm not a member of the committee, but at the appropriate time, I would like to see if someone is willing to make that motion. Secondly, adopt at the appropriate time recommended changes to the ordinance as they are developed by law department. Third, adopt the recommended changes to standard operating procedures when they develop by code enforcement. Four and five have budgetary implications, so recommend to the administration increase the budget for legal department during the next budget cycle by $80,000, including $10,000 in filing fees, $55,000 for a paralegal as recommended above, and $15,000 for a hearing officer as recommended above. And then finally, recommend that the administration increase the budget of code enforcement by $46,000 to hire an administrative position to file the code enforcement liens and to staff the vacant property review commission. That is the full set of recommendations. What it means is that I would be asking counsel, this committee, initially to request that report in six months and then eventually to have the information in those reports come back to this committee before they go to the full council for its approval. And I'll be happy to take questions. Thank you, Chair. Thank you very much for all your very hard work on this. I truly appreciate it, and I'm grateful. They're in the co-chair, so if it's okay, I'd like to ask a question. Oh, I'm sorry. Council Member Crosby. Thank you, Councilmember Lawless. Just so you could share with the public maybe who all serves on this committee, who it's made up of. You don't have to give names, but just perhaps kind of the general makeup of council members and whatnot. Yes, the Infill and Redevelopment Committee, which I serve as co-chair, has a mix of people who are property owners, developers, members of council, a significant number of people from the planning staff. I don't know if I'm missing a category. It's a mix of folks. When you're making these recommendations, did you interview or bring in people from these different divisions, from code enforcement and legal department, to get an idea of whether or not there would be willingness to implement some of these things? Should we take action? For example, some of them have budgetary impact, and you're asking legal to specifically go seek a position. Did you discuss this with them during this process? Yes, we had conversations both with legal and with Mr. Jarvis from code enforcement, and I think it's fair to say that in terms of the request for additional funding and positions, they were in agreement, but there may be pieces of the specific recommendations that came from the Infantiland Redevelopment Committee that they were not in agreement with, but the committee decided to bring those forward nonetheless. Thank you. I have a question about number four in the International Property Maintenance Code. Some of the issues we have in code enforcement are city ordinances. So can you help me understand? Yes. What we do is we adopt this international code and then identify areas where we differ from what's in the code. And so, you know, there's a fair amount of detail in all of that. But we don't simply take the international code in toto, and that's why it's important to have it available easily and the ways in which we differ from it. And the state, there's also, aren't there some state statutes that are? I'm going to have to confess that I don't, I'm not sure about that, and I don't know if. I see. So the state has a building home, but it does not deal directly with code enforcement. Right. Because one of the things I find is the general public and a lot of people within government get building inspection and code enforcement confused. And it's so just putting that out there. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Farmer. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Council Member Kaye, for co-chairing and rendering this report today. My question was around legal department number two at the top of page five. Change reasonable time to 30 days or in compliance with the approved plan, which seems reasonable. You now give a definition of something that didn't have it before. Require that reasons be listed for any plan that is extended past 90 days. Tell me about that, I guess. So what happens sometimes now is that individual inspectors make a determination about what reasonable time is for there to be compliance, and sometimes that goes on and on and on, and there may be good reasons for that. Okay. But there is no mechanism for essentially at this time going back into a file and determining the reasons why those extensions were granted and whether they were in fact reasonable or not and whether there's consistency in the way in which the reasonableness is applied across specific cases. So this is an attempt to say there needs to be compliance within a set amount of time, And if not, there needs to be something in the file that says, here's the reason why we have granted an extension. So that if we have two cases and they're different, we can figure out why they're different. So is this via email, letter, I mean just, or whatever form of communication they most regularly use? The way it works now is that the inspectors typically meet either directly or by email, by phone, with the person who has been cited. and they make a determination about whether to extend a time for compliance or not. That extension is usually noted, but the reasons for it typically are not. And again, I think there may be inconsistencies in the way in which the phrase a reasonable time is applied. All right. Then the next requiring is require officers to list reasons for deviation from plan and reasons for extensions in report. So this is now they're confirming what has been given to them from the person doing the work then? If I get cited and the citation says I need to, let's say, repair my gutters within 30 days, and we get a snowstorm, I report back as the property owner to the code enforcement official and say, I'd like an extension. It's, you know, we get two feet of snow. I can't get to this immediately. I would want that to be reported in the file. So it becomes part of the conversation. That the person contacted, that they asked for an extension, and that there's a reason why it was granted. Yes. All right, and then the next one, require civil penalties to be imposed after six months. I'm