# Planning and Public Safety Committee - October 13, 2015 > Auto-transcribed civic record · October 13, 2015 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/3793 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/3793?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2015-10-13 - **Last revised**: July 15, 2026 - **Length**: 12,126 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed with OpenAI's open-source Whisper large-v3-turbo model, run locally by The Lexington Times. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude. Verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Planning & Public Safety Committee met on October 13, 2015, at 1:00 p.m., with Mossotti presiding. The committee addressed four agenda items during the session, taking 14 motions and votes. One member of the public provided comment during the meeting. The committee approved two items: the Insurance for Fireworks Displays proposal and the Code Compliance Assistance initiative. One agenda item regarding Drones (Unmanned Aircraft Systems-UAS) was tabled for future consideration. Items referred to the committee were deferred. ## Attendance The following individuals were present at the meeting on October 13, 2015: * Mossotti * Scutchfield * Kay * Stinnett * Akers * Gibbs * Lamb * Farmer * Bledsoe * Henson No absences or late arrivals were recorded. ## Votes and Decisions All motions brought to a vote during this meeting passed unanimously. **Approval of August 13, 2015 Planning & Public Safety Committee Summary and Motions** [timestamp: 0:03:00] Motion by Henson, seconded by Scutchfield. Passed unanimously. **Extension of Mr. Scanlon's Speaking Time** [timestamp: 0:03:34] Motion by Farmer, seconded by Henson, to extend Mr. Scanlon's time by three minutes. Passed unanimously. **Insurance Pricing Policy for Firework Displays** [timestamp: 0:04:05] Motion by Bledsoe, seconded by Henson, to approve the Administration's return to Committee with a recommended policy for the best pricing of insurance for firework displays. Passed unanimously. **Code Compliance Assistance Pilot Project** [timestamp: 0:56:49] Motion by Akers to move forward with the pilot project for code compliance assistance as proposed by Mr. Hollinger and the Leadership Lexington Group. Passed unanimously. **Agenda Removals** [timestamps: 0:57:53 through 1:05:49] The following items were removed from the agenda by unanimous vote: - Greenway item (motion by Akers, seconded by Farmer) [timestamp: 0:57:53] - Merged Division of emergency management with fire department (motion by Henson, seconded by Farmer) [timestamp: 0:59:59] - Scrap metal dealers item (motion by Farmer, seconded by Farmer) [timestamp: 1:01:02] - Sky Lanthorns item (motion by Farmer, seconded by Farmer) [timestamp: 1:02:41] - Armstrong Mill small area plan (motion by Brown, seconded by Farmer) [timestamp: 1:04:18] - Cardinal Valley feasibility study (motion by Henson, seconded by Farmer) [timestamp: 1:04:49] - Fireworks display item (motion by Bledsoe, seconded by Farmer) [timestamp: 1:05:19] - Drones item (motion by Maloney, seconded by Farmer) [timestamp: 1:05:49] **Advertising Supplements Item** [timestamp: 1:03:13] Motion by Henson, seconded by Farmer, to place the advertising supplements item back into committee with a review date of January 2016. Passed unanimously. **Adjournment** [timestamp: 1:14:29] Motion by Henson, seconded by Farmer, to adjourn. Passed unanimously. ## Budget and Financial Actions The meeting included consideration of funding for a proposed pilot program focused on code compliance assistance. An appropriation of $10,000 was discussed to support this initiative. ## Public Comment [timestamp: 1:10:09] Randy Glover, a former taxi driver, addressed the council regarding systemic issues within the taxi cab industry. Mr. Glover raised concerns about lost bond money and the lack of protections currently available to drivers. He emphasized the need to expedite the taxi ordinance to ensure compliance with state law and to establish safeguards for taxi drivers operating in the jurisdiction. ## Appointments Steve Kay was appointed to the Planning & Public Safety Committee. ## Contested Items **Code Enforcement and Funding** Councilmembers debated the funding source for a code compliance pilot program. The disagreement centered on whether to fund the program from the nuisance abatement fund. Concerns were raised that allocating money from this fund would reduce resources available for nuisance abatement efforts, which councilmembers identified as critical for addressing blight in neighborhoods. The vote on this matter was split among the council. **Drones Regulation** Councilmembers engaged in a heated discussion regarding the regulation of drones. The primary concern was the potential for drones to be misused by individuals with criminal records, particularly sex offenders. Councilmembers also noted a significant regulatory challenge: local authorities lack control over airspace, which is regulated at the federal level. This limitation constrained the council's ability to implement local drone regulations despite their concerns about public safety and misuse. ## Drones (Unmanned Aircraft Systems-UAS) [timestamp: 00:03:34] Councilmember Maloney raised concerns about the safety and regulation of unmanned aircraft systems (drones) in the community. Maloney specifically highlighted worries about access to drones by individuals with criminal records and the operation of drones in proximity to schools and hospitals. The Police Chief and Hensley addressed these concerns by explaining the current regulatory framework. They noted that existing Kentucky state laws and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulations already address most operational issues related to drone use. According to their assessment, these existing regulations provide sufficient coverage for the primary safety and operational concerns. When asked about the possibility of implementing new local legislation to further regulate drones, the Police Chief and Hensley indicated that no new local legislation is currently feasible. This determination was based on the existing regulatory landscape already in place at the state and federal levels. The council did not reach a final resolution on the matter during this discussion. Instead, the item was tabled, allowing for further research to be conducted before any future action is considered. ## Insurance for Fireworks Displays Councilmember Bledsoe presented a revised insurance policy for fireworks displays during this agenda item. [timestamp: 0:24:10] **Proposal Details** The presentation outlined recommended insurance coverage amounts differentiated by event type: * $5 million coverage for city-sponsored events and public roadways * $2 million coverage for private events on private property **Key Participants** The discussion involved Councilmember Bledsoe, Chief Farmer, and Patrick Johnson. **Outcome** The proposal was approved unanimously by the council. ## Code Compliance Assistance [timestamp: 26:33] Jonathan Hollinger presented a proposed pilot program designed to assist low-income homeowners with exterior housing code violations. The program would provide up to $1,000 in reimbursement to eligible homeowners for addressing code compliance issues on their properties. **Program Details** The pilot program would be funded through the nuisance abatement fund and would be modeled after the existing sidewalk assistance program, which has an established framework for providing similar financial support to homeowners. **Participants** The agenda item was discussed by Jonathan Hollinger, along with council members Akers, Gibbs, Bledsoe, Kay, and Henson. **Outcome** The motion to move forward with the Code Compliance Assistance pilot program passed unanimously, indicating full support from the council members present. ## Items Referred During this agenda item, several matters were discussed and removed from the agenda or deferred for further consideration. [timestamp: 0:57:53] **Items Discussed:** The following items were addressed: - Greenway - Merged emergency management - Scrap metal dealers - Sky Lanthorns - Advertising supplements - Armstrong Mill - Cardinal Valley - Drones **Speakers:** The discussion involved Farmer, Henson, Brown, Akers, Bledsoe, Maloney, and Hensley. **Outcome:** The items were deferred, with the drones item specifically being tabled. