Now she's gone and I'm on my own But love song is coming to my winter I'm pulled by a warm heart And I love you best You're not like the rest You're there when I need you You're there when I need I'm gonna need you So lady, let me take a look at you now You're there on the dance floor Making me want you somehow Oh lady, I think it's only fair I should say to you Don't be thinking that I don't want you, cause maybe I do Don't be thinking that I don't want you, maybe I do Thank you. I'm sailing away Set an open course for the birds and sea Cause I've got to be free Free to face a life that's ahead of me I'm bored, I'm the captain So climb aboard We'll search for tomorrow And every shore And I'll try Oh Lord, I'll try To carry on I look to the sea Reflections in the waves Despite my memory Some happy, some sad I think of childhood friends and the dreams we had We lived happily forever So the story goes But somehow we missed out On the part of gold But we'll try best that we can To carry on A gathering of angels A bit above my head They sang to me this song of hope And this is what they said They said, come sail away Come sail away Come sail away with me Come sail away Come sail away Come sail away with me Come sail away Come sail away Come sail away with me Come sail away, come sail away, come sail away with me Thank you. I love you. That they were angels And run to my surprise We climbed up all their starship We planned for the skies Come sail away, come sail away Come sail away with me Come sail away, come sail away Come sail away with me Come sail away, come sail away Come and say it away with me Thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon, everyone. We want to make efficient use of our time. This is a specially called meeting of the Planning Public Works Committee. We're trying to clean up some things before the end of the year, and we have several items of business and plenty to discuss in a shortened period of time. So with that in mind, if you all would come to order, I would like to ask the committee if they have looked over the summary and have any suggestions or corrections or a motion to approve. And have a motion to approve. Second. And a second. All those in favor? Opposed, like, sign. Thank you. Guys, I'm sorry. We need to make one change. Where is it? What is it? It's one where we had used council member. All right, at the top of page two, on a motion by council member Senate, council member Senate was not recognized as part of the quorum. We did take the action of removing that item from the committee agenda, although I think to clean it up, someone else needs to own it. If one of you would not mind to kind of in a retro manner make that motion. or motion to amend the minutes for a new name? So moved. Second. All right. And the name we would use was Chuck? Can we use you? Yes, sir. All right. Thank you very much. With that one change, all in favor? Aye. Thank you all very much. All right. Then I want to dovetail to Council Member Myers. This is an action item we were trying to get taken care of, and I think we mismatched on some opportunity, but please take us. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you for the opportunity to speak today and not being a member of the committee. We put this issue into committee some time ago at the last N1H1 overlay zone change hearing that was kind of contentious. And I think there were three council members, the chair and I, and council member of society that all felt like that there was an opportunity here to both educate the public as well as educate the council. In this case, it's going to be probably the new council coming in as to how this process works. and we met with Chris King, the director of planning here a couple weeks ago. There's some good things that came out of that meeting, but I still think that it would be to everybody's advantage to have a presentation where the new council comes on board and that we do that in a setting, whether it be work session, I guess probably work session, where the full council's there so that everybody can partake in that conversation and education piece, but then also the community can see that on TV and understand. So I think there's some room for clarification on how things work. maybe an opportunity or two to tighten some things up. So my hope is that the council will continue to push forward with having that meeting. So we'll keep this in committee. Yes, sir. You might want to provide us with an outline potentially of something. Sure. So if we don't take any action opportunely before the end of the year, we could do so hopefully in the new year. Absolutely. I'd be happy to do that. Thank you for your time on that issue. I appreciate it very much. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Next up, item number three is the – Oh, I'm so sorry. Excuse me. Council Member Gordon, excuse me. And then I didn't look down. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have a comment on that. Council Members, after Council Member Myers sent that out to us, I sent you all an email. And I think it's a really good idea for the new council to understand the H-1 and the ND-1. And the difficulty with work session is that council has expressed its opinion over the years that it doesn't want a lot of presentations at work session that don't end in an action. And so for at least four years now, we've tried really hard to honor the fact that at work session, we have proclamations, committee report outs, EPA presentations, and presentations that end in a request for a motion. This all kind of generated out of the years when we had eight or nine or ten presentations, and some of you may remember those days. And so I just kind of wanted to put that in context. Although I won't be here, you may want to have eight or nine or ten or more presentations, but it seems to me that committees are where just factual informational presentations reside. And that'll be up to you all when the new council comes in, but I did want to give that perspective. and the fact that the council members in the past have weighed in on that and what they desire for presentations and when to have them. Thank you. Thank you, Vice Mayor, very much. Council Member Mazzotti. Thank you. I respectively disagree somewhat with you, Vice Mayor. I don't want to have ten presentations either. However, in this instance, I think it needs to be aired by the public because this is something that will come up with some neighborhoods, and I think if they have the ability to see this, they'll have a better idea of how to proceed in this when it comes to an ND1 overlay. So that's my only concern. If we do it in a workshop or whatever, the public doesn't see it. And so how do they know how to proceed with this type of overlay? And I would imagine that we probably would get a motion out of it when it was all said and done. I agree. So that's my feelings. All right. So just noted on that count, too. Thank you. Thank you, ma'am, very much. Councilman Myers, yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I'd like to follow up also, and I agree with both council members. Vice Mayor, you are correct in that we tried to pare down the number of presentations that we have. But I think that this particular issue, I recall that every time we end up in this situation, the council notes that one of the tragedies of this is that these meetings tend to pit neighbor against neighbor. And that's not a positive thing for our community. And so if everybody could be educated at the same time, this is an opportunity to maybe make some headway in that area so that when we have these meetings, they're not so volatile, they're not so emotional, and that we're just really dealing with the facts, the letter of the law. And so I appreciate what you're saying. I do respect that. But I think that this particular case lends itself to that type of setting. Thank you. Well said. Thank you, sir. Anyone else on this topic? Thank you, sir, again, very much. Thank you. All right. now moving on item three electoral inspection fees which we'd had this vitamin committee last month this takes up a rather sizable group of pages in our our agenda today and we had we had discussion and then we had questions and then i guess we left it in committee and i guess vice mayor we had originally placed this in with your name next to it but i don't think do you have any comments you want to make at this time on the issue or would we? No, I thank you. All right, Mr. Vicroy, would you like to speak? Yes. Welcome back. Thank you, Chairman. Steve Vicroy, I represent Commonwealth Inspection Bureau, who is the electrical inspection entity in Fayette County. And you'll have to blame me for Vice Mayor Gordon's name being on this because she's a personal friend and I sent her the initial letter when my client asked me to look into this matter for him. At the last meeting, one of the issues that this committee wanted to look at were some information about how this increase that we proposed would affect not only the general public, but there was also some concern about the actual profit being made. So with that said, I provided some additional information in your packet. One was a three-page explanation along with some additional tables. I'm not going to go through that at length because we've got a short meeting. I just want to say tables one and three show an overall general effect on the revenue and expenses that Commonwealth Inspection anticipates based on the number of inspections they had in the first half of 