# Services Committee - January 8, 2008 > Auto-transcribed civic record · Committee · January 8, 2008 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/313 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/313?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2008-01-08 - **Body**: Committee - **Last revised**: February 1, 2026 - **Length**: 6,460 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed by OpenAI Whisper-1. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude Sonnet. Speaker labels and verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Services Committee convened on January 8, 2008, at 1:00 PM with Chuck Ellinger presiding as the committee chair. The committee addressed two primary agenda items during this session, both serving as informational presentations to the committee members. The meeting included discussions on noise issues affecting the community and an immigration report providing updates on relevant policy matters. The committee took two votes during the proceedings and heard one public comment from a community member. Both agenda items were handled as informational items, allowing committee members to receive updates and ask questions without requiring formal action at this time. ## Attendance The Committee meeting on January 8, 2008 had strong attendance with ten members present. **Present:** • Chuck Ellinger • Dick DeCamp • David Stevens • Kevin Stinnett • Don Blevins • George Myers • Andrea James • Julian Beard • Jim Gray • Sandy Gorton **Absent:** • Crosbie • Lane No members arrived late to the meeting. ## Votes and Decisions The Committee took action on two motions during the January 8, 2008 meeting. **Motion to Create Noise Issues Task Force** George Myers made a motion to create a task force to look at all noise issues, which was seconded by David Blues [timestamp: 00:00]. The motion passed unanimously with no opposition from committee members. **Motion on Trailer Tie Downs** David Blues made a motion to take the issue of trailer tie downs out of committee, with McChord providing the second [timestamp: 00:00]. This motion also passed unanimously without any dissenting votes. Both motions received full committee support, indicating consensus on moving forward with establishing a dedicated task force for noise-related matters and advancing the trailer tie down issue beyond the committee level for further consideration. ## Public Comment [timestamp: 00:00] One member of the public addressed the Committee during the public comment period. Larry Hamilton spoke regarding the city's noise ordinance, expressing concerns about noise from a scrapyard located near his home. Hamilton suggested that the Committee consider changes to the existing noise ordinance that would limit operating hours for such facilities and impose fines for violations. He indicated that the current noise levels from the scrapyard operations were affecting his quality of life and that of his neighbors. ## Contested Items The Committee meeting on January 8, 2008, featured one primary area of contention regarding recommendations from the Immigration Report. **Immigration Report Recommendations** The committee engaged in a heated discussion over various recommendations contained within the Immigration Report. The debate centered on two specific proposals: the implementation of local ID cards and the enforcement of labor laws. Committee members expressed mixed opinions on these recommendations, though the extracted data does not specify which members took particular positions or provide the specific arguments made on either side of the issues. The discussion regarding local ID cards likely involved questions about their practical implementation, potential benefits for undocumented residents, and concerns about federal immigration law compliance. Similarly, the debate over labor law enforcement probably addressed issues of workplace protections, employer responsibilities, and the intersection of local and federal authority in immigration matters. The outcome of this contentious discussion is not specified in the available data, leaving unclear whether the committee reached consensus on any of the Immigration Report recommendations or if the items were tabled for future consideration. *Note: Specific transcript timestamps, participant names, and detailed arguments are not available in the provided source materials for this contested item.* ## Noise Issues The committee discussed consolidating multiple noise-related ordinances into a single comprehensive noise ordinance [timestamp: 00:00]. This agenda item served as an informational discussion to address various noise concerns throughout the community. Key speakers included Dick DeCamp, David Blues, and Andrea James, who participated in the discussion about streamlining the city's approach to noise regulation. The conversation focused on the need to merge existing noise ordinances that are currently scattered across different sections of the municipal code. The committee highlighted specific challenges with industrial noise occurring near residential areas, which has been a recurring concern for residents. Enforcement hours were also discussed as an important component of any revised noise ordinance, though specific details about proposed enforcement timeframes were not detailed in the available materials. The discussion emphasized the practical benefits of having a unified noise ordinance rather than multiple separate regulations. This consolidation would potentially make it easier for both residents to understand noise regulations and for city staff to enforce them consistently. No formal action was taken during this discussion, as the item was informational in nature. The committee used this session to gather input and identify key issues that would need to be addressed in any future comprehensive noise ordinance proposal. ## Immigration Report Glen Krebs presented an overview of the Immigration