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed: Approval of the August 13, 2015 Planning & Public Safety Committee Summary and Motions - **Motion** — passed: Motion to extend Mr. Scanlon's time by three minutes - **Motion** — passed: Motion to approve the Administration’s return to Committee with a recommended policy for the best pricing of insurance for firework displays - **Motion** — passed: Motion to move forward with the pilot project for code compliance assistance as proposed by Mr. Hollinger and the Leadership Lexington Group - **Motion** — passed: Motion to remove the greenway item from the agenda - **Motion** — passed: Motion to remove the merged Division of emergency management with fire department from the agenda - **Motion** — passed: Motion to remove the scrap metal dealers item from the agenda - **Motion** — passed: Motion to remove the Sky Lanthorns item from the agenda - **Motion** — passed: Motion to place the advertising supplements item back into committee with a review date of January 2016 - **Motion** — passed: Motion to remove the Armstrong Mill small area plan from the agenda - **Motion** — passed: Motion to remove the Cardinal Valley feasibility study from the agenda - **Motion** — passed: Motion to remove the fireworks display item from the agenda - **Motion** — passed: Motion to remove the drones item from the agenda - **Motion** — passed: Motion to adjourn --- ## Full transcript We want to maximize the benefits they provide. You mentioned the WEG games. Often what you see is ribbing cuttings and we'll do a big fancy planting and then after the event's over we walk away and we don't maintain them like you just mentioned. So that's our goal is we want to maintain what we have. Even the plants that we're putting in for the Breeders' Cup, the annuals will be replaced on an annual basis. annual basis with the perennials and the trees and shrubs. We want to sustain that. We want to do sustainable plants and sustainable landscape. Okay, so I think that's a good place to end on maintenance, sustainability, improvement of our tree canopy. So thank you, John, for joining us. Thanks again to Susan Kluger. Thank you all for watching. ¶¶ ¶¶ ¶¶ It's 1 o'clock. On Tuesday, I'm going to go ahead and call the Planning and Public Safety Committee. We do have quorum. First off, we have the committee summary. First, I'm going to... Mr. Farmer. I believe there's a couple of typos in some people's names. I think Mr. Sanner would like his name to spell correctly, and Chief Farmer would like his name to spell correctly. So I would move with both those changes to accept them as it gets submitted. Do I have a second? Second. All right. Council Member Kay has seconded. All those in favor? Aye. All those opposed? All right. Now to the motion made for approval. All those in favor? Aye. All those opposed? All right. First we have up on our agenda is regarding drones. I believe Council Member Maloney, were you going to present, or did you have somebody that was presenting on your behalf? Yeah, I appreciate that. Thank you. We've had some meetings. I've had some meetings with the C. What? C. I don't know if she's coming today. Is she going to be here? She's out of town today. Okay. Well, a couple reasons why I brought this up is because the first reason, we wanted to find out who can legally fly these things and who cannot legally fly these. And as you all know, we have a five-mile ratio around the airport that you cannot allow any kind of flying like that around there. That's one of the main reasons. I also thought somebody was going to come here today to talk about where the five-mile is. And the second reason I'm here is a lot of concerns about where if people get a hold of these, it's like a gun. You've got people that have license to use a gun and all that. I have concerns when you've got sex offenders out there that get a hold of one of these things and they get close to school with these things, they get close to people's neighborhoods with these things, and people are being concerned about those kinds. There's a lot of combinations of those kind of things out there that people are really concerned about, who gets a hold of these things. And I don't know if this is going to be an ongoing meeting to continue with this, but to me, I think the number one thing is I figured she was going to have somebody here to talk about what the law requires now, the five-mile radius for where you can fly and where you cannot fly. And the second thing is I needed law to get here to figure out, because for one example in California, a lady was sitting in her backyard. She got hit in the head with one of these things. It broke and it split her head open, but she was reliable for it because it fell on her property. So this is just a whole bunch of issues that I think we need to do. Now, I thought that prime example in California is like what we do on golf courses. If we hit the golf ball and it goes out and hits somebody, either an automobile or hits a house, that person's liable for their insurance to pay for it, not the property owner who the damage has been done. And I was wondering if there's something we have to change to make that the same rule. and I assume that might be a state or federal rule or something law to do that. But this is just a lot of unanswered territories. This is new. It's a concern to a lot of citizens that I have concerned, as you all know, in the last couple of weeks. We've had some incidents with the University of Kentucky where the ball game, you had a gentleman down here to hit the blue building, and there were times where they were flying going on, well, the FAA found that it was in violation. So I'm a little disappointed that we don't have anybody here to talk about that rule today because that's what we've been meeting about, and I just want to, I don't know how far you, if you have to table it or whatever, but these are the answers that I had questions about. I certainly apologize. I did not realize, I hadn't been informed that there was supposed to be a presentation, But what we will do is I will get with law, and then I also will get with the CIO, and we'll try, Council Member, we'll try it. What we'll do is we'll look up some of these legal ramifications of things and prepare an email and send that out to the council first, and then get the information you need, and then if you would like to follow up at the next meeting, we certainly can. Now, the police is here. They've been working on this for a while. I would like the police to get up and talk about what they know about it and what their concerns. I'm in favor for you guys working with these things. I just have a problem getting into the wrong hands, and I'm hoping you all see where my questions and concerns come from. So if you all can get up and do what you all are going with and what you can do, what you can't do, and maybe you might be able to educate some of the council members on some of the rules that you've heard from the FAA on what needs to be done and what cannot be done. Good afternoon. We'll try to provide. I'm not an expert in the matter, but I can tell you some of the research of what we've done on our own end, looking to see how we may be able to use a drone if we decide to go that direction down the road. Part of the five-mile radius that you're talking about around the airport, that is enforced by the FAA. And there are some restrictions for pretty much just about anybody with drones. But within that five miles, you can ask for an approval to fly a drone, but you have to coordinate that through the FAA. Now, again, the public side of it, there's not a lot of rules and regulations, and as everybody around the country is working on this right now, the FAA is kind of behind the curveball on this, and they'll readily admit it. The folks that work with the FAA on this, they're continuing to try to catch up and try to get there. So there are a lot of issues that everybody across the nation is trying to work on that. We also have the helipads, and there's certain restrictions around those as well, and we've actually had some drones that have landed on some of the hospital helipads. So there are some issues with that, too. He talks about some legislation, some of the other issues. There are some charges that we already have on the book, criminal laws, statutes that we can do. A one endangerment, the gentleman that flew the one into the Commonwealth Stadium, that is one where a one endangerment charge could easily be placed because of the risk and the factors that he put the folks that are in there where the drone landed. The lady in California used that example. That is another great one endangerment-type charge that could be placed at that point, with it flying in and hitting her in the head. I'm not familiar with that, but if that happened here, it would be a case-by-case basis, but that's one that we would look at as well. What were your other questions, sir? The question I have, and my concern is when you've got incidents where crime has been committed, and you know there's folks that are trying to find another alternative way to, like, you can't live within so many feet of school for sex offenders and things like that. Okay. I have a concern that this is another tool. that these folks can get a hold of. And to me, I know the gun laws, which is what we have, we have to have a license and all that. Our vision, this could be the same similar situation because to get this license, you really have to be an airplane pilot from what I understand. For a commercial license, you have to have pretty much our helicopter pilots are qualified for that, and that's the level you have to have with the medical licensing. But when you go to Radio Chat, you go to Kmart, you go to all these places, or Walmart, you can buy one. Sure. The civilian side of it, you can buy it, and there's very little regulations. Then you're putting this into the hands of what you have that I have a concern about. We're talking about safety. You've got hospitals that have helicopters that come in all the time. Does that five miles come in and range for those hospitals? It's not a five-mile radius around the hospitals. It's a smaller perimeter around the hospitals. What are the mileage on the hospitals? But there still is a perimeter. For example, what would be a mileage on the hospital? Because University of Kentucky is going to fall on all the hospitals except for the one over on Richmond Road. But you've got every one of them within the range right there for hospitals. You've got a lot of students that are buying these things now. and that's why I brought this to the council's attention I mean it's not just I'm hearing these from a lot of people I've had people pound them in their backyards and they don't