2014 and then also compared that with the first half of 2015, assuming the same numbers were in effect. And then in table number four, this is the lengthy look at a comparison of what the current inspection fees are and what the proposed inspection fees would be for several different types of inspections that include apartment buildings, both apartment buildings with breezeways and apartment buildings that are built more like condominiums that have private entrances, several different sizes of homes. And so we can't pigeonhole an inspection on one home and give you a comparison because we have different, obviously, different size homes throughout the county. So we covered a wide gambit of those in that table number four. And then lastly, the commercial inspection fees were looked at based on particular prices. And these prices are of the electrical contract, not the actual building contract price. So with that said, that lends itself to a little bit different perspective when you look at commercial inspections. So you're not looking at a $100,000 building and the client getting a certain percentage of that. It's a certain percentage of the electrical contract price. So hopefully those provide you with some additional information. If you're going to take this under consideration that you can look at and kind of compare what the current rates are and the current proposed increase would have on those prices. The percentage changes that you're going to see in those, while they may look high to you, I want the committee to understand that by the time this increase would go into effect, it would be seven years since the last increase. So with that said, if you take a look at it on an annual basis, the increase is not as great from a year-to-year increase as it would be. And one of the things I do want to bring to your attention, I don't know if I address it strongly enough in Table 2 and in my explanation, but the book that I've got in front of me is not the National Electric Code. It is just the changes to the National Electric Code that were enacted in 2014. So this book, which is over 360 pages long, just addresses the changes that my client has to deal with, that each inspector out on the job has to deal with since the last electric code came into effect. And in these inspections, not only are they inspecting the electrical work that's being done, they are also educating. And it may take the better part of a year for all of our contractors and electricians, in Fayette County to be fully educated on all these changes obviously they have them as well but that's part of my clients job is to educate our contractors and electricians with about these changes and with this book in hand when they do it so those the analysis that I provided you also told you that we can't estimate how much efficiency we're gonna lose because of all these changes how much more it's going to take to do each electrical inspection as well so when you take a look at all these numbers you know take into effect take into consideration the fact that there hasn't been an increase in seven years and hopefully Commissioner Paulson has talked we'll talk with you and I know he did the last time about possibly changing the ordinance to include maybe be annual reviews of the inspection fees. And so with that said, I do want to, on behalf of my client, respectfully request the committee to enact the increase that's shown on page 76 of the agenda. and then also if the committee wishes to avoid this type of work that you have to look at and concern that you guys have expressed about this proposal, look at possibly putting in an annual review of the fees in the ordinance itself. Thank you. Thank you, sir. I guess before you leave, no questions have come up yet, So your proposed fee schedule for 2014 is on page 76. How does it contrast or how is it different than the one on page 64 that was kind of presented last time? I think that this was actually in the committee's hands the last time, but it may have been too late to have been on that page 64. But I believe the difference is a re-inspection fee of $35 instead of $30. Okay. There are two, yeah. Reinspection fee return trip, 35 per inspection here, and then the other one, it was 30 for each unit? No, no, no. What is it? Reinspection, it was 35 there too. I don't see any other differences. Let's see. I've got, well, it was a, there actually, it's the one on page 59 and, well, 64. it's the apartments. I apologize. There are two apartment categorizations there. Right. And that is the difference. Those are at 35 on the correct one. All right. I'm sorry to interrupt you. That's the difference is those two items that you see there. The presentation is full of representations of what different size inspections would cost. Right. It looks like, just generally speaking, the ones for individual homes goes up some. And it looks like some in the larger professional variety, sometimes more than double, it looks like to me, from a couple of examples I looked at. Well, I think those are the numbers, yes. Okay. All right. Well, we have engendered a little bit of discussion. Vice Mayor Gordon. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I thank you for bringing this. I just want to be sure I understand a couple things, because last meeting we talked about the pro forma and seeing what the new rates would generate in relation to expenses. And on page, I want to look at page 10 and page 16 for a second to be sure I understand this. So page 10 is actual income versus proposed income, and the difference after the proposed new fees would be an increase of income by $71,927. Is that correct? That's correct. Correct. Okay. Then if you go to page 16, this is expenses, actual versus proposed with a new fee structure. And the difference at the bottom in expenses is $33,107 more. So it looks to me like, and you can tell me if I'm not interpreting this correctly, So the new fees would generate more than the difference in new expenses? Yes. Is that correct? Yes. Now, that's assuming that we only have to hire one new inspector. We're concerned that the new changes to the code might necessitate actually hiring two inspectors, And if so, the difference that you see there would double, but it would still be, you know, the increased revenue would still be slightly higher than the increased expenses. So I have a couple more questions. So do you keep any kind of record on time spent on, do your inspectors keep a record of what they spend their time on the most? No. No. Yeah. So how do you know what is going to go up in terms of time and what isn't if you don't keep track of the time? I'm just trying to understand kind of a logical way to look at this. Okay, well, obviously, other than the fact that they have to do more than they did before based on the changes in the code, that's what we've estimated. Let me put it a different way. Because I know there's a chart in here, I can't really put my finger on it right now, but say I'm an inspector, and if I know I'm going to spend 10 hours a week doing X job, one particular part of the inspection, and I think that part will go up, it would seem to me logical that that might be where you would look for increases rather than just, I'm not making sense. Well, I see where you're coming from, but my client looked at trying to provide you some of this information, but it was too difficult to quantify because sometimes we're not talking about working 10 hours on one particular job usually. I was okay. Can you tell me on here where your breakdown is in the jobs that they do the kinds of I know I saw before page that starts on page 18 those so you know let me put it differently I'm a registered nurse I can tell you every day how many injections I give and how much time I spend on that, how much time I spend drawing blood, how much time I spend on the phone with patients. So is there nothing like that? There are no records right now. We could obviously go back and look at the man hours we had in the given year, obviously the number of inspectors and the number of inspections that were done. Okay. Do it that way. Okay. Right now they have not quantified that in their actual records. And just one final question in my 26 seconds, then I may need to come back. If there's one thing in here that you think is the item or couple items that are going to cost the most, that are the most critical, what would they be? You'll have to say it over the mic. The final inspection done on each particular job. Okay. Okay, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. What was the second part? What was his second? Well, the final inspections on everything and then all the inspections on apartments. Dwellings, condos, townhomes, and multi, or, or, multi, multi, and then 30,000 or more. All right, thank you. Next is Council Member Kay. Thank you, Chair. If I can follow up basically the same line of questioning that the Vice Mayor has been following. I understand that there's changes in the code. What I don't understand is why once people understand what those changes are, it would require a great deal more time to do the inspections and why it would then lead to needing an additional person or two people. Can you explain that? I think Mr. Jones would probably be better at explaining that for you. I'm sorry, I didn't understand, sir. So you've told us that there's significant changes in the code. Yes, sir. From a layperson's perspective, that would seem like there were some things that were made more complex and maybe some things that