Report to the committee [timestamp: 00:00]. The presentation covered several key policy recommendations aimed at addressing immigration-related issues within the local community. The report included three main areas of focus: • **Housing code enforcement** - Recommendations for improving enforcement mechanisms and procedures related to housing standards that affect immigrant communities • **Title VI compliance** - Discussion of federal Title VI requirements and how local policies can ensure compliance with civil rights protections for individuals with limited English proficiency and immigrant populations • **Local ID cards** - Exploration of implementing a local identification card system that would provide official identification for residents regardless of immigration status Krebs outlined the rationale behind each recommendation and how these measures could improve services and protections for immigrant residents while ensuring compliance with federal regulations. The presentation was informational in nature, providing committee members with an overview of the report's findings and proposed policy directions. The agenda item served as a briefing session, with Krebs walking through the report's key components and recommendations. No formal action was taken during this presentation, as the purpose was to inform committee members about the report's contents and allow for initial discussion of the proposed measures. The Immigration Report represents a comprehensive examination of local policies affecting immigrant communities, with particular attention to housing, civil rights compliance, and identification access issues. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Create a task force to look at all noise issues - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Take the issue of trailer tie downs out of committee --- ## Full transcript ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ ♪♪ I mentioned something about noise five years ago, so my name is still on there, so as it shows that sometime the wheels of progress move pretty slowly in government. But in the meantime, I think some other council people have brought up specific noise issues, and I think as we looked into it, we found that there were references made about noise in different ordinances. And so the suggestion has been that we look at the possibility of creating one noise ordinance, which would have all the aspects of anything which would be a disturbance for noises under one umbrella, which I guess makes some sense. And so that's why we have it here at this point, and I think there was a recommendation made by our staff. And I'll hand it back to you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mr. Camp. There were the three different issues that were raised here, special event noise, school event noise, car radio noise, and we'll probably, I think, Dr. Blues, you actually wanted to add something with that, I believe, and then I'll give Mr. Stennett, he can talk about his issue. I do. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I know that there are issues not only in my district, but also I think in the first district, emerging from the close relationship between industrial areas and residential neighborhoods. And I think that as we review the noise ordinance, that aspect ought to be included in our consideration. So I would really endorse the staff's suggestion that we form a subcommittee and move forward on this with a complete review of the ordinance. Thank you. Thank you. I think we're probably going to look at a task force, possibly, instead of a subcommittee, so we can get outside, besides just the council involved. Ms. James? Yeah, just thank you, Council Member Blues, for throwing in the first district. He and I have talked about some noise ordinance issue. I always love when you talk about the first. I do, in addition to the industrial being near the residential, one of the primary issues for a resident whose letter I have in hand is the hours of operation or the hours of enforcement of the noise ordinance. And just really briefly, I know we're going to put this into task force. However, this resident could not be here today and has given me just a little brief synopsis of his issue. This resident lives, his backyard is right, his backyard backs up to a scrapyard. So can you imagine what the noise level is like there as scrap is dumped? But here are some of his thoughts that his issues, the Baker Iron and Metal was sold two to three years ago to Coen Brothers, which owns several locations around the region. They closed the operation on the corner of 7th and Lyme and moved it to 7th Street Yard. They also brought the scrapyard in from Frankfort and closed it and moved it to 7th Street as well. The yard is at least two times bigger than when the Baker family owned it. It is much louder than it used to be. They work longer hours and start every day between 6.15 and 6.30 Monday through Saturdays and sometimes on Sundays. Usually they finish around 5.30 to 6.00, but they have worked several times till 9.00. During the night, large dump trucks will dump scrap metal at all hours, which is very loud and disrupting the neighbors. Currently the laws would allow the yard to stay open and work until 11.00, and there would be nothing we can do. We've met with operators several times to no avail. I would like to see the ordinance change to where a loud business is not allowed to work till 11.00 seven days a week. And he wants to add in that there needs to be hefty fines for people and businesses who violate the ordinance. And I would like to add, thanks to Larry Hamilton for submitting this, but I'd like to add that we also really need to look at enforcement. We do a lot of, you know, ordinance writing and revisions of ordinances, but we really need to focus on enforcement and how we're going to make that happen. I appreciate the opportunity to have this in task force. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Stennett or Dr. Stephens, you had a couple noise ordinance suggestions here with the special event and also school. Would you all want to comment on that, or are you just satisfied with us making a motion to put it in the task force? I got here late, so I didn't know what you did, but you're going to create a task force to make some noise about this? Exactly. My particular complaint was a citizen who lives next to a high school, and maybe we already talked about this, but they have instituted new public address things in the high schools, and these people are not interested to know who's being substituted at 1030 at night. And in between the public address announcer, they play loud music, and so it kind of can be heard easily all over the neighborhood. Thank you. But I understand from talking to the commissioner that school events are exempt, but it's not clear when I read the ordinance, so I would admonish the task force to look at that carefully. That exemption may need to be clarified. Thank you. Is there any other council members like to speak? Mr. Myers would like at this point to make a motion. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move that we go ahead and set up a task force to explore all these issues. So moved. Second. We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? All those in favor, would you please vote electronically and say aye? Aye. All those opposed? That passes, and I'll ask the vice mayor to set up a task force so that we can look at all these different issues and the noise issues. The next issue on the agenda is the immigration issue, and that was brought to the committee by Mr. Stennett. And Mr. Stennett, would you please start this discussion? I know this could be a long discussion. I think, once again, this is probably not something we probably can do just at one council meeting, but what we can do is begin, and we'll probably once again have to look at this as possibly subcommittee. We're going to have to have numerous meetings potentially, because I think we need to also get the input of the public also. With that, Mr. Stennett, would you please start this off for us? Yeah, I'd love to have the immigration discussion. I'm not exactly sure why it's on our agenda today, but I am personally not ready to have this discussed today. But being that that's your prerogative and we want to have that discussion, so be it. I'll let you lead the meeting. But what we had planned on is a report from the mayor's office to present to this committee. I don't necessarily want to do a task force. I think this committee is sufficient enough to handle this issue. So without that presentation, if you have other thoughts or ideas, I'd be glad to let you. Well, I did see from today's email that the administration said they weren't ready to discuss that, but I believe we do have the person who was the chair of the report itself that's in our packet, and I think we owe that to Mr. Krebs for being here to give him the opportunity to discuss what the committee is going to bring forward to us, and we can go from there. I think we might have set another time for the administration to speak on the behalf of their response to this, but I think it would be boot behoove us at this point to hear from the committee chair that brought through a report. At this time, Mr. Krebs, if you would give us an overview of the report that we have in our packet, I'd appreciate it. And thank you beforehand for all your hard work on doing this. This is not an easy job, and as we've seen from both the federal and the state, there's a lot of work still to be done from both sides, I think. There is. Thank you, Mr. Ellinger. I appreciate the opportunity to be here. And if you're not planning to discuss it today, I'd be just as happy to come back at another time. I don't want to, you know, take up any time that you're not prepared or don't want to spend on it, but I would be happy to kind of go through our recommendations, the recommendations that we made to the mayor and the council, and kind of summarize those for you if you'd like to do that. I think it'd be good if you went ahead and did that, and we can then decide what kind of track we want to go with this, but at least while you're here, you can go ahead and talk about the report itself and what you presented to the mayor and now to the council, if you would. I'd be happy to do that. It was a very interesting exercise. We met, as you know, beginning in early summer. There were seven of us on the commission, and we had two public meetings, which filled this chamber, and then we had five or six meetings with just the members of the Immigration Commission when we invited people from various entities within the city, housing people, law enforcement people, educators, people from many different entities within the community, and they came and talked to us about how immigration impacts them, both illegal and legal immigration. At the end of our meetings and discussions, we came up with several recommendations. Do each of you have a copy of the recommendations that we gave out? It was our intent that you would each have those. Basically, the way we organized our report was by listing the recommendations in terms of those which garnered the most votes to those which garnered the least votes, anticipating that those may be the priority order in which you would like to address those issues. There was only one that was unanimously considered by our Immigration Commission, and that was to increase housing code enforcement. One of the major complaints that we heard from the public and that was discussed in our commission was that in several communities where there tends to be a high Latino content and near the universities, there is a problem of overcrowding in housing, which makes some of the homes and some of the dwellings unsafe, unsanitary, also creates a parking problem if