know how it gets in their backyards I just don't I have a serious concern on who can get a hold of these and how easy it is to get a hold of these and in my opinion it's going to make y'all's job a little bit harder if you get the wrong people on these hands It does and there are some criminal laws that we can utilize for those investigations on a case by case basis but you're correct Anybody can go and purchase them at Walmart, Sam's. And I don't know if that's something we do here as the council or that's the state law that has to maintain something like that. Those are the kind of questions that I thought we were going to be able to ask today. And I asked Law to be here today to hopefully be able to answer some of this stuff. Because this is more than just a small event toy you play around with. It's a huge event concerning a lot of citizens and a lot of people who get a hold of it. So this is a national issue that's going on. Not only the most of the issues are occurring in California and moving this way. Drones are readily accessible. I mean, educational components going along with it. We have looked at it and to see if there are criminal charges we currently have on file that can be associated with the uses of those drones. I think to get into a regulation issue right now, the FAA is ultimately stepping up their regulatory authority over the drones, unmanned flying vehicles or whatever they're called now. So we're kind of easing into it. There are issues. We're going one step by one step. There are some people that are concerned, like the gentleman was concerned over his daughter was laying out on the deck and a drone flew over his house. But there are actually KRS's laws that are on the books using their surveillance device that you can't use, electronic surveillance device in that capacity. So we have laws that fit right now. But going forward, I think it's such a new issue that to try to create some legislation on it without fully understanding it, I think we're putting the cart before the horse. So we've had a couple issues. Commonwealth Stadium, that fit as a wanton endangerment charge. The issue that you were talking about, whether drone fell out, Actually, if that happened here and injured a person, we'd charge the operator of that drone with wanton endangerment and take that into the court system. So I feel like we have laws in place now to address those issues that people are wantonly operating that device. I can honestly tell you that I try to stay abreast of what's going on with the drone issues, but it's so voluminous right now that you can't really decide how to regulate it. And it's something that's so new. But we'll keep you all on. I apologize. We had a PowerPoint to bring, and I don't know where the. . . Well, no, you weren't. This was another group that I met with. I have not met with you guys. I met with three other groups. We have a PowerPoint presentation. I will tell you they are useful devices. We worked with, and it's one of those issues, again, where we're talking about road closures. We've actually worked with traffic engineering, and they have a device that where if we have a fatality on a road, It's three to five, maybe eight hours for a road closure. We can now take a drone system, and they were getting a grant for us. We can fly that over and 3D scan that scene and opens it up anywhere in 30 minutes to an hour. And that's a cost effectiveness for us. Frankfurt is looking at the issue also. We haven't moved forward because you hate to invest in a piece of machinery that you can't use because you don't know what the state legislature is going to do with it. So as everything, we're kind of on hold. We see it as a positive for us to use and be able to apply that for any criminal scene or collision reconstruction scenes. But we have to wait to see. And I know, Thurley, I'm just trying to be proactive instead of reactive. And I commend, and I think it's a great tool to have for you guys to correct some things. I think it's a great asset. The problem I have concern is getting into the wrong hands. and that to me is what most people I've been talking to is an example, the gentleman that had to fly over his daughters, those kind of things. It really does go to elevate to another level, and especially sex offenders or anything, it's a little criminal, and it's another opportunity. And I just think we may have to look at it from a standpoint as a gun law. I'm not saying it would be simple as a gun law, but it does. You have to be licensed. you have to make sure if you have any criminal record you can't use it for those kind of use that's just an example of a usual code and i apologize for the i thought there were going to be some people here to talk about the five mile rate they they were here we've had meetings after meetings after this and that was going to be the thing that we didn't have meetings on the regulation part that they didn't quite understand they understood the faa rules which they're going to continue to do that i think I think Council Member Hensley knows a little bit about it because he's a pilot, and I'm glad he's here. He could probably tell you a little bit about the FAA, which he just said they're going to do a big, in the next couple months they're going to come out with new regulations and that kind of stuff, which I think is going to help some of the problems, but I still don't think it helps the issues that the citizens are having right now. Is it private? Is it protected and not in danger in any way? And it's something, if we get it in the wrong hands, it can cause a major problem. Thank you, Council Member Maloney. We have some people signed up. Council Member Stennett. Thank you, Chair. Chief, could you come back up? I'm sorry. I don't want to leave here with the public thinking that it's lawlessness and we can just fly drones anywhere. So currently, I know there's a map in our packet of five-mile radius of the airport, but from a residential standpoint, drones are legal. They can fly them. Is that right? Yes, there are some regulations that the FAA has, and we suggest you go to the FAA website to look at those regulations to make sure you're in compliance. The only laws that regulate the use of drones are the FAA, the acts of using the drone, meaning wanton acts, flying it over a house and crashing it into a Commonwealth Stadium, are covered under our Kentucky Revised Statutes. So if someone has an issue with the drone or think it's being done illegally, they call the same channels they would now for any criminal activity? Yes. And we'll respond? If there's a question on it, we'll respond anyway. Okay. I just don't want to give the impression that if you fly a drone that's illegal, we're coming in and confiscating your drone and taking it and you can't do it. It's not the drone that's illegal. It's the operation of it. If it's not within FAA guidelines, it breaks these divided barriers around the airport. The biggest issue for public safety, planes, people that fly planes, helicopters that are flying to and from the hospitals, and large events, quite honestly, and that's something that we'll look at, public safety, for large events, whether it's a U.K. football game or other outdoor venues. Because people are there, and if a drone gets out of control, even if the wind blows it, though you can control it, and it loses and crashes into a crowd, ultimately the person that owns and flying that drone is responsible. Thank you. That's good information. and then on our police department actually utilizing drones, is there specific legislation that we think will be in January in Frankfurt that will address our ability to be able to use them? It is my understanding coming back from a Department of Criminal Justice meeting, there's prefiled legislation that is looking at the use of drones by law enforcement and other entities. So before we invested and asked Dow to look into this grant to obtain this expensive piece of property, It's perfect for us, quite honestly. It frees traffic flow up and provides 3D imaging from whether it's a criminal scene or a collision, and we can do that effectively and quickly. So do we need state permission to be able to utilize drones, or are we just being cautious? We're being cautious before we get it, and then they create some legislation that says we can't or limits the way that we can use them. Very good. Thank you for your work. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Council Member. Thank you, Chief. We have Councilmember Hensley. Thank you, Chair. Just for the rest of the council, I mean, the airspace issues that go along with this, the floor of Lexington's airspace is controlled right now is 2,500 feet. Then the uncontrolled airspace goes down to about 500 feet, and that's where most of the helicopters operate. The drones operate in the space below that, 0 to 400, 500 feet, And that's the real controversial piece of this is that this is also companies like Amazon.com are trying to get the FAA to carve out airspace for drone delivery. And so this is a very constantly evolving issue. And when we do take something into consideration with this, I think we can't do anything that would say the airspace itself is something that we can control because that's in the purview of the federal government. Or you operate that from the ground or the intent, maybe. I think our fellows here, our officers from the law department or the police department, I hear them say that we have laws on the books to enforce the actions that these operators are taking versus kind of bringing some laws on the book to control the actual activity of the drone. Many cities have already done this. I mean, around the United States, I've been in contact with the unmanned aerial systems, Association, and their opinion is that anything that we would pass with airspace would be, you know, not enforceable in court. So, you know, I think the main thing that we could do as a city might be a public education kind of campaign with our resources through the TV, media, you know, flyers and pamphlets for people to buy the drones. Most of these things are coming offline anyway. I mean, I own two drones. Both of them came from Amazon. You know, they didn't fly them in yet. But, you know, the FAA's intent is with the commercial operators that you actually have to have a private pilot's license to operate these drones. And that's their baseline for education for the operation of these in a commercial use. And so to give you an idea, right now, speaking with the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, people are pursuing hot air balloon pilots licenses to have the baseline knowledge. It's not even an airplane. It's not a helicopter rating. So the FAA is having to address the gaps in that because operating a drone is nowhere near the same as operating a hot air balloon. So we're getting in some very gray areas, you know, with this. And so I think it's good that we're considering it and looking at how to solve this problem diligently, but it's a very complicated issue. And my personal opinion is that educational program is, you know, the best bang for the buck right now from my standpoint. Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember. Councilmember Maloney. I want to thank Councilman Hensley. I appreciate it. I think education is the main important, and I think the FAA requests that, too. But I think the law is here today. I just need to ask a couple questions about the law, about some of the issues. Mine's a little bit more into the weeds, the FAAs, and more into who can fly and who can't fly and all that. I have concerns if these things get in the wrong hands. You've got, like, sex offenders and you've got people with records. Is that something that locally has to be done or is that something we have to do as a state? which I think the state is going to be your answer, I believe, because I'm trying to see if we do something similar like the gun laws where you've got to be certified, you've got to make sure you've got background checks and all that to make sure you're not buying something with that kind of a record that makes these police officers' jobs harder. Probably with this kind of issue where there's kind of a federal overlay and state overlay, we would probably have to know, get a sense of specifically what the council would be interested in doing, and then we could better tell whether they're able to do that or whether there might be some preemption issues that might come into play. Okay. But we'd be happy to do that. Thank you. All right. If we have no one else signed up, Council Member Bledsoe, I believe you had a presentation on firework insurance. Thank you, Chair. Actually, what I think we're going to do is we left this at the last committee meeting that the administration would kind of go back to the table and look at a revised policy. And that is provided in the packet today on pages 8, 9, and 10. And some of the changes are done here in red. Some are done in just bold. So thank you, Chief Farmer, for coming. Do you want to walk us through this, or do you just want to say? Well, you're welcome for being here. Thank you for having me. This is very similar to the document that was already there, except for the insurance portion at the end. The red merely means it's important. Please pay attention as you're filling it out. Those are not changes. The changes are the amounts of money and the insurance at the end. And I've changed it, I guess, aesthetically at the front. I've put the heading up there or whatever, but there's no real changes to the meat of the document other than the insurance at the end. Got it. And this reflects the discussion we had last committee meeting that city-sponsored events would require a $5 million minimum insurance. Events held on city property would also have $5 million. Fireworks operating on a public roadway is also $5 million. And then the change here is for a private entity on private property would have a $2 million minimum insurance requirement. That's right. That's on page three of the document. I want to thank certainly you, sir, and the fire marshal's office and Commissioner Hamilton and Patrick Johnson for working on this and coming to what I think is a very good process and a good requirement. Does anybody have any questions? Do we have any questions? And I believe this is just for information only. We don't have to change anything. I just want to say thanks for getting this done. You're welcome. We'll implement this tomorrow then. The next packet we get in will go by this application. We'll get it on our intranet page soon. Thank you so very much to everyone involved. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. And I believe next we have on the agenda Council Member Akers regarding code compliance assistance. Yes, ma'am. Thank you, Chair. This was a proposal to provide additional assistance or to consider providing additional assistance to residents who are unable to afford the cost of code violations when cited by the city. And I would like to introduce Jonathan Hollinger from the planning office, and he has a presentation to share. Good afternoon. Thank you, Jonathan. So as Councilmember Aker said, this is a presentation. This item was actually placed in committee some time ago. I think I presented once on it previously, and part of those recommendations were to explore a program with the current Leadership Lexington class, which is what we've done. So the presentation outline, I'm just going to give a little overview of why I'm here today, speak a little bit about the code enforcement process generally, talk about our current assistance programs, and then look a little bit about how our housing violations actually stack up and then get into the proposed pilot program. So in an overall sense, the goal of code enforcement is a safe, well-maintained community. So notices of violations, civil penalties, and liens are sometimes tools that we use to achieve that compliance, and they are effective in certain cases, but in other cases they are not. assistance programs can help get some of those properties and fill that gap actually more efficiently than the civil penalties and notices in some case. So a little background. There's essentially three types of code enforcement cases. There's housing cases, nuisance cases, and sidewalk cases. Housing is violations of the International Property Maintenance Code, which is essentially just violations dealing with the structure. Nuisance cases are actually locally defined. So that's tall grass, trash and debris, junk vehicles, and things of that nature. And then sidewalk cases are the failure to maintain sidewalks adjacent to a property, and that generally would be some sort of trip hazard. So housing violations cannot be abated by the city. If a notice of violation is sent out, the property owner is required to make that repair. If they do not make that repair, civil penalties would apply, and eventually those can become liens. Nuisance violations, on the other hand, such as tall grass and jump vehicles, can be abated by the city. We can send contractors out to perform that work to tow those vehicles. An appeal or eligibility for current existence programs stops the code enforcement process. So that does sort of freeze that while that process goes forward. And it's also important to note that code enforcement only inspects the exterior of a building unless they are given permission to enter. So in the case, the International Property Maintenance Code includes a lot of information about interior violations, but in the case where the property owner would not let code enforcement in, those cannot be documented. So the current assistance programs that we operate, there's a sidewalk assistance program, which I know many of you are familiar with. It does cover 100% of the cost of that sidewalk replacement for those that meet the income requirements. Those income requirements are 125% of the poverty line, and there's also an asset test that's effectively $5,000 in other assets. There's an emergency repair program for HVAC plumbing and electrical, up to $5,000. That is part of our CDBG funds, typically, and is restricted to those types and for emergency repairs. There's also a housing rehab program, and that is a whole house rehab. It includes interior repairs, and it brings the entire house up to modern building codes. That is also part of our federal funds, and it is limited to $25,000, except in the case of historic properties or environmental issues. The waiting list for that property is currently one year long. So it is a—typically, it's been allocated about $500,000, but at $20,000 to $25,000 apiece, you can see that money does not go incredibly far. There's also outside agencies that operate assistance programs. There's the Realtors Community Housing Foundation. They operate exterior home repairs for mainly they're focused on accessibility ramps at this point, but it's for elderly residents that meet their income requirements. Community Action Council does weatherization programs, which does help lower the cost of living by lowering the utility bills. And assisting better living everywhere