were made more simple. I don't understand why changes, simply changes in the code, would require more time for inspections, which is, I think the case you're trying to make is it takes longer to do the inspections, and so there ought to be a higher fee for those. That is correct. Well, there's a couple of things there, Councilman. One, the code is going to make it on all the ARC false GFIs that they're adding, sir. And then the next code is going to be even more. it takes longer to go through and check these, going back and resetting them, then checking the rest of them down the line. And plus the fact, as we know, the economy is starting to pick up, which means we're going to have some more work in front of us. But you get paid for that work. That's correct. I mean, adding a person if they're doing more work and generating more revenue does not affect your bottom line negatively. Well, along with the time and having to buy another vehicle and what have you. I see. You know, and matching retirement. You know, the cost of another employee is going to go up. You know, it's going to. Okay. Thank you. You're welcome. Thank you. One other question. On page 8 in the summary, it talks about people not having been given raises, and it says some of those earnings have supplemented Mr. Jones' level of salary for over 10 years. Can you give us an idea about what that supplement has been additionally? Well, it was the revenue figures that you saw the last time. I don't have those numbers right in front of me, but let me. So what was listed then as basically profit? Profit, but, yeah, with the consideration, I mean, we didn't actually break that down after he got it, how it was addressed. Some of it would be the fact that he reinvested it back into the company to buy equipment and also to buy fleets of vehicles, things like that. But wouldn't reinvestment show up as an expense? No, as a capital expenditure. So we don't have it in our ordinary expenses. You don't show depreciation? No. I see. Okay, thank you very much. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, sir. Council Member Stennett. Thank you, Chair. And I don't have any questions for you per se, but I do have a question. Commissioner Paulson, this is bidded out once every five years or once it can renew for up to five years. Where are we at in that process with the current provider? No? I believe it's another two more years. No, we're in a second. You're in a second, so it's three more years before it comes back up again, I believe. And it's annually renewed at our discretion so we could cancel. We could. And do you know if we had any other bidders last time? I think last time there were not, but I believe we have had some in the past. Because some of my concern is we're basing fees upon a single provider, and that's what we're charging to our community. And if we have a new bidder in three years, what were those fees? Will we reset them again based on what they could do it for? Could they do it cheaper? So there's a lot of issues at play here, and I'm a little leery of using someone else's, you know, their costs to run their business versus what someone else could do. Have we had any input, Commissioner, from the community actually uses the inspections and works in the industry? The comments we've had have been about the services they provide. So when we talk to people, you know, the comments have been, you know, how quickly are they, how quickly do they do the inspections? From a residential standpoint, we've had no complaints. I've talked to numerous homeowners, including to the homeowners association, about that. They all feel fine with the service. They're very appreciative of how quickly they respond. From a commercial standpoint, some of the commercial developers that I talked to were a little more hesitant on some of the increases possibly affecting them more, but also realizing that some of those costs get passed down to their developments are a little bit different. They're not necessarily on spec, but they said eventually that could come back to be a problem as you keep building in those fees. Those were the general comments that I received when talking to different developers. And I have, too. I mean, I know they do a good service. They're on time. They do it within 24 hours. They've done everything they're supposed to. So I'm just trying to justify, though, to make sure there's a need for the increase in costs. And I respect that everyone's cost goes up in doing business right now from what they were three or four years ago. So thank you for that information. And, you know, Chair, the only other issue, you know, not that I dispute, Mr. Vickery, you can come up, any of the things you provide us. but how do we know these are actual and true expenses? I mean. Well, other than my client's word that they are, if you want audited financial statements. Well, that's, I mean, normally in the course of our duty, we work on audits. I mean, we do it ourself. We do it on the airport, the library. I'm just curious about some of these pages in here. There's no benchmark. And my client generated those tables from their own software. So with that said, you know, if you want to. And this is based on tax returns, I assume, or something like that? Okay. That's what I was getting to. Yeah. So I want to say QuickBooks maybe or Quicken or one of those types of programs that they utilize is where it came from. What about other benchmarks in the industry across the state or in this country? All that I can provide you is what we did in the last table, is what the fees are from other communities. What page is that? Communities. It's the very last one, so I apologize. It's the very last table. Our last page has your proposal. Yeah, so it would be probably starting 42. I'll weigh in the front. Starting on page 42. And those are rates and fee schedules that you're going to see in the respective communities. Some of them may be counties. Some of them may be municipalities. But as for the numbers, obviously the numbers, the totals could be a little bit skewed because they're smaller counties. If Louisville's in there, it's a larger municipality. I don't know if Louisville was in there this time. I don't see them. But what I was going to ask, though, in asking that question is, do they operate under the same restraints, 24-hour inspections? No, no, no. My client has to be bonded. My client has to be 24-7. And no. To my knowledge, nobody even has an RFP that they have to qualify for and bid. They just submit something, and it's accepted by a body like this. Right. And, again, it goes back to the current provider. They do a good job. I'm going to hear a lot of good things. So there's no dispute there, but I knew our criteria is a little more stringent than other communities around us. So, Chair, that's all my time. Thank you, sir. Thank you very much. No other council members have signed up? Commissioner, any other topics you wish to address in this? All right. Then we're right for a motion or no action. I'm sorry, you do? Yes, sir. Just the one that I brought last time, which is the idea of, I just want to remind again, just the annual or biannual reporting by the contractor about changes in code, what their costs were, et cetera, rather than doing this on an ad hoc basis, doing it more on an annual or semi-annual basis. So that was the one recommendation we made in the presentation last time. Again, I just wanted to bring that up if that was something for the committee to entertain. For us to sanction the change and how often we review this? Well, to actually have a review. So something where they would actually come in and report out what are the number of permits issued, what are the, you know, what are they, what was the income, changes in the code itself. So there would not be something that would be such a, you know, again, on an ad hoc basis coming in however many years. But being able to plan for some of those changes may be coming in the December period so that we could see if we needed to make changes in time for the new fiscal year, anything of that sort. But just putting it in on a more regular basis rather than ad hoc, where they may be on the eight ball, where there may be changes in the code, but making it a more systematic. We do these things for some of, again, some of our divisions do these reports on an annual basis. It might be something to think about here as well. Very good. Thank you. All right. I believe we're in a position where there's someone up. Peggy, Council Member Henson. Commissioner, thank you, Chair. Yes, ma'am. Has the city ever performed the inspections electrical? Not to my knowledge. Because they do do HVAC and? We do. And there are a lot of other communities that do their own inspections. We have not, to my knowledge, ever done electrical inspections. We went to this system of having just one contractor years ago because there used to be multiple inspection services that you could call, and they would do the inspections. And I think there were some concerns about quality control, and I think that's reflected in the RFP about the bonding and some of the other issues were derived from, I guess, sometime in the 80s about some of the concerns with the way that the system had been working. It might have been a little bit earlier than that. But that's, I believe, how that came about and why our RFP may be a little more stringent than other communities was some of the issues that were around at the time. Okay. I guess I was wondering if we could compare somehow, like