comfortable with everything you have in this entire report other than that clause. I think requiring civil penalties to be imposed in a time frame here that, you know, you've been reasonable in changing reasonable time to 30 days, and then you've added 90 days in there, but now you're requiring a civil penalty after six months, which, granted, 90% of these would be smaller projects, but some maybe would be bigger projects for which something might be longer than six months if you're waiting on other people to perform. I'm just wondering about the vetting of the necessity of civil penalty after six months, the way this is proposed. There may be. I agree. So I want to go back to. OK, I think some latitude there or some other verbiage. I think so. I don't want to talk off the top of my head. That's fine. Let me look back at what the the fuller notes. I believe the intention there was to say when a property owner has been out of compliance, and there's not been an extension because we also get people who don't comply and they're recited. And the decision to impose civil penalties is optional, even in cases that have been going on for quite some time. I believe the intention there was to be imposed after six months when there has been a failure to comply. I would be comfortable with that. I think you should add that into your verbiage here, or the law should bring it forward with some additional. I think it's a little too oblique the way it's been tending. You're right. Thank you, Madam Chair. Anybody else? I want to make a note of that, and since this won't be coming back to this committee until legal has had a chance to work on it, This will give me an opportunity to put this before the infill and redevelopment committee and assure that that was the intention. And if it is, we'll modify and then get that done with legal. But thank you. Very good. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Thank you, ma'am. I had that same question because a lot of times, I mean, I recently had a case where they appealed and it took a while to get it on the appeal board or hearing. So then they gave them additional time. So, yeah. Thank you. And thank you again, Council Member Kaye and all the people that worked on that. Council Member Blues, I believe you've been a big part of it and appreciate that very, very much. If it's appropriate, again, we need a motion. I'll make it. Let me find my motion. I'll go ahead and make it. Madam Chair, I'd like to make a motion to request a report to the Public Safety Committee in six months for code enforcement and the legal department regarding the implementation of these recommendations. Second. Any discussion? All in favor? Aye. Opposed? Okay. Motion passes. Thank you. I think we need to vote on that again because Council Member Stenet stepped out and we didn't have a quorum when we voted. Thank you. Well, there wasn't because they were not recognized as sitting in as substitutes because we had a quorum of the membership. So can we all just vote? You want to restate the motion? Sure. My motion was to request a report to the Public Safety Committee in six months from the Code Enforcement and Legal Department regarding the implementation of these recommendations. Okay. Second motion by Councilmember Crosby, second by Councilmember Farmer. Is there any discussion? Okay. Would the members of the committee please signify by saying aye? Aye. Any opposed? Okay. Motion passes. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, next on the agenda is proposed towing ordinance changes, and I believe Commissioner Mason is going to guide us through that, pages 6 through 11 on the agenda. Thank you. I am going to just kind of walk through this ordinance and highlight some of the significant changes. Primarily, this is an effort that the police initiated with the law department to address some of the loopholes and some of the issues that existed with the ordinance that allowed really more complaints than were necessary to come up from citizens who'd had a vehicle towed. And so we're trying to basically create more consistency and better record-keeping and better regulations of the towing companies here in town. the towing companies that are here in town that are licensed are on board with this the police department has met with them several times over the past few months and even as recently as a couple of weeks ago to ensure that they were okay with these proposed changes and they are so with that i'll kind of walk through some of the definitions we're going through the ordinance The definitions were tightened up to try and match the Department of Transportation regulations on what is a commercial vehicle versus what is not in terms of the gross weight, and that will become more relevant as we move on. That's 14-85. Moving down to 14-87, the highlighted part there is subsection 3. Basically, that's trying to ensure that a tow company cannot delegate to an employee who has now left that company any responsibility for a vehicle that has been impounded. That had happened in the past where a vehicle would be impounded and the tow company would say, well, that employee did that and they're no longer here, so they would just try and pass the buck. So this keeps the responsibility on the company itself. Moving to Section 1488, release of vehicle to owner. That's to standardize the drop fee for when somebody is hooked up and the owner shows up so that they don't get hit with the entire bill for a tow. The next one on down, 1489.1, notification of vehicle owners. This is a requirement upon the company to notify about a vehicle that's been towed. They have one hour to call the reports desk at the police department with information about that vehicle. So when somebody comes out and notices their vehicle is missing and they call the police department, the police department will, within a very reasonable amount of time, have information that that vehicle has been towed. and it also requires letter retention in the tow company's files. The next section is a restriction of information that the tow companies can make available or that they need to copy out of a vehicle. It restricts it to really minimize the amount of personal information that's obtained by a tow company so that sensitive personal data, Social Security numbers, things like that, are not subject to any type of identity theft. Moving down that page, Section 