operates some interior and exterior home repairs. And obviously this is not an exhaustive list. There's ad hoc programs. You may have seen an article in the paper over the weekend about a group that did some repairs in a neighborhood. So those do occur on an ad hoc basis. So there are gaps in these assistance programs. If you'll notice, many of them have eligibility requirements both in income or age, and the combination of those does leave out some individuals. They also are usually restricted to the scope of eligible work. The escalating fine structure in code enforcement, where it continues to increase for each period which the violation remains unrepaired, can be a problem for some of these homeowners, even for small violations. And with no ability to actually abate the housing violations, those violations will just sit there. They will not be repaired. We will continue to issue civil penalties, in some cases against owners who had no ability to afford the original repair, let alone the civil penalties and the repair, which still remains. So here's an example. I've pulled some information out of our current code enforcement database. These are the most common housing violations in the last 12 months. So if you go down the list, structural damage is on that list, but the majority of these are actually relatively minor repairs. And if you see the number there, that's actually individual violations, so not total cases. So each code enforcement case has about, like, nine violations that are documented. So you can divide out to get the actual number of cases. But you can see those are, you know, painting trim, painting windows. Those are actually relatively minor violations that are constituting this total list here is about 25% of all of those violations in the last 12 months. And if you drill down even a little further, you can see these are 27 violations that are considered, you know, minor. It's painting, it's gutters, downspouts, things of that nature. This actually accounts for 30% of all of the violations that we did in the last 12 months. So providing assistance to homeowners with remedying these relatively minor issues, which could be done for a fairly small sum of money, would actually go a long way towards gaining better compliance throughout the city. So this is the escalating civil penalty structure I talked about earlier. So you can see, if you follow the matrix, if you have the average case has between six and ten violations. So if that violation remains unrepaired and we come back after that initial notice period, that's a $200 civil penalty. In some cases, the cost to repair those violations may actually be less than that civil penalty that we're applying. And as an example, if you would meet the income criteria that we use for our programs right now, and you were cited because there's a gutter falling off your house, that repair may only cost $150. But if you don't have the funding or the resources to complete that repair, it comes back now, it's $350 because it's both the repair and the civil penalty, and that can escalate and continue, and those are cumulative. So on the second time, it's $300 in addition to the $200, and it remains unrepaired. So we're not really getting to the compliance that we're looking for in assisting our neighborhoods by just pressing this further with civil penalties. So this is the estimated cost of repairs, and I will give credit to the leadership Lexington class from last year that worked with me on this project. They went out and prepared this information, worked with several contractors. So painting can be, you know, $65 an hour, and I won't read all of these, but of the common violations, painting is very common. Windows is a very common violation. Gutters, but you can see that these are relatively modest costs compared to the civil penalties that we're applying. So those civil penalties, which we obviously intend to get back in revenue, may actually be better spent on trying to help get to compliance and actually improve the neighborhoods proactively. So with all that being said, the proposed pilot program that we have today, we did work with the Leadership Lexington class, and they helped us out with crafting how this program might work. And they did a variety of other programs as well, and they also helped with some neighborhood cleanups during that time. The program is modeled after our current sidewalk assistance program and the way it's structured. And essentially, qualified property owners would be reimbursed for the eligible repairs that have been cited by code enforcement. And this is for housing violations. So the guidelines program would be open to homeowners. So it has to be an owner-occupied residence who have received a housing violation at their primary residence and who meet the income and asset guidelines. And we'll get to those guidelines in just a moment. The program provides a maximum of $1,000 toward exterior repairs that have been cited by code enforcement. So you cannot apply to this program until that citation has occurred, as just a point of reference. The homeowner may only receive assistance within any 12-month period, so you cannot continually apply to this program for assistance. There cannot be any existing liens or other debts owed to the LFUCG on that property or by that owner otherwise. And the homeowner is required to pay for any work beyond the grant in order to become code compliant. So if the cost to get that property into compliance is $5,000, only $1,000 will be available. So the remainder will have to be covered by the homeowner. So the eligibility is actually exactly the same as the sidewalk program as it currently exists. And that income is 125% of the current federal poverty guideline. And that is, right now, that's $30,000 for a family of four. And it's adjusted for individuals up to families of eight. And that would be household income. And the assets are liquid assets of $5,000 or less or equity value in non-homestead property. And that's currently in our ordinance, and we would just reference that as part of this program. That eligibility criteria is actually determined by the Department of Social Services, and so we would work with them to determine who is the best entity to do that. It could either be social services or it may be grants and special programs. They both have experience with operating rehab programs. But that could certainly be worked out on the ordinance drafting side. And to give you a little bit of sense of the scale, I just pulled some census figures on homeowners. This is just homeowners and the breakdown of income. So you can see for a family of four, it falls sort of in that second row. There's about 6,000 homeowners in that with household income of 10,000 to 25,000 in the last 12 months. So obviously that includes households of differing sizes. but this is just giving you a little sense of the scale of how many people may be eligible for this program and obviously it would be a subset of that that have been cited for some sort of housing violation. So this is the central, essentially the process for this new program would be to include this information up front with all the notices of violation. We don't want to leave anybody out. Everybody needs to be aware of all the assistance programs that are available, whether they qualify or not. The homeowner would complete a program application that would include all the necessary information for doing eligibility and other aspects of the program. The Department of Social Services or another entity, where appropriate, would perform the income and asset qualification. The Division of Code Enforcement would verify that they meet any of the other guidelines. That would include checking for existing liens and things of that nature. and then the homeowner will acquire three estimates for the work and submit them to code enforcement for approval. The homeowner will select the contractor to perform the work, and then code enforcement will inspect that work to ensure that it has been complete and issue a reimbursement to the homeowner when that has occurred. So we're actually proposing, because this is not a program that has been operated in Lexington before, a pilot amount of $10,000. We actually think that there will be a number of these violations that can be taken care of for significantly less than that $1,000 cap. So we think this may get us a good sense of how this program might work. We are proposing that that be allocated from the nuisance abatement fund at this point, but we would certainly be open to other ideas as well. Future funding would obviously be evaluated based on the results of this pilot. So once those funds have been exhausted, we will analyze how well that worked and identify any issues that we may have had or oversights we had in drafting this program and come back to you with those results. So at that point, I'll open it up for questions. I did include a few slides after this in the presentation. They're really just for reference about how each of the code enforcement case processes work. But if you have any questions about that, feel free. Thank you. Excuse me. Thank you, Jonathan. Councilmember Gibbs. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Jonathan. I think this is a great report. I said one question. One thing concerns me, say somebody's got a $100 paint job that needs to be done, getting three estimates seems like kind of excessive. Did we explore at all having our people do it the way we send people out to cut the grass if it absolutely needs to be done? It seems like it could be simpler, but again, I expect you've looked at that. We considered the idea of sort of a housing abatement program. And I think some of the concerns we have with that is when doing work on a structure, there may be some legal concerns with doing it on private property. So obviously we do some nuisance abatement and things of that nature. But in terms of the law department, I thought that that might be a little bit problematic. I know that's been looked at several times over the years. And so I think that having our contractors do it might be problematic. One of the things we have thought about in the instance of paint, you know, a paint job, for example, would be to allow the homeowner to submit just a material cost and actually perform that work themselves. And in that case, it would just be we would have to build some guidelines and to make sure that process wasn't too onerous for the homeowner, but was also we were checking to make sure that we were getting the most bang for our buck as a government. Well, thank you, Jonathan. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Councilmember. Councilmember Bledsoe. Thank you, Chair. Thanks, Jonathan. This is really interesting. I know we talked a lot about this in our link, about how to use this fund maybe differently. So this would not apply to a renter. If you're renting a home and the home has these same violations, the renter cannot apply for this. That's correct. In that case, if there was violations, the owner of that property would be responsible for making those repairs. So they're a landlord, effectively. And then secondly, I know we did this based on the sidewalk. I would just maybe state somewhat of the obvious, which is if you're making $30,000, we're only going to hit maybe $8,000-ish homes. Was there a thought to raising it higher? I don't know how many homeowners on $30,000 would have a home. We certainly could adjust that figure. I think it's a wise policy decision to keep it tied to that poverty level because that is evaluated systematically. But it certainly could be a higher number. It could be 150% of that. It could be 200%. We can adjust that, and we could do some research to see what... I'd be curious what it is just for Lexington specific. Okay. And then I think it would be interesting to maybe try as a pilot, see how it goes, and then see if we're really hitting enough of the homes or if it might give us a good baseline to figure out how to do it differently or adjust it. So I think it's really great. I think it's a great idea to move forward. So thank you. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. Council Member Kay. Thank you, Chair. Or Vice Mayor. Either way. Why don't you call me Steve? Thank you, Jonathan. A couple of questions. First, you're recommending that we take the money out of the nuisance abatement fund. What's the demand on the amount of money that's been allocated at this point to actually do the nuisance abatement? So obviously there's some seasonality to that fund, and a lot of it is spent in the spring. So this may have an impact. That fund was reduced to $100,000 through the budget process. So that's around what we spend. And so I think it would have an impact on the amount of abatement that could be done potentially in the latter part of next spring. Okay. If that is true, I would object. I believe that the abatement program is really important. I don't want to see it starved for funds. There may be other sources. I think the program is a good idea. I just think that abatement itself is also really important because those are some of the properties that present the worst negative impact on neighborhoods. People that don't abate, if there's money not in the abatement fund to abate, then we have a nuisance. Secondly, on the question of the civil penalties, this may be a question you can't answer off the top of your head, but I'd be interested in knowing what percentage of actual violations are then levied where civil penalties are levied. So if I've got a violation, I've been notified, you come back and inspect, it's my first time, what percentage of those are actually levied civil fines? And how many going across the number of inspections? And I ask that question because in the past, the code enforcement folks have been reluctant to levy those fines. So do you have any idea about rough? I don't off the top of my head, but that is certainly a number that I can pull out of the database and send to you. Okay. And then to follow up on that, is it possible that the funds for the support for this program could be taken out of those funds, the funds that are generated by those civil penalties? And again, I ask the question because I have spoken before about my interest in seeing our government be more rigid and more consistent in the use of those fines. It could generate more money than it does. Is that a possibility? I think that is a possibility. My understanding is that those funds do just roll as general fund revenue. But we could certainly consider that amount that is generated annually typically as a way to fund these programs. But we certainly agree and a consistent approach to code enforcement is where we're moving towards. Currently implementing a new database that will really drive a lot of that in terms of required fields for inspection forms and having tablets in the field. So that database has been purchased, and it's probably about 50% configured at this point. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. Council Member Henson. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Jonathan. I think this is a great idea. Yeah. Like Vice Mayor Kay, I was just curious where we stand on our abatement funds and what it would mean. $10,000 is what you're proposing that we take. That's not a great deal of the money. So percentage-wise, what do those funds look like today? So, like I said, most of those funds will be spent next spring. That's typically when they're generally spent. But last year we did spend slightly more than $100,000, which is the current year budget allocation. So it's foreseeable that this would have an impact on our ability to abate later into this current fiscal year. So if we move forward with this now, we would maybe have to find additional funds for the abatement program. That's true, or we could also alternatively find a different funding source for this program now. And this only applies to, like, the structural part of a property. It doesn't apply to overgrowth or trash and debris removal. Right. Like trash and debris and tall grass and weeds, those can be abated by code enforcement. So this includes just those housing violations, which cannot be abated. And I know, you know, there's probably a lot of elderly and disabled folks that fall within this income range that maybe are not physically capable. You know, their property's paid for or whatever. So I certainly think this would help in that case. So thank you very much. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. Council Member Akers. Thank you, Chair. I wanted to also just point out that Paul Schoeninger provided a memo at the beginning of the packet or the beginning of this presentation, doing some research on how other cities pay for this kind of assistance. And then I passed around a table that also sort of summarizes his memo and shows also how other cities pay for it. And most cities do use community development block grant funds. However, there are other funds that are used by certain cities. So I just wanted to point to that for your information. And then I wanted to ask Jonathan, do people, is it common or is it possible to lose your house because of nonpayment of housing code violations, civil penalties? Yes. Those violations which go unrepaired become civil penalties, which then become liens against the property. And when those liens reach a certain point, a foreclosure can be initiated by the government. Right. And which then can leave the property in limbo and abandoned and causing a lot more problems in neighborhoods. Correct. Due to foreclosure processes. And then nuisance abatement and nuisance violations or the abatement of nuisance violations are not dependent on income, correct? That is correct. So, I mean, it could be a half a million dollar house with the grass unmowed and we go mow it. That's correct. Correct. Yes. So I think that that's an interesting point when we talk about abatement funds. And then repeat offenders, how many of the, and you might not know the number exactly, but is it, do we have, you know, homes and homeowners that, I wouldn't want to really call them offenders, but who are repeatedly on the list because they are unable to make the repairs? I don't feel really able to answer that right now. I didn't really dive deep in the individual case information. We do typically what we would call the repeat offenders would not qualify for a program like this because it's not an owner-occupied house. Landlords versus owner-occupied. And so a concern I have is about those folks who can't afford to pay up front. Like this pilot program would reimburse folks. So if they have a porch repair, a roof repair that needs to be made that might cost $1,000, if they don't have that, would we then just refer them maybe to our CHF or Community Action or Habitat for that assistance? So depending on how that repair is done, our sense was that if you were hiring a contractor to do that work, typically that contractor may not require payment up front. So once you receive that invoice, you could seek reimbursement from the city, and then you could use that to pay that