comparing apples to oranges, I guess. I believe so. But, I mean, I know from the HVAC inspectors that we have, you know, they're skilled laborers, and they're working for LFUCG as an inspector or whatever, when really if they went out and worked in the field of HVAC, they could make more money, probably. There's some give and take in that. We've had people that come in. There are some benefits to working. Being a commercial HVAC inspector, I mean not inspector but installer, versus being an inspector, there are some benefits that you get, obviously, if we're working for the government as opposed to being in the private field. But that being said, just being an installer does not make you certified to be an HVAC inspector. They still have to go through that inspection process, which is the same as the electrical inspection. It is a certification that they have to go through, as with all the other inspectors we have. Have you looked over the code changes? We have not. I am familiar with the fact that they changed, but we don't have anybody on staff that is an expert on electrical inspections simply because we haven't had anyone that's really done it for a very, very long time. I guess I was also thinking if there are significant changes and if the city were doing the inspections, then we could look at it, increase the fees. But since this is a bidded out contract. Well, I will say code changes are not unusual for anything in building inspection. We've just had the same kinds of changes that have just undergone our residential code. So, I mean, those do happen every few years. So they're common. They are. They're very common. In fact, we just had a change within the last year. They just printed them out. The changes took effect earlier this year. So it's not uncommon for building codes to change on a, you know, every couple year basis. and within residential, within commercial, even within plumbing, although we do not do plumbing inspections in the state. But those sorts of things do occur on a fairly regular basis within the code inspection. Yeah. Okay. Well, I suspect that they've been providing a good service to the community. They want to continue doing so. So they were bringing this to our attention. Correct. So just kind of as a heads up because they didn't want it to go where they weren't able to keep up or whatever. Right, and again, this is where the idea of doing something on a more regular basis rather than ad hoc, rather than it getting to the point where they may be to a point where they do have kind of a financial crisis in terms of the cost that it may be incurring, putting this out on a regular basis where we can see the number of inspections and what their costs are and what the changes are in the code that may be coming. it might be good for the community to have. So that was our one recommendation. We were sort of stayed out on the others. Yeah. Okay. I guess I thank you. Yes, ma'am. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, ma'am. Vice Mayor Gordon. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So on that one particular issue, do you need the council to authorize that, or is that something you can do? I think it would be good if the council did authorize that. If you could just say that you, you know, I think make a motion to have them come back on whatever your choice. Is it an annual? Annual basis perhaps? Whatever it may be. Take that as part of the motion if we get one on the fees. We can work with them on the specifics of what that presentation would look like as well. I'd like to go ahead and make that as a separate motion, first of all, to have an annual review. Is that how you would like it? That's the fee structure. The fee structure and the schedule. All right. We have a motion. Second. Second. Any discussion on that from anyone? All those in favor? Aye. Those like sign. Thank you. Anything else? Yes, thank you. I mean, this is, I think we're, we have a real dilemma here because on the one hand, Commonwealth Inspection has a very good reputation, as Council Member Stenet said. You do good work. There haven't been any increases, I don't think, since 2009, correct, in the fees. And so that's five years. We all know gas has gone up. Everything's gone up, probably, in cost. So there's that point of view. On the other hand, if we, as the council, raise the fees, then that puts an increased cost on our housing. And that gets passed directly to the consumer, I would presume. so there's a you know kind of a yin and yang here and so for me personally I think it's a real dilemma and a lot of companies in these last few years have been dealing with a very similar thing and so I don't have another question I'm just I think we have a real dilemma here it will be helpful for us to have the annual review on a regular basis of the fee structure. I think that's going to help everyone. And I just want to be sure I understand what you said as your answer to my previous question. If there was one thing in here that you think really is a point of where your fees are not commensurate with the work, I think you said it was the final inspection. Yes, ma'am, the final inspection. So do you mind to go to the – this is all recorded, so nobody hears you but us if you don't speak on the microphone. I'm very sorry. I'm not used to this. It's okay. The final inspections is where the new code is going to really take our time. And, of course, apartment buildings. At $12 a unit after the first one, we've been taking the beating on that for years. So under your proposal, you've actually, under the final inspection, if I read this correctly, you've proposed decreasing two fees. Well, it's only a decrease on one little part of it, but you make it up in the other. Yes, okay. Yeah. You're correct. There is a decrease in... A couple of them and then an increase. Right, but it makes it back up on the $10 from $45 to $55 and then $0.50 a fixture. Okay. And that evens everything off, ma'am, may I say, to an even quarter, $0.50, $0.75 or $1. The other way, it's always been $0.20, $0.15. It just kind of makes it a little simpler for everybody to... Okay, thank you. and I appreciate the good service you give our citizens. Thank you, ma'am. Council Member Kaye. Thank you, Chair. I guess final comments myself. I think too many questions have been raised about what we're looking at and what it means, and we don't have enough solid information. And I just went back and looked at the expenses sheet on page 73, and I'd asked a question about depreciation, but depreciation is an expense. I presumed it was because it typically is, and it's listed on the, this is on page 73, on your 2011-12-13. So I think that's just one example of the fact that questions have been raised about whether we would really be better off having an audited report. In any event, I'm just not comfortable raising the cost of housing for the community on the basis of the information we have here. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, sir. As I had said earlier, unless there are others who wish to initiate a motion of any sort, we may have taken all of our action on this at this time. page 64 shows the current and proposed fees generally speaking and page 76 shows the current proposed fees i think the vice mayor has done a good job of trying to delineate the potential need for changing the final inspection and potentially something with apartments but unless there's a motion or further interest we we may remand this keep it in committee and look for further opportunity later on it or we could remove it i don't know that we'll also be up to the Pledge the committee. Council Member Henson. Thank you, Chair. Yes, ma'am. I would recommend possibly that if they could come back with more detailed information where we could do a comparison, current cost and the proposed fees along with other documents that other council members mentioned. But, you know, I'm assuming also that when builders are involved and anybody that does any kind of renovations, home repairs, prices go up every day. But you're kind of stuck with what the city, what you bid on, what you have agreed with the city as a fee. So I'm not opposed to increasing it, but I think I would like for it to stay in committee. And if you could bring us back more information. Thank you. Lacking any other commentary from the committee, we will keep this issue in the referral list. I guess we would be open, yes, for more information either as requested by members of the committee or the council or supplied by the bureau itself. That being said, unless there's anything else, we will move along to the next item. Thank you all for your time again today. We look forward to having more conversation with you. Thank you very much. Then item four, which is a little bit of a combo, starts on page 77. This is the first item is code enforcement fines as placed by Councilmember Lawless. And then secondary assistance for code enforcement compliance as placed by Vice Mayor Gorton. So would either one of you like to make a comment or we'll just let staff? All right. Go. You want to speak? You don't have to. Go right ahead. Yes, ma'am. I had this in committee the last time looking at raising the fees for code enforcement fines. And what we got was a presentation, and it had all the fines and all that. and it was said then that they're getting new equipment and would like to wait until all that was in place. And now it's here again, and there's nothing in here. We don't have the fee schedule, the fine schedule, and there's