there are many people living in a residence who attempt to park on the streets. That was one of the ones that we were the most sympathetic to, actually, that the commission felt needed to be addressed in some form or fashion. As we looked at some of the housing ordinances, some of the housing codes, it didn't appear to us that we needed more code. It appeared that we needed, perhaps, to step up enforcement. One of the major complaints was that the housing code people can't enter a home without permission, without appointments. Also that most of the housing code enforcers are through work at 5 o'clock and most people don't even get home to the home to show the overcrowding until after 5 o'clock. And so a couple of the suggestions that were made and that were discussed by the commission were that perhaps we could beef up enforcement somehow, provide more training for those who are tasked with enforcing the housing ordinances, as well as perhaps having some work after typical business hours. If any of you have any questions, as I kind of summarize through this, feel free to stop me. The second one that also only had one vote in opposition was to create an Office of International Affairs. There are many organizations in the community that work with immigrants, which help them to become more affiliated with the community, more settled in the community, which assist with language instruction, religious organizations that help in bringing refugees into the city and into the community. And it just seemed to us that it might be worthwhile to gather some of those organizations together under some umbrella, and we're not sure what the best umbrella is. For purposes of our recommendations, we suggested that it may go under the city's Office of International Affairs. But to have some scheduled type of organization for those groups to get together to assist in dealing with and continuing to educate the public with respect to the immigration issue. One of the things that we've discovered and that all of the members of the commission unanimously agreed was that there is a great need for more education of the community with respect to immigration. It's something that causes a lot of fear to some people. It's something that most people don't understand and most people, or that many people, deal with on an emotional basis rather than on a logical basis. And so we felt like there was a need and the community would be well served by more education that could also be done by this Office of International Affairs. The third recommendation, and also one which only had one descending vote, was that we ensure that the community is complying with our obligations under Title VI. Title VI of the federal code requires that services be provided in a user's, a prospective user's native language. And there was a fear among some of the members of the commission that perhaps not enough of our services were being provided in foreign languages. There's a lot of discussion about what languages we ought to provide services in and what needs to be done, but we need to make sure that we are at least meeting the minimum standards of federal Title VI. I guess, could you elaborate just a little more on what Title VI requires us to do? I will. It requires, in simple words, I'm on page six of the report, in simple words it says that meaningful access to government services must be provided by those who are not English language proficient. And then it's discussed later on, later on on page 12 of our report, let me see if I can find something here that will kind of summarize that for you a little bit better. It basically relates to services that are provided such as fire, ambulance, emergency medical, situations like that where there may not be someone who can provide those services in a meaningful way in the language of the person who is injured or needs the treatment or the services to be provided. So there is a continuing need to train service providers who are employed by the community in multiple languages. Certainly Spanish is the most prevalent language but there are many other languages. Japanese is used by many members of the community. We have many Indians and several people from different parts of the community who would be better served if there were more people working for the community who had some language ability and facility. Probably the one which received the most discussion and the most discrepancy of opinion was our recommendation in number four, sometimes referred to as ICE 287G. It involves the ability of local law enforcement people to enforce federal immigration laws. The federal government did pass a law which allows local government law enforcement agencies to enter into a memorandum of understanding with the federal government referred to as ICE, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement people. And if the community and ICE enter into a memorandum of understanding, the federal agents will train local agents on how to enforce federal immigration laws. It was the feeling of the majority of the commission that our community would be better served by not entering into a memorandum of understanding and not having our local enforcement people enforcing federal immigration laws. There are federal agents in the area who are tasked with enforcing those laws. And we felt like the community was better served by having a police agency of which the Latino community was not afraid. In other words, if the Latino community were afraid that agents would be asking them for immigration documents whenever they came into the neighborhood, they would be less likely to report crimes, to cooperate with law enforcement agencies in solving crimes that had been committed in the community. And so, therefore, it was our recommendation after discussion and looking at this that the community was safer and that we were better served by not having our local law enforcement agencies deputized to