contractor. If you were going to do the work yourself, obviously, and purchase materials, that's something that you would have to do up front. So we could certainly research how other cities have done it. Typically in programs like this and some of the research we've done on affordable housing programs, it's always given as a reimbursement to ensure that the work has been completed in a satisfactory way. But if there are models out there that would allow us to resolve those issues, we're certainly willing to explore it. So then would we, once someone is approved, I guess has gone through the approval process through social services or another agency or organization in the government, would we then provide a letter to the homeowner that states, you know, something you've been approved, so that then they could show their contractors and sort of negotiate that payment to come later and that sort of thing? Yes, certainly. And as another part of that, we do have a list of contractors for the sidewalk program who have agreed to charge the same fee, effectively, per square foot to replace those panels. And to the extent that we have some predictable repairs, such as painting or windows, it may be beneficial for the government to actually go out and find what we would consider to be a fair price and provide a similar list to homeowners like we do with sidewalk. We obviously couldn't account for all types of repairs, and there may be some nuances in each case. But I think that's certainly something that would be valuable for many of these homeowners. That's what I was thinking, although, again, it does go back to the concern of liability. But it would be nice if we could provide a list of contractors that we know the costs, we know what they would charge, and that they're bonded and insured and that kind of thing, and provide that to homeowners. And in the case of the sidewalk program, that list of contractors are not necessarily ones that we have hired or have gone through a public bid process. They have just agreed to charge that price. And then lastly, I would like for you to look at other cities and what their poverty limits are or their guidelines for the threshold for qualification. I think that would be helpful in the future. And as far as funding, we talked about this in our link, and you all asked to reduce the nuisance abatement fund, correct, to $100,000? I think it was higher in years past. By ordinance, it's $200,000. I believe through the budget process it was reduced. Sure. And so serving on also the vacant property commission, that will generate funds in a couple years. and I know we have discussed on how we might use those funds. So I think that this project or similar projects, since that is how they kind of land on our list, is housing violations would be a good use of those funds as well. That's all my time. Thank you. Thank you, Council Member. Council Member Kay. Thank you, Chair. I guess I'm interested in having more details about this particular proposal. I presume that's going to stay on the agenda and come back. Is that fair? Council Member Akers, is that what you have? Are you planning to make a motion today? I will do what the committee would like to do. I mean, I would be fine to move it forward, but I think if there are questions about poverty guidelines or others, then I'm fine to leave it in committee, too, for a little bit. Okay, so I ask because I think this program in and of itself needs to go forward, whatever the details are. But in addition, I think there's a number of questions, certainly that I have and other council members may have, about code enforcement in general. And if possible, I'd like to either expand this particular issue or add an issue for this committee to consider. And what I'm thinking about is the question of homeowners versus landlords and how we deal with those folks, the issue I raised, when we assess or should be assessing or could be assessing a penalty, how often are we really doing that. And I have a small pet peeve, which is that signs that are illegal that go in the median and in the right-of-way. In my own neighborhood, there's been a – I don't know who they are, But a company that's put up signs, I call 311, they take the signs down, next week the signs are back, same people, same number, same thing. I don't know if we have any way to penalize those folks. I don't know what the stuff. But basically more information. More generally, I think that for most of the new members on council, we've really not had a conversation about code enforcement, and I think that would be useful. So whatever the pleasure of the committee is, but I'd like to see more conversation about more of these issues. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. Councilmember Akers. Thank you, Chair. With that, I agree that we do need more conversations about code enforcement, and I think it would be a separate issue, however. So I would like to make a motion that we move forward with this pilot project as proposed by Mr. Hollinger and the Leadership Lexington Group. I think that they've done a lot of work on it. It has been in committee for a really long time. I think I inherited this from a former council member, so I make the motion to move forward. Thank you. We have a motion and a second. All those in favor? Aye. All those opposed? All right. Thank you, Council Member Akers. Thank you. Okay. We are now done with those items on the agenda. Yes. All right. Council Member Brown. Yes. If you come back up, I had a question here about sidewalks. there's a 50% match program. Is that correct for anyone needing sidewalk repairs? That's correct, yes. What's the amount that's in that? Because I think it's just got a dollar amount to it. I believe the annual allocation for the last couple of years has been $75,000. Is that fund being used quite a bit? I would have to double check, but my understanding is that that fund is being exhausted annually. And the procedure there is that the homeowner needs to notify your or all's office? Right. They do. That program, since it is available to everybody for at least the 50% match and then 100% for those, that everyone is notified of that program. And so they make an application. So there's an application process, and then they need to come out. You all would need to come out, code enforcement does, to check and mark to see if the sidewalk actually. repaired. So it's on the homeowner's part to do that. Correct. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember. All right. I think then now we have dispensed with all the items on the agenda other than items referred. We can go through that quickly if you all would like. First, H-1 notification process. Councilmember Farmer. Yes, ma'am. I have met with staff on this. I believe we should be able to bring something forward to give to the chair to put on a future agenda at the chair's convenience, but I believe it's ready to be taken care of. Thank you, Council Member. I believe Council Member Masotti obviously is not here today. I'm assuming we leave the greenway on. Explore the code compliance. Council Member Akers. I am fine to move to remove that. Second. Any discussion? All those in favor? Aye. All those opposed? All right. Downtown traffic study, also Councilmember Farmer. I think we should leave this in because the traffic study and its outcome have not come back to us yet. I think it's important for us to keep a placeholder for it for future discussion. So I would just leave it as it is, please, ma'am. All right. We also have merged Division of emergency management with fire department. I think public safety recommended this back in 2014. Council Member Henson, do you know if there's been any movement? I would just recommend removing it at this time, and then maybe in the future we can look at it again. All right. Thank you. We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? All those in favor? Aye. All those opposed? Okay, motion passes. Scrap metal dealers, Council Member Farmer. Thank you. I took this for someone else, and I don't remember who it was. It may have been a former council member, and I don't remember the gist of the issue. If someone else does. Yes. I did it for somebody. Then why don't I remember it? Okay. We have a motion and a second. Do you want to talk about it? Do we have any discussion? Sure. Just for the sake of reminder, but I understand we forget because we didn't talk about it much. Someone called me about it, too, is why I recall. So apparently, if you take a car to scrap metal in Fayette County, there's lots of regulations involved in disposing of a car in Lexington. But you can take one to Scott County or Jessamine County or Woodford County, and they don't ask any questions, I guess, if it's perhaps stolen or where you received the car. And so scrap metal dealers in Lexington are complaining that they were losing money from surrounding counties and that sort of thing, and we should look at those regulations. But that's all. Thank you. All right. Anyone else for discussion? All those in favor? Aye. All those opposed? All right. That is removed. Council Member Farmer, again, Sky Lanthorns. Now, this is something I took over for former Council Member Clark. Yes. and this had to do with some rules promulgated on behalf of the fire department that would outlaw sky lanterns, and there was what I would just term a religious objection to that at that time, and I would just like to explore it before we remove it. So I would just like to leave it in if that's all right. No problem. Thank you, Council Member Farmer. Thank you very much. Council