nothing in here about raising, once again, the fees for the fines that are levied for code enforcement violations that are not fixed in a timely and appropriate manner. So I'm a little frustrated with this. Well, it was nothing that was left out for any reason that I'm aware of. No, it's just, you know, last time we got all the information on what the fines were, but none of the other information, and we left it in committee to look at raising the fines, and we don't have any information about the fines. Okay. Noted for the moment anyway. Anyone else right now? You're good. If you want to make your comments and maybe address that at the end. Sure. Thank you. So I'll just go through the presentation. I'll address that towards the end. And as I go through the presentation. So today, this is actually a combination of two items dealing with code enforcement. There was the fines item and also the assistance for low-income homeowners with violations. So today I'm going to go through the operating procedures review, which is something we talked about in the last presentation, also the low-income assistance programs, and some technology improvements. So, and we've presented on several of these items already in committee, but we have gone through a lot of the operating procedures within code enforcement, and these are some very specific changes we've talked about. Nuisances are abated even if they're unrecoverable. That's foreclosures, other properties with an unclear title. Also, unenforceable nuisances, which we've provided that criteria before. That's often property that's secured by a locked gate or is for some other reason dangerous to the contractors that would be abating them. Those will go directly to civil penalties now, so they will not sit in any sort of limbo just because they are unenforceable. And also timeline extensions will require an approved compliance schedule of getting the property in compliance, which is very important for those cases that seem to sort of just continually get extended. And so we want to make sure we're keeping those on track, being reasonable with weather and other conditions that are outside of everyone's control. So the division is also continuing to look through all their forms and notices to make sure we're being as clear as possible, because at the end of the day, our goal is compliance, certainly, and not just to issue fines. So the clearer we can be with our forms and notices in the first place to set the expectations, the better off we are. Also, to standardize our timelines between events in the process, that includes when we re-inspect, when we go to abate once it's determined that that notice period has expired. And we're also looking within the division at training options to provide a more consistent application of the International Property Maintenance Code. Our nuisance violations are much smaller. Those are just adopted in local ordinance. But the International Property Maintenance Code is a very large document. And so it's very important that we apply that consistently for housing violations. In terms of assistance programs, we have implemented having all of that financial assistance information sent with the first notice of violation. Also, I was prepared to come to you today to speak about some ideas we had for how to do this internally, but very recently I have entered into a partnership with the current Leadership Lexington class to develop a program that will connect our private volunteers and resources to these low-income homeowners. They're very excited about it. I'm meeting with them again next week. So we're not exactly sure how that program will look at this point, but the idea is that there are a number of groups out there that are interested in helping low-income homeowners that have these minor housing violations, and we obviously have a great list of people that would be eligible for that within code enforcement. So connecting those two resources is very important, and we're certainly going to explore that very quickly. Technology improvements, we're working on sort of several tracks here. We have our current system, which we have to use, and we have a new system, which will obviously be much better. So we have added some functionality to the current system to allow people to track the status of a case more directly. They will be able to add field notes in that electronic database. Right now, we have sort of an odd combination of electronic database with some paper files, and you have to cross-reference to really get a full picture of the case. So to get part of the way there with our current technology limitations, we have added this field that allows field notes to be submitted, but once they're submitted, they're not able to be edited in the future, so that ensures sort of a consistent transparency as people look at the case in the future. We have received iPads for the inspectors. They've been processed. We're currently going through the development process for that software. And the first step right now is we're gathering all the requirements we need, how that data should be structured. And that's a fairly involved process. Current code enforcement database was made a number of years ago, and it was very well made for the era that it was made in. However, now as processes have changed and as technology has changed, we are going to demand a lot more out of that system. And so we have to go through and really think about both our processes and how they work and also how we want to structure that data so we can get the sort of information we want out of it to be transparent and consistent across the city. So I will address the question of fines. At the last presentation, we did go through and display all the current fines. The reason you don't see a proposed fee schedule in here is the Department of Planning does not recommend an increase in the fines now. We think that we have a better shot of getting compliance, which is what we're after, by updating our operating procedures, by implementing this new technology. We think that will get us there. Our fines were raised just a few years ago. We think they're appropriate for the violations, and we don't necessarily think adding more at this time would increase our effectiveness with getting compliance on code enforcement issues. So with that, I'll take any questions on this issue. Yes, sir. Thank you very much. First, Council Member Mazzotti. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Jonathan. Maybe next time you could give us more of a synopsis of what's going on in the department. I certainly would like to know what are our number one type of code violations, and then also kind of maybe a balance sheet, how well we do with certain penalties, if they do work and if they don't. Just so before we go any further and look at maybe even discussing fines or whatever, we have a general idea of what's going on in the department, how many officers there are, And just, like I said, a synopsis of that's possible. Absolutely. Thank you. Councilmember Lawless. Hence my frustration. So basically, you didn't put it in here because you all decided you didn't want it. Well, if you would like to propose a change to the ordinance, we're happy to comment on that. It is not our proposal to change the ordinance? Yeah, it was mine. It's obviously within the purview of the committee and the council to edit the ordinance. Except this is the second time it's come to us. And what I'm hearing is you all don't think, you know, so we're just not getting information. What I have found in my district is that with all the rental property that's for students where we have people who are renting and own 40, 50, 60 rental properties, it has made a difference having those escalating fines, which happened the first year I was on council because it was like everything was $100. And so it was just the cost of doing business and they just didn't do it. So it has made, it has made a difference. And one of the issues is that I mean, I could cite a ton of situations. One is it took over two years to deal with one property. It actually got divided into two properties. and it was horrible and it was, you know, and they'd fine them and then they'd appeal it so they had to wait until they got to an appeals hearing and then, you know, then they'd give them another 90 days. And, you know, so that, and if those fines had been steeper because they don't want to go into foreclosure action until the fines reach a certain level of, say, $5,000. And then, oh, they finally did the foreclosure notice and they started doing the work again. So, you know, you've got these people that play the system, and the escalating fines has made a difference. But I think that there are some of those that aren't, that need to be higher because we do have those situations. And most of the time it is landlords in my district. It is not private citizens or homeowners, you know, or, you know, landlords that have one or two properties. It's these landlords that have multiple properties. and it's also not fair to the people they're renting to that, I mean, horrible situations that these young people are living with. So I feel like the fines have made, the escalating fines have made a huge difference and we need to reexamine those. and you know it's okay that you all have that opinion in it and certainly it's good to hear from staff about the opinion but as a council member it's frustrating to me that i've been trying to get this looked at for a year and still at the end of the day we don't have it and well i would say um you know certainly as a staff in the department of planning we don't recommend that However, if you, as part of the course of your duties as a councilman, would like to introduce that legislation, we obviously will implement whatever policies the council passes. Right, and that's what the whole purpose of hearing it in committee was, is so we could decide. But we haven't gotten information or the ability really to do it. Well, like I said, we're happy. With either presentation. We would be happy to. And I know this wasn't your decision. You weren't even working in the Division of Planning the last time. Well, I gave the last presentation on fines. I think we are happy to entertain that. Like I said, we are unable to draft an increased proposal whenever we don't support that policy. However, if the council chooses to bring one to us, we are happy to discuss it in this forum. Well, okay. Well, I have twice. And the other thing is some of the nuisance violations like high grass, you know, it has to be 12 or 18 inches, 12 inches before they're sited. Then they have two weeks, and if they appeal it. So it can be, you know, those kinds of things. It's not that much money. It's not that big a deal. But if you're living next door to waste high grass, it's, you know. So I think that the council needs to look at those kinds of situations, and my time's up. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Hollinger. Hollinger, nobody else up right now. May I make a suggestion? The idea behind having this meeting at this time was so if there was any motions to come from the meeting, we'd have time for this council to potentially take action on them, which means we'll turn these minutes around relatively quickly for the council to sanction. If you wanted to add something into that about some potential changes for these fees, I think we could make those part of the minutes or part of the discussion at the time we read it out, just as a way for this to have further airing on behalf of the issue which you've brought. If you would work on that for us, that would be excellent. All right? Thank you. Anything else on this issue or its companion part, the assistance for code enforcement compliance, number four? Anyone else? No takers. Thank you very much, sir. I appreciate it. Are you hanging with us? I'll just stay. Okay, thank you. Welcome back. Item five is building inspection civil offenses as brought by Council Member Lawless. Do you want to make any opening comments here on number five? All right, you're up. So this item was referred to committee, and I'll explain some of it. Actually, the civil part of this item is actually now in the Division of Planning, but I think we've got to it's zoning enforcement-related function. So I'll sort of go through today the general process of the civil fines and enforcement sort of more broadly across government and then also as it affects this item. So today I'll talk about just a general background. There are administrative hearing boards. There are several of them throughout government for different civil purposes. And then I'll talk about some of the enforcement challenges and our recommendations on this issue. So generally speaking, civil penalties can be assessed for violations of our local ordinance. and that applies across government. Unpaid civil penalties can be filed as liens against a property. We do not do that for all civil citations in government, but we do for some. And those options, like I said, exist in many areas. We issue civil citations, for example, in waste management for those offenses, in water quality for violations there as well. So it does exist in other places other than zoning enforcement and code enforcement, which is what you generally would hear about. So as a little bit of a background, zoning enforcement was transferred from the Division of Building Inspection to the Division of Planning in 2012. So that's where that civil arm resides. Building code violations, which is what remains in the Division of Building Inspection, those are actually handled through a state process. So that did not appear to be what we were talking about here. That's a different issue as well because generally speaking, you're required to build things to that building code. and if you disagree with the interpretation, you actually appeal to a state board. So it's slightly different. So administrative hearing boards are authorized by the Kentucky Revised Statutes for civil enforcement. We have several here locally. We have the code enforcement administrative hearing boards, which hear the appeals of code enforcement cases. Separately, we have an infrastructure hearing board, which hears the appeals from a variety of different areas, including engineering, water quality, planning, which would include zoning enforcement, traffic engineering, and streets and roads. And then we also have the Environmental Hearing Commission, which is a separate board as well that hears waste management and littering offenses. So according to state statute, those hearing boards have, they can adopt their own rules and conduct hearings. They can subpoena alleged violators, witnesses, and other evidence. They also take testimony under oath, make issues, and can impose civil penalties as authorized by our local ordinance. So one of the problems that we run into has less to do with the boards and getting there, and more to do with the enforcement challenges on the front end. Some violations are simply just difficult to document. For example, within zoning enforcement, a common complaint would be somebody is operating a business out of their home. Depending on the nature of that business, it may be exceedingly difficult to determine if there is, in fact, being a business operated there, and it's not for personal use in some way. I will give an example would be we had a long-going case in Councilmember Henson's district of somebody that was operating a yoga studio out of their home. And obviously when zoning enforcement went to investigate, they were just the person's friends. And then some people were paying, some people were not. It's difficult to determine. In fact, the police had to be involved at some point with the investigation because zoning enforcement does not have all the investigative techniques that, say, the police department does. The appeals process for notices of violation with regard to zoning enforcement, which is what we're talking about here, is actually quite confusing. If you're going to appeal the validity of that citation, meaning you disagree with the interpretation, you actually go to the Board of Adjustments. However, if you have failed to appeal that or you have lost your appeal and you've been issued a civil citation, that appeal would go to the Infrastructure Hearing Board. So the process is quite convoluted, and it's very difficult to follow. Another challenge is the civil penalties don't, as we know, lead to actual compliance. So we can issue civil penalties for a variety of zoning enforcement violations, whether that's businesses that are being operated or other issues. And often within the zoning ordinance, it's a relatively small fine, so it doesn't always lead to where we want to be, which is compliance. And there's obviously some famous cases of zoning enforcement in and around town and compliance. So administrative hearings are also inefficient for minor violations. In order to get compliance on, for example, something that's in the site triangle of an intersection, it would be much easier to just abate that violation, which is authorized by the ordinance, which I'll get to in one of our examples here. but generally speaking, there are a lot of challenges of enforcement on the front end that make it difficult to document these violations in the first place. I know, Council Member Lawless, you had spoke about gravel being an issue in your district, and I know that is an issue for many of the neighborhoods. It's tough to determine the violations in the first place because, as we spoke about before, you're allowed to refresh that gravel. However, you're not allowed to expand it. But it's very difficult for us to determine where the boundary was before and where it is now. And then also they have the owners of that property have other remedies they can apply to pave those areas and do lots of other things. So it's difficult to enforce that on the front end. They rarely make it to the infrastructure hearing board because of the enforcement challenges on the front end. However, as we spoke about at the last meeting, we think that we can make some progress on a couple issues here. One is to utilize the abatement that's already authorized in Article 5 of the zoning ordinance for zoning enforcement to go ahead and take care of those minor violations. All we would ask for there is an amendment to Resolution 343-2012. That was a resolution establishing a fund of $200,000 annually for nuisance abatement, and so we're just asking to add zoning enforcement as an activity that's allowed to be funded out of that fund. That would be the only action we would request there. We are also going to look at our zoning ordinance in terms of what the civil penalties are. Right now they're $75, which is obviously not going to inspire a lot of people. To Council Member Lawless's point about code enforcement, the fines used to be very low, and we did double them several years ago, and that had some effect. I think in this case, at $75 per violation, we should examine those and