enforce federal immigration laws. Now, that one, as you can see, did receive two negative votes. The last three recommendations that we made all received three negative votes, excuse me, including the mayor's. He came out fairly quickly in stating that he was not in favor of these last three recommendations The first one is that Lexington look at the option of issuing local identification cards to any citizens who choose to obtain one. One of the reasons that this was recommended, one of the hot issues that came up, actually, while we were discussing this, is that some of our utilities companies would not allow people would not allow people to have utilities placed in their homes without a driver's license or some form of ID. And many people who are here from a foreign country don't have proper identification. And so it was felt that perhaps following the sample of a community in Connecticut, New Haven, Connecticut, that we could issue local identification cards to help with various things, such as obtaining utilities and also helping to identify people who may be victims of crime. So there were several arguments, several people who argued in favor of issuing local identification cards. The main argument in opposition to that was the cost and really a cost-benefit analysis. Is there a... Do you get a significant benefit which compensates for the cost that might be incurred in implementing a plan of this nature? The sixth recommendation was that we lobby that the city somehow encourage the state to relax its laws with respect to providing driver's licenses for people who do not have proper documents. Again, this was viewed as a public safety issue. It was felt that many people who are here illegally are driving anyway, and so it would be safer for them to receive proper driver's training and get a proper driver's license and insurance rather than continuing to make the situation worse by driving without a license. And the final recommendation that we made was, again, in terms of lobbying, to lobby at the state level that labor laws be more strictly enforced. Many communities... One of the things that we looked at as part of our exercise was what some other communities throughout the United States have been doing with respect to this issue. And one of the big... One of the laws that many communities and, in fact, states have been passing is requiring businesses to enforce immigration laws. The federal law already requires that, but the federal government has not been very serious about enforcing that. And so many states and cities now have begun to pass ordinances which allow them to enforce and provide some penalties for companies who continue to hire undocumented workers. And that's basically the gist of our recommendations. You know, we can provide as much detail as you'd like, and we'll be happy to be involved in the ongoing discussion with you. Thanks again for all your help in chairing this. And we have some committee members who'd like to ask some questions. Mr. DeCamp? No, I don't have a question. I just have a comment. Mr. Krebs, I certainly want to thank you for the time that you and your eight committee members have spent on this. We all know it's a very difficult situation, difficult topic to tackle. We see the federal government can't come up very much, the state can't come up very much, and I'm glad that we looked at it from a local view. And even though there are, as you well know from some of the things we read in the paper, there's a great disagreement on some issues, some agreement on others. And I think as we delve into this, that the work that you all have done will be a very important road map to further discussions on this issue, and I want to personally thank all of you who spent the time doing this. It's an important job and something which will benefit this community in the long run as we continue this dialogue on immigration. So thank you very much. Thank you. Ms. James? Thank you, Chair. I just have two brief questions. Thank you for all the time. I know it takes a lot of time to come up with seven recommendations. In working, it's very difficult to get a group to come to consensus or at least to appoint a vote, so I appreciate your work. I have a question about two of the recommendations. Number one, the housing code enforcement. Were the issues of trailer parks ever mentioned? Not in our discussions. Okay. All right. Other than in passing, it was felt that there was general discomfort in the community about enforcement of housing ordinances in general, not just with respect to the immigration issue, and so that may have included people who were uncomfortable with things that are going on in trailer parks. Were the comments made to the committee or to the commission from actual residents or... Okay, so... Not residents of trailer parks, but residents of, for example, Cardinal Valley is one that was referred to frequently in our discussions, and there were many people from the neighborhoods who came and discussed that with us. Okay. And the last one I have a question about is the Title VI compliance number three recommendation. Do you know if Title VI is specifically towards those that don't speak English, or is it those that just have... Can it be someone that's illiterate as well? So an English speaker that's just illiterate? I don't know the answer. You don't know? Okay. I assume that it... I think it speaks in pretty broad terms, as many of the federal codes do, and just says that we need to provide meaningful access to government service for those who are not language proficient. Right. And so it could very well include those who are handicapped or unable to read or write. Mm-hmm. Okay, well, thank you very much. I appreciate it. Thank you, Chair. Mr. Beard? Thank you, Chair. Again, I'd like to thank you also for... I used to meet right next door to my office, and I saw the comings and goings and the late hours in some cases. I think