Member Henson, I know that we have discussed this in past committee meetings regarding the advertising supplements. This actually was delayed. It came before the full council, but then was delayed for six months, giving the Herald Leader an opportunity to correct issues. So technically, I think my motion was to place it back into committee. So I think we need to put a review date of this, leave it in committee, put a review date on it for six months from now, January 2016. All right. Thank you, Council Member Henson. Council Member Brown, I know you're here as a guest today, but Armstrong Mill small area plan, do you know when we should have something ready for that? Well, I think we had one presentation, and what the ideal there was for that one, and also I'll speak for Cardinal Valley, was that we were going to keep that and have a quarterly report. But really, you can take that one off for me, and when I see that I need to have another report, I'll just request to put it on the committee. All right. So motion. So moved. All right. Any discussion? And this is just regarding Armstrong Mill. All those in favor? Aye. All those opposed? All right. Thank you, Council Member Brown. Council Member Henson, Cardinal Valley. Yeah, I think the same holds true with this. There is an item in the work session packet approving the, this is through community development block grant funds for a feasibility study. So I would recommend removing this right now, and then I can place it back once we have that feasibility study results. So I'll so move. All right. We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? All those in favor? Aye. All those opposed? All right. Next, Council Member Bledsoe, today we had the discussion regarding fireworks display. I think it's been sufficiently addressed, and I make a motion to remove from committee. Second. All right. Any discussion? All those in favor? Aye. All those opposed? Thank you. Council Member Maloney has left regarding the drones. I am not sure whether... Move to remove. Second. We can discuss. All right. We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? All right. Council Member Henson. Thank you, Chair. I would recommend leaving it in because I do think this is a serious, complicated issue. I'm not sure that it should be done on a local level, but I think more research is needed. So that's just my thoughts. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Council Member Henson. Council Member Hensley. Henson and Hensley. I'm not a member of this committee, but I'm a guest today. I would encourage you all to take a motion to remove it until something else provokes it to be brought back, because there's nothing that we can do. adequately covered under the law. Thank you. Thank you, Council Member Hensley. We cannot have Hensley and Henson in the same sentence. All right. All those in favor? Aye. All those opposed? All right. Community and Market Gardens, Vice Mayor Kay. Yes, this was, I put this in committee last month, and it hasn't been reviewed yet. We're waiting for space after some other things, So we just leave it on at the moment if that's okay. That is fine. And I believe the next two probably have the same. Same, yeah. Just for information purposes, the subcommittee that was appointed by Councilmember Massadi will meet Friday at 11 o'clock in the fifth floor conference room. First meeting. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Vice Mayor Kay. Councilmember Henson, taxi cab ordinance. That is scheduled to be on the agenda for next month's meeting. And we do have a gentleman here who is a taxi driver that would like to speak about this issue. I don't know if you want to do it after we're through these agenda items or? Let's get through the agenda items and then we can have a discussion. Thank you. All right. Thank you, Council Member Henson. Council Member Gibbs regarding snow removal. I'm assuming. We'll be ready for this next month. Yeah, we're ready. All right. I figure we're coming up hopefully on not a snow event this winter. But, yes. Councilmember Evans did speak with me before the meeting, and that is going to be in January or February. Nuisance ordinance, Councilmember Gibbs? Probably spring. Councilmember Brown, since you are here today, the replacement plan, do you know if that is scheduled? Yes, I think the fire department, they're going to speak to that in the spring as soon as they get their, I think they're working on a report. All right. Thank you. And Council Member Massadi will leave body cameras in. All right. Any other items that we need to bring up? If not, I believe we have somebody that did sign up to speak. I'll ask. Sorry, Chair, if I can, just before we do that, my interest in having the question of code enforcement And I don't want to circumvent the usual procedure, but I'd just like to place it in this committee for consideration probably after the first of the year. All right. Any discussion? Yes. I thought that needs to be done during work session. So. I mean, I agree. Actually, yes. I should have said that. that one of the things that I can do as vice mayor is place things in committee, and so I don't think I'm circumventing anything by saying I want to place it in committee. We didn't need a vote. So I'll just place it in this committee. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. All right. All those in favor? All those opposed? Yeah, it doesn't matter. All right. Do we have somebody signed up to speak? Yes. Thank you. Sir, if you could come up and state your name and your address. We do limit time to three minutes. My name is Randy Glover, PO Box 4343, Lexington, Kentucky, 40544. I'm here on behalf of the taxicab drivers. I'm not here representing any of the cab companies. I'm not here representing Uber or Lyft. My issue involves the new taxi ordinance. Likely, my coming here today, I probably lost my job because I'm speaking to you guys. There are some big issues going on in the taxi industry, and I've been a cab driver for eight years now. I've been a member of management for more than one cab company for at least three years. I'm no longer a member of management. I don't like what's going on. I don't like what I'm seeing. I'm seeing that the big companies are taking the money of the drivers. Drivers are forced to pay a $1,000 bond if they want to work for the company, and that money seems to always disappear. We're forced to run credit cards through the company instead of running them through our own, and the excuse is that somebody can't dispute it if we run it through our own square account instead of the other. That's nonexistent. If you have a credit card and you run it and you dispute it, all you do is you call your bank and there you go. It's disputed. I lose my fare because of that until I give an excuse why I should be able to make that money. I've seen cab companies come and go in this town. I've seen companies that, let me give you a few examples. Wally, owner of 24-7, basically left all the cab drivers with nothing. He sold out to Mr. Taxi. Mr. Taxi eventually had an owner that got involved, and he basically was taking all the driver's money in the end and disappeared. All the bond money and everything, he was supposed to be getting insurance for the drivers. It never happened, and they end up closing their doors. bluegrass cab it's the one the lime green cars multiple owners of that company they recently split up they're arguing fighting over the phone numbers and everything else once again the cab drivers are the ones caught holding the bag here what's happened recently with that particular issue is the cab drivers all lost their bond because one owner went to another started another the company, so we've lost our bond, $1,000. Every cab driver that worked for that company is now $1,000 less. Okay? The credit cards that we ran with the company, we're using the company's Square account for a month, all that money has disappeared. We don't have access to that. We didn't get compensated for that or anything. Okay? There's nothing in the taxi ordinance that protects the cab drivers. We're all worried about protecting the city, the community. We're worried about protecting the companies. Nobody's worried about protecting the cab drivers. Okay, I'm here today. I would like you guys to revisit this ordinance, comply with state law that says that one person, I can start my own cab company with one vehicle. Okay? The state says that you guys have to fall in line with the state law. I'm not here to tell you guys your job. I'm asking, I'm begging, because I'm now out of a job. After I leave this mic, I won't have a job. I'm asking you, the council, to fast-track this, figure out a way. It's been six years that we keep revisiting this ordinance to lower the number so it's in line with the rest of the state. Six years. We would like, now that Uber lives here, and I'm sorry I'm out of time. I know I'm trying to cut it short, but I've been waiting for six years for this. So a few more moments ain't nothing. I'm asking, please. I would like if you guys can get the ordinance and get it and settle it, please, and be done with it. That way we can start a company, and I don't have to worry about someone else stealing my money. I can take care of my own money. Thank you. If there's any questions, by the way, I'll answer any questions you have about taxis. I know everything. All right. Thank you for coming down. We appreciate it. All right. I'll entertain a motion to adjourn. Move. Second. Motion for and seconded. All those in favor? All those opposed? All right. Thank you.