see exactly what we can do there. So with that, if anybody has any questions about this, I'm happy to answer them. Council Member Lawless, please. Thank you, Chair. Yes, ma'am. When we changed, and again, this was something I was very proactive. And when we changed the building inspection local ordinances from criminal to civil, the intention, I believe, of the committee and the council at the time was that they would then be inspected and enforced by code enforcement. and then all of a sudden, so that didn't happen. And so they don't have the same kind of teeth that code enforcement has with, you know, the escalating civil penalties and putting liens on a house. And all I can say is I keep hearing my – it's not because I think we need to fund our city with this. It does change compliance. And I could probably fill this room ten times with constituents that will stand up there and tell you that. And, you know, it was, I mean, we had, we were, I think, the only community in the state of Kentucky that, when I came on council, did not have any fines or fees for people doing building inspection things without a permit. And everybody just say, oh, just go on and do it. If they catch you, they'll just give you a permit. Now, if you demolish something without a permit, you know, there's no fee or fine for that because it's already gone. So it's like they can't give them a permit. They tag it to the permit they give them. I mean, it just makes no sense. So, but why gravel is in zoning, where they can't abate it, where they can't, where they don't do anything, where it's a $75 fine, which never happens. You know, there are several of those kinds of things that the excitement about moving them out of building inspection was to put them in code enforcement where the fines and fees were higher, where they had the ability to abate them and put liens on the property. And, you know, it may—I don't know where that decision was made. It wasn't made by this council, but— I did review the ordinances, and they had set up the infrastructure hearing board as an administrative hearing board, very similar, authorized by the same statute that code enforcement uses for theirs, But they did set them up as distinctly different rather than just add it to the duties of the Division of Code Enforcement. Yeah, I mean, I don't know how that happened or whatever. But, you know, there are many of those things that became civil penalties that there's no rhyme or reason to why it would be zoning, planning and zoning that would be enforcing those. when we have a much better system, which there's more compliance with, you know, code enforcement than there has been with since they've been moved into zoning. And we are going to look at how those compare. The fee schedule is within the zoning ordinance for those violations. So we're going to look at that compared to what our code enforcement is. It's obviously very different at this point. We have an escalating schedule within the code of ordinances. So we're going to compare those and look to see what the problem is. But we're just sort of now diving into the idea of civil enforcement within zoning enforcement. Well, and in that time, is my time up? Okay. I'll be back. Well, spoken like a true. Okay. Thank you, ma'am. Next is Council Member Henson. Thank you, Chair. Yes. Jonathan, thank you. Can you give me an example of a zoning violation that would be abated? Probably the best example, well, there's two examples that I'll give you. One would be people that have constructed something within the site triangle of an intersection that would fall outside of the right-of-way, so code enforcement would not enforce it. We would go ahead and remove that. That's a public safety issue, obviously. It violates the zoning ordinance. So that would be something that we could do. That could be landscaping or some other type of structure that's been built there, signage or otherwise. So that would be a minor violation that we could certainly evade. The other thing that we would like to look at is illegal sign structures that are outside of the right-of-way as well. There's many types of signs that are not allowed. It doesn't stop people from putting them up. So we would like to go ahead and be able to take care of those minor violations as well. Yeah, thank you. So if you do that, if you abate something, does the property owner then get cited or a bill? It would be the same process as code enforcement, so there would be a civil penalty applied for the cost of that abatement. Okay. And I wanted to ask, and then I'll be done, but have you thought, given any more thought to an enforcement division where you would have one division that would enforce code zoning? We have, and, you know, that's obviously a fairly large organizational change for this government that would involve a lot of work. That is something we're certainly interested in looking at. And it would be similar to, you know, a division of civil enforcement that would enforce all of our civil citations throughout government. There's certainly a lot of work there, and we need to examine all that. There's very distinct roles that are played. Code enforcement, for example, they are one in two family home inspectors. They're certified, so they're able to do condemnations and housing, and that's very different than, for example, zoning enforcement. So we'd have to figure out how to structure that, but that is certainly something that we're interested in pursuing. Okay, good. I hope that that's something you'll continue to look at, you know, because I have known properties where you've got three different divisions of government on the same property. It makes it very inefficient, so thank you for your presentation. Thank you, ma'am. Councilmember Kay. Thank you, Chair. I don't have a motion at this time, but I think I've got two suggestions that both would entail leaving this item in committee. The first is that we ask planning to draft language to amend Resolution 343-2012 to include zoning enforcement so that we have something concrete to look at when it comes back. Yes, sir. And the second is that we ask our own staff to draft up some options for raising civil penalties so that, again, we have something to look at. And Infill and Redevelopment Committee has had some conversations about this, so there's a little bit of a background. Yes. And I have an interest in at least looking at that. I don't know if I have an interest in raising them, but I think that there's some possibility that we could get a more effective code enforcement with some raised penalties. So that's my comment, and if that's good stuff, it doesn't need a motion. Thank you. I was going to add. Thank you, sir. All right. I was going to come to you and kind of say, do you want to craft something based on page 91, which is kind of what he has just done. I think we could, I think we need to. All right. Then let's take them one at a time. So the first one was to ask the government staff for the proper wording to amend resolution 343-2012 to include zoning enforcement activities in addition to nuisance abatement. Was that your motion? Your motion? If it needs a motion. I think we should do it. I think this gets us something done. Yes, that's the motion. Thank you. And a second. Councilman, follow us. All right. Any discussion on that? Anyone? All those in favor? Aye. Opposed, like, signed. Thank you. Now, how did you want to style the second one? That's just direction to our staff. Basically, if this committee, if there's no objection, let's get a little bit more information about what it might look like if we raise some of those penalties and what the pros and cons are. Is that enough direction for you to work on that? Yes. I think we're good there. Good. Thank you. You had said that abatement is authorized by Article 5 of the zoning ordinance. You mentioned something about the $200,000 sinking fund. Yes, and I think Council Member Kaye's motion covers that. Council Member Lawless, would you like to add something to the conversation? Yes, thank you again. Yes, ma'am. I read about the yoga sting in the New York Times, and that was good work. I think the psych triangle is governed by traffic engineering. The obstructions within it are in the zoning ordinance, so it would be enforced by zoning enforcement. Okay. One of the things I had asked for in a previous presentation when I was getting to the point of something was a list of what things were changed to civil penalties that are now done by zoning. Certainly, some of these things such as too many people living in the house would be a zoning issue. But things like gravel and signage, inappropriate off-premises signage, which is a horrible issue in the 3rd District because of all the student rental properties. And the signs stay up there 365 days a year, and they're not advertising for that particular house. obviously, because the signs say three to five bedrooms, $250 per person. Now, if it's that house, they should know how many bedrooms it has. And the signs are all alike. And they are on the main thoroughfares of Euclid, Maxwell, High, Waller Avenue, Elizabeth Street. And they trash up the neighborhood. I mean, you know, when you've got two-thirds of the houses on a street with a sign like that, and it's different, you know, different. And I know it's hard to enforce, but it is enforceable. You know, all you have to do is call and say, you know, is this for rent? and they say well no but we have some other houses that are for rent you know so that's illegal you know