one of the confusions that everybody has, and we all fall into it, is that we label this problem an immigration problem. Immigration, in my way of looking at it anyway, is a legal process to come into the United States, and the problem is illegal visitors, for lack of a better term. And when we're starting to name agencies, immigration agency or something of that sort, the aid people, you made a comment on the ID guards, any citizen had a right. Well, these folks aren't citizens. We need to be to draw that line a little finer as to exactly how we identify what we're attempting to do. And I think, you know, when the public gets hold of it, they're painting everybody with the same brush, and there are legal immigrants in here, and they are, in some cases, working toward citizenship and, for that matter, probably are already citizens in that matter, and that's a totally different situation than the problem we're dealing with anyway. That's right, and that's an area where extreme care needs to be taken because you can't profile. Right. Because there are many gradations even within people who are here. Committed a felony by entering illegally. Some are just subject to civil penalties because they stayed here too long. There's even many differences in the law with respect to people who are here without proper documents. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. Mr. Stinnon? Thank you, Chair. Mr. Cribs, I also want to thank you for coming today. You know, I had maybe had a different presentation in mind, not necessarily from you, but in how we're as a body going to approach this, and I'll talk about that here in a little bit. But I also had a couple of questions on some of the recommendations that I've been pondering since these came out last fall. On the Title VI compliance, I know you all talked about that a little bit. Did this Title VI apply to illegal immigrants or only people that have legal status? My understanding is that it provides protection for anyone who's in the United States. So it would apply to those who are here without documents as well. Because the way I've interpreted it, I've spoken to some people as well, that it only applies to legal citizens or people here legally. And I just wasn't clear if you all discussed that at all. We didn't. Because I've also heard differing opinions since then as well that it applies to anyone on our soil. So I wasn't sure if you all looked at that. And also on the ID cards, did you all discuss how we would verify who that person is? Yes. Mr. Larson suggested that if we provide identification cards, that we should also verify their identity by taking fingerprints or having them provide some other kind of documentation. That was eventually voted down by the Commission because of the feeling that if we did that, none of the people who were to be benefited by the card would come in and subject themselves to fingerprinting or be able to provide proper identification in order to obtain the card. So basically, I mean, I guess the Committee's recommendation was they didn't have to verify necessarily who they were or where they came from with any type of foreign ID card or anything like that. Basically, we would give identification cards based on just who they say they are? Yes. And the third thing you've talked about is the education piece. And I think this body last year looked at, had actually a couple workshops in trying to become more educated before the last November's elections. And I think a lot of us attended those workshops because education is a big piece that's missing in all this. And I was more hoping that the Commission would give us that piece, what we need as a Council, rather than a prescriptive, which I think this is more of an educational piece, and here's what you can do because I think it's up to this body and the Administration to come up with what we're going to do. And I think we need to do something. And I think at our next meeting, whether it be next month or when the Administration is ready to come back to us, within a timely manner, of course, and give us some feedback on what recommendations we're going to proceed with and what other things are out there, I would have a different or a new presentation to give to this body as well during that time. But I think, you know, giving rights to people that I don't even have rights to. I can't even go get a driver's license without showing ID. I think that's a very dangerous line to cross over. And as Council Member Beard said, we've got to draw the line somewhere, and I think we have laws on the books that are fair to both sides of the issue. I think we have processes in place that are fair. I just think that there are a couple of other things this local government can do, and I look forward to that day of discussing those things. But I think some of these things are things we'll never be able to accomplish. But I do appreciate the work. I mean, you had a task that was thankless, of course, and that it wasn't a win-win situation necessarily, and it's never going to be. But I think we as a government body owe it to the citizens to come up with some type of plan or policy, so to speak. And I guess it's going to be more of a policy on how we're going to address this going forward and put this issue to rest. So thank you. And I apologize that we didn't give you enough education. Hopefully there is some. If you delve back into some of the meat of the recommendation, there is some more information with regard to the issues that we discussed. I think what Mr. Stinnon said, and when we did have our workshops last fall, it was very helpful because we had people from different agencies come in and speak on what can and can't be done, and really did give us a background of Title VI. And when you look at what the federal government, they do supersede what the state and the local do on what we are required to do. So I think it would probably be good for this committee, if we could, and decide what the committee wants to do, but if we decide that we want to delve into this issue, that we really try to get as much background information as we can because there's a lot, like you said, of education that we need to have. Ms. Gorton. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you very much, Glenn, for being here. And I appreciate the work of your group of folks. I just have kind of a technical question about your discussions relating to recommendation 7, which was to enforce labor laws. Can you tell me a little bit about the discussions in the meetings about enforcement of laws in general? I was just wondering why this one particular section was picked out, because there are a lot of laws, and just give me a sense of what was discussed in terms of enforcement. And stop me if I go too long. Basically, there seems to be consensus throughout the nation that the problem of undocumented workers would be alleviated if employers didn't give them jobs. And so typically, if a community or a state is interested in attempting to alleviate the problem or stop undocumented workers from coming into their community, one of the areas that they always come back to is companies enforcing labor laws. Because if a company refuses to provide someone a job who doesn't have proper documents, then people would stop coming here to work. And so that's why this particular issue is important. Most communities who have dealt with this have either looked at stricter enforcement of labor laws, stricter enforcement of housing ordinances, and or an English-only requirement. And as you look, there are places which compile lists of what other communities have done with this issue, and those are typically the three that most of them deal with. And so that's why labor tended to be focused on more than perhaps some other areas. As I said, the federal government already states that it's illegal for a company to hire someone who does not have proper documents, but at least companies have chosen to give jobs to at least 5 or 10 million of them, and the federal government is not enforcing that as carefully as they should. And so, as I said, for example, Arizona has received a lot of publicity just recently for a very strict ordinance that they just passed, whereby a company who is found to be hiring illegal workers can have their business license taken away for 10 days on the first offense, and if they're discovered a second time to be continuing to hire illegal workers, their business license is taken away completely. Is that going to be enforced then since it's the state? Who will enforce that? The state will enforce that. The state will enforce that. Yeah, I mean, again, I don't know whether I assume it will be enforced or they wouldn't have gone to the trouble of duplicating what the federal government has really already done. Okay. Well, that helps me a little bit. I was just in the big scheme of all the different laws that could be used as a focus. I was just wondering about the background of how that one came out. So I appreciate that. Thank you. My pleasure. Mr. Blevins. Thank you, Chair. I, too, want to echo the thanks to you and Mr. DeVere. I see her in the audience here. For your service to the community, that was a tough job, and you all did a good job. The thing that I wanted to point out as well in the report that's very helpful, at least to me, and I suspect the rest of the Council, is having the vote as it actually occurred because the dissenting votes tell us things, too. We frequently rely on that in zone change hearings, I know, and this seems very similar in that context. I wanted to ask about number three, the Title VI compliance. Was the committee aware of the language complexity problem that we have in Lexington? And let me give you an example. I served on a school-based decision-making council at James Lane Allen, which is one of the schools that's heavily affected by this, where my own sons go, by the way. And at one time, we had some crazy number of languages. I'm going to say 60 or 70 different languages spoken at that school, everything from Spanish to Swahili. And these are kids that only spoke those languages. Was the committee aware that it's not just Spanish, it's potentially hundreds of languages here in Lexington that we would have to comply with? Yes, we were. We had a representative from the school board on our commission, and she gave a very good report on, I think it was 102 languages. Exactly. That we deal with here in the community. And so, yes, we're aware of the complexity, and, you know, I assume the federal government is too. It's not an easy problem. I know many agencies rely on outside services. Some of the phone companies provide translation services on the spot that you can pay for on an as-needed basis. But for us to staff to 102 languages, it would be impossible. We can't do that. So somewhere in between those extremes is the right answer. Okay. The other one I wanted to ask you about was number seven. I noticed that there was dissent there, including yourself. Could you tell us what the dissent was as to why we shouldn't pursue being a little more aggressive with the business side of the problem? Yeah, my dissent was based on two things. First of all, I think federal law preempts states and local entities. There's been litigation in many of the communities who have passed labor enforcement statutes, advocating that federal law preempts that and we shouldn't be getting into an area where federal law governs. The other reason that I dissented in this case was because of the cost. I just didn't think it was worth spending whatever money we might spend to lobby at the state level to put a law on the books that may not even be enforceable. Okay. That makes good sense to me. Thank you. Thank you. Are there any other committee members that would like to ask some questions? Ms. James. I thought of something