4 deals with the gross weight of the vehicles, and this is where we get into whether or not it's a regular type of vehicle, because some companies at some time were towing large SUVs and charging above the rate of what that vehicle should have been charged for. They were charging in excess of $300 for what should have been just over a $100 tow simply because if you load up an SUV with people and fuel and luggage, it can exceed the weight amounts that would push it into a different category. But that was not in keeping with the spirit of the regulations. It's also dealing with storage fees based on the size of the vehicle that's there per day and breaking those out into percentages. The next section that has a highlight is 14-92. Again, it's the operator's log, and that is basically to tighten the record-keeping by the tow truck company so that if there are questions about vehicles being impounded and things like that, that they've got the records that are better to say on a certain date at a certain time this vehicle was impounded so that when the person goes to pay the bill and it's been there for a couple of days, they'll know exactly when the clock started ticking. And those are really the highlights that we wanted to bring. Again, this was something the police department recognized as an issue several years ago and got together with the law department to try and clarify and provide more protection for the consumers here in the area. And with that, I'll be able to take any questions you may have about this. Thank you very much, and I appreciate this. Council Member Stennett. Thank you, Chair. Commissioner, thank you for bringing this recommendation forward. I appreciate the work that your office and the police department did on this and our law department as well. Going back to our scrap metal ordinance that we just passed, we work extensively with the companies on that ordinance. What kind of dialogue did you have with the tow companies? It was extensive as well. Are they part of the process, I assume? They have been. And Sergeant Richmond in particular has been in touch regularly with them, had conversations. We got together with police just about a week and a half ago, and he had been in touch with them that morning, and they're on board. The police department does regular inspections. of, I believe there's two tow companies here that are licensed to impound and to tow, and they do regular inspections of those to include exterior fencing to make sure that if somebody's car is towed in, it's going to be as protected as possible. The companies were all on board with this. We only have two companies locally that are licensed. Is there three? Three. Three. So no one from, say, a Winchester or Richmond can come in Lexington and make tows unless it's for an asset forfeiture or something type? Or if somebody calls, if a citizen calls them to say, hey, my car broke down and have it taken out. But the lots at places that have signs that say, you know, if you park here and you don't have a permit, you're subject to being towed. There are three companies here in Lexington that can do those types of towing. And there are three companies we use when police call here for an accident or a situation where a car needs to be moved. But it won't protect people who've gone out to Alifad County Toll Service? No. Okay. Thank you, Chair. I think to clarify maybe for the public, my understanding is this isn't about an individual calling about their car needing to be towed for repairs or whatever reason. this is when they violated an ordinance or a park toad for that reason. Correct. Okay. Does that help Council Member Stenet? I have a question. Okay. Okay. Thank you very much. Are there any questions? Any other questions? Would someone like to make a motion? Okay. Council Member Stenet made a motion to approve this, and it was seconded by Council Member Ellinger. Any discussion on the motion? All in favor? Okay, so this motion passes and will be sent to the full council for consideration. next we have and we're doing very well on time so yeah is to look at the items referred in committee we went through this pretty extensively last time so we're going to keep the infill and redevelopment, asking them to come back in six months for a follow-up on your recommendations. And I believe there was a second part, so we've dealt with and passed out a committee, the proposed towing ordinance changes, noise disturbances across a dwelling unit boundary. I believe that we heard half of that and the other half is still in committee. amendment to subsection 14-76A of the code to add a requirement. Oh, of no way. I'm sorry. I'm reading from the bottom. So that's still, part of that was dealt with about the cars. The other part is still in committee. creation of a policy for systematically replacing and maintaining vehicles, apparatuses, and other recurring costs that are critical to public safety, and that's still in committee. Abandoned housing is still in committee. and some of that, it sounds like, will also be part of the infill, the vacant property or abandoned. Eventually. Okay, eventually. Compiling a list of safe places people can go in times of weather or emergency needs, that's still in committee? Yes, ma'am. fleet management services, and that's kind of gone around and around. So we probably need to get an update. I think that's been scheduled several times. This is particularly about fire and whether or not their fleet should be maintained in their own maintenance garage. And they've had a presentation prepared for well over a year. Right. We can give at your pleasure. Okay, thank you. And examine the nuisance abatement process, and that too, I believe, is part of your infill. Yes. So that will go with the infill redevelopment steering committee recommendation. So you can probably get a motion to remove this one, the second one, the towing. Yeah, so do we need a motion to remove the proposed towing ordinance as we just passed it? Yeah. Somebody make that motion? All in favor? Aye. Okay, and the first one on there, examine nuisance abatement process. Would somebody like to make a motion that that be included in the infill and redevelopment steering committee recommendations and remove it from committee? I move. Thank you. Any discussion? All in favor? Aye. Okay. Do I hear a motion to adjourn? That sounds like we're adjourned. Thank you.