and and i think i've talked to you about it since you started working but i've been talking about this for six years the off-premises signage and that certainly it would be appropriate for code enforcement to enforce rather than zoning. Um, and, um, like I say, I mean, it, it absolutely, I mean, who wants to buy a house for their family to live on when you're in a block that has two thirds of the houses have these trashy for rent signs out in front of them. So it's a serious quality of life. And there are times the gravel, it may not be that easy, but it isn't impossible. And I've talked to zoning about gravel and they know, they said, yeah, they didn't. And we're working with them to do something else, nothing's ever done. Nothing is ever done. So, you know, so anyway, I appreciate that. And I'd also like to add to your motion that on the, that first of all, we get a clear list of what civil penalties that used to be in building inspection got transferred to zoning. And I can probably briefly answer that here. Oh, please don't. Yeah, we don't have time. I mean, she's almost to the end of her commentary. We've taken action on this in a couple of ways. She's trying to add something on to it. We're there. We're done. Go ahead. And then examine which of those would be best to be put into code enforcement and have our staff look at it also. So that's my motion. Keep it in committee. I think we're going to do what you asked for. I don't hear a second for your motion, but I think we've made one directive about changing the ordinance. The same thing. Okay. And then we've asked staff to come back with the things that he had enumerated, and I think you added on to slightly. Are you clear with what her question in terms of the additional information is? Thank you very, very much. We'll turn around the minutes as quickly as we can. Thank you. Thank you. The third district thanks you. You're quite welcome. Both of you. All right. Next on our agenda in a rather short period of time is item number six, which is the zoning text amendments for food trucks in the P1 and AU zones. This was placed in committee by Council Member Akers. She is not present at this time, but I think that Council Member Kay is ready to take up the discussion. Sir. Thank you, Chair. Yes. Council Member Akers asked if I would, if there were time to do this, I would bring it back up. There were four alternatives that were proposed at the last meeting. The alternative that was actually moved as a motion failed on a 4-4 vote. Council Member Akers asked if I would bring back up alternative two with a difference, which is that the conditional use of less than 500 feet would be stricken. So the motion would be to adopt Alternative 2, which is mobile food unit vendors as accessory uses if located 500 feet or greater from a property-zoned residential. And she left me with a list of four areas where people are interested in doing this that would meet that criteria. Just briefly, a Paragon Center out at Harrisburg in Alexandria, perimeter office park at McGrathianna Parkway, Corporate Drive, and South Creek Park all would fit, and it would be basically just a straightforward accessory use if it met the criteria of being away from residential areas. So move. So this is a motion to take altar number two, mobile food unit vendors as accessory, if located 500 feet or greater from a property zone residential, period, and leave the conditional use out. Is that correct? Yes. All right. We have a motion and a second, and we are in discussion. Council Member Gordon. Pardon me. Vice Mayor Gordon. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, Mr. King, I have a question because at the last meeting I requested that or talked about a possibility of amending the motion to be a blend of alternative two and four. Four is accessory uses within a designated professional office project and would include the 500 or greater from a property zoned residential. Can you tell me what difference my hybrid of two and four would be to just two? What the impact or the look of it would be? Certainly. A couple of comments. First of all, as to the number two is any site zone professional office. So that could be a small one or whatever. but the restriction would be it could not be located if less than 500 feet. I don't know for sure, Councilman K., whether you can prohibit someone from going to the Board of Adjustment when you have that dimensional requirement and asking for a variance. That is something law would have to research and opine on, whether if I understood your motion, you wanted 500 feet, but you don't want the right to have that ever varied. Correct. And so the question is, could we include in that a zone tax amendment that would specify that there would be no variance? Is that legal or not? And we don't know. And we don't know. State statute may trump you on that one. Shame on them. Thank you. So back to the hybrid. What difference would there be if we did a blend of alternate two and alternate four? Sure. It would have to be if it's in the professional office project. If you tie it to that as was suggested in alternative four, then you're talking about those large places like Corporate Center, like Paragon Park, You know, the large multi-building office parks that we have, a number of those in the community, there's a minimum requirement that they have to be at least 10 acres in size, and they have to petition the Planning Commission through their development plan to be a professional office project. And I think those are the ones that we heard from in the letters that were generated to Councilmember Akers, were the large ones. I did not research that, but it would be my opinion that all those that did ask are professional office projects. Okay. So if we did a hybrid of two and four, then it would just apply to the designated professional office projects, correct? And it would still have then the distance requirement so that, you know, where you have, for instance, I know Paragon Center, you have the last office and then the next property along Alexandria is a residential structure. Yes. You could put the food truck at the other end, but they couldn't put it right next to the residential structure. Okay. So based on that, council members, I move to amend the motion and request that we initiate a text amendment to go to the planning commission that would be the blend of alternate two and And alternate four. Second. A motion to amend has been seconded. We had two people signed up. I would just say let's just speak briefly whether it's to the amendment or the motion, if that's all right. And I'll go to Council Member Kaye first. Thank you, Chair. Yes, sir. So, Chris, even with the hybrid, there still could be someone going to the Board of Adjustment and asking for a variance from the accessory use. Is that correct? asking for the variance if they are closer than the 500 feet, and it would be fully vetted with notice. So it would make no difference in that regard. Right. Okay. So the only reason that I would prefer not to accept the amendment is that it seems to me, and you can tell me if I'm right, that if we have a designation, you folks will have to designate. So if somebody comes forward and said, I meet whatever the criteria are for being designated, then you have to designate me. But right now we don't have criteria. We would have to create criteria for designation and then people would have to basically say I want to be designated. Is that right? No, sir. In fact, they are already designated. When people come to the Planning Commission and get a P1 and they wanted a professional office project, which gave them some other breaks, They could reduce their parking requirement somewhat below the normal minimums because, again, you're dealing with a larger entity. They are also allowed to have certain uses that you're not allowed in just a standalone professional office. So we do have, I would guess, just off the top of my head, between six to a dozen designated professional office projects that did request that when they came to the Planning Commission. I see. Well, that helps me. And so it basically, I think, it doesn't remove totally my objection to the amendment, but it removes enough of it that I would be able to support the amendment so that we can move forward at this time. And if we want to expand it later, we can have another conversation. But thank you. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, sir. Councilman Masati. It's been answered. Thank you. The question I had. Then are there any other comments on our motion to amend? Then if you'll bring up a voting screen for us, we want to vote on the amendment to create a blend of numbers 2 and 4. I'll ask you all to vote, please. And that looks like it's going to pass 10-0. We're all in. Okay. So that effectively amends our motion, which then brings it to the floor for a complete vote, unless there are other comments on this as it's been amended. Then all those in favor, signify by saying aye or voting. Aye. Thank you all very much. We have made it just in time. We'll make sure we turn the, we won't enter into referral items at this time. We'll make sure the minutes for this meeting are turned quickly so that the council can take action on the things we have worked on today. And I would just tell you all it's been a pleasure to chair Planning and Public Works while they work together. I ask for a motion to adjourn. Motion and a second. All those in favor? Aye. All those like sign. We are adjourned. Music Thank you. Thank you.