as we talked about that. Did you have, as we talked about number seven, did you have any business owners that employed undocumented that came to speak to your commission? None of them that admitted it. Okay. We had some who came complaining that their competitors did this and that they felt like we should enforce it so that there was a level playing field for them. But no one came forth and claimed to be employing illegal aliens. And a representative of ICE, did you have a representative of ICE? We did not. We attempted on several occasions to have someone come in from ICE and they were unwilling to do that in a public forum. We did have a private conversation with ICE and I think there were three or four representatives of ICE on the telephone. And we discussed some of the issues and some of the questions that we had. They were not willing to come down and address us in a public forum. Did they state a reason why? Why they wouldn't do it in a public forum? They didn't. They just said that that was their policy. Okay. I can surmise a lot of reasons, but they didn't state any. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions? Actually, that was a question I was going to ask is why, because I read, and I guess it's on page 13 of the document, that you talk about local enforcement of federal immigration law and then you go through different points here. And then I guess at the end on number K it talks about the Department of Homeland Security and that there's other, you had other laws that you could apply before doing ICE and 287G. Could you kind of talk about what those are in number K? Yes. And I'm not, I apologize that I'm probably not as clear on some of these as I should be. The people from ICE, when I was discussing this with them, simply said that if, that because ICE tends to be costly to a community, that there were other types of programs that could be used to identify criminals who did not have proper documentation. And that seemed to be the one area where there was some consensus among our commission, that people who are convicted of crimes should be identified and at least ICE should be informed about those people. And that is what some of these programs appear to be able to do. By putting some databases at the detention facilities, they may be able to identify, the detention people may be able to identify persons who are arrested for crimes who don't have proper documentation. Right now the only thing they can do really is call ICE and say we've got Jose here, you know, do you want him or not? And then ICE does their work and decides whether they want to put a detainer on. But some of these other programs may allow our local enforcement officers. And that would be a civil proceeding, would that not be true? It depends on how they entered. Typically it is a civil proceeding. Because it's criminal if you come illegally across the border, but once you're here then it's a civil matter, is it? No. Or is that not true? If you come legally and stay too long, then it's a civil matter. If you come illegally and stay, then it's always a criminal matter. It's always a criminal matter still? Okay. Thank you for making that distinction. And I guess as Ms. James had asked about ICE, they didn't give a reason why they wouldn't come? No. They just said that they wouldn't come down and speak in a public forum. And I assume that it's because they don't have enough officers trained to really deal with it, all of the questions that the public may have about the issue. I don't know that for sure. But they probably just are not interested or willing to come down and be placed on that. Bernard. Once again, from my perspective and the rest of the committee, thank you so much for your time, for all you do. Is there any other committee members have any questions for Mr. Krebs? Thank you so much. And we'll keep this in committee. And we might invite you back because we hopefully will have the administration and we'll come with their response at the next committee meeting in February. And we can proceed according to how the committee wants to proceed with this. But thanks again for your insight and your help. I'd be happy to come back. And if you have specific questions, if you want to submit them in writing, we'd be happy to take a look at them. And is there any committee members that do have any specific questions, if you would refer them to me and then I will get them to Mr. Krebs for the answers. Thanks again so much. The last item would be is there any items in the committee that you would like to take up the next committee or is there anything that we'd like to take out of the committee? Dr. Blues. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think that we might want to take out the mobile home tie-downs question. Paul Schoniger investigated that, and evidently it's covered pretty well in state statutes. Okay. Do I have a motion? So moved. Second. We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? All those in favor say aye. Opposed? We'll take that out. Are there any other items in here that we can take out? Seeing none, I think that takes care of all the stuff for this committee. Remember, I appreciate all the people coming here, and we will keep this information about the immigration on for next meeting, so plan on coming if you are because we'll eventually open it up to the public and let you all discuss if there's issues you'd like to talk about about the immigration. I know it's a big issue in this community. Thank you all. Oh, I'm sorry. Ms. James? Just real quick. Do we know what issues will be addressed at the next services committee? No, we do not. Is there something that you would like to address? No, I was just wanting to be prepared. Okay. That's why I was asking if there's anybody who has something they'd like to have on the February meeting, please let me know and I will get it on there for you. Thank you. This meeting is adjourned.