# Planning and Public Safety Committee - December 8, 2015 > Auto-transcribed civic record · December 8, 2015 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/3843 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/3843?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2015-12-08 - **Last revised**: July 15, 2026 - **Length**: 14,260 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 December 8, 2015, at 1:00 p.m., with Mossotti presiding. The committee addressed five agenda items during the session, taking seven motions and votes and hearing five public comments. The committee approved two items: the November 10, 2015 Committee Summary and the Taxicab Ordinance. Three items were deferred for future consideration: Community & Market Gardens, Frequency of Helicopter Landings, and Items Referred. ## Attendance The following individuals were present at the meeting on December 8, 2015: * Akers * Bledsoe * Farmer * Gibbs * Henson * Kay * Lamb * Mossotti * Scutchfield * Stinnett No absences or late arrivals were recorded. ## Votes and Decisions **Motion to approve the November 10, 2015 Planning and Public Safety Committee summary** [timestamp: 0:04:05] - Moved by Kay, seconded by Henson - Outcome: Passed by voice vote **Motion to approve the amended Taxicab Ordinance as proposed in the packet** [timestamp: 0:46:20] - Identifier: Ordinance 0130-26 - Moved by Henson, seconded by Kay - Outcome: Failed by roll call vote (5 ayes, 5 nays) - Voted for: Akers, Bledsoe, Gibbs, Henson, Kay - Voted against: Farmer, Lamb, Mossotti, Scutchfield, Stinnett **Motion to repeal Section 18a of the Code of Ordinances related to vehicles for hire** [timestamp: 0:46:54] - Identifier: Ordinance 0130-26 - Moved by Henson, seconded by Akers - Outcome: Passed by roll call vote (7 ayes, 3 nays) - Voted for: Akers, Bledsoe, Gibbs, Henson, Kay, Lamb, Stinnett - Voted against: Farmer, Mossotti, Scutchfield **Motion to suspend enforcement of Section 18a of the Code of Ordinances until the ordinance is updated** [timestamp: 0:03:00] - Identifier: Ordinance 0130-26 - Moved by Kay, seconded by Henson - Outcome: Passed by voice vote **Motion to approve the chair reporting out the Taxicab Ordinance item at today's Work Session** [timestamp: 0:03:00] - Identifier: Ordinance 0130-26 - Moved by Henson, seconded by Kay - Outcome: Passed by voice vote **Motion to bring the Helicopter Landing Frequency Ordinance to the full council for approval and vote this evening** [timestamp: 1:27:24] - Identifier: Ordinance 0130-26 - Moved by Hensley - Outcome: Failed by roll call vote (5 ayes, 5 nays) - Voted for: Akers, Bledsoe, Gibbs, Henson, Kay - Voted against: Farmer, Lamb, Mossotti, Scutchfield, Stinnett **Motion to remove Sky Lanterns from the committee** [timestamp: 1:31:17] - Identifier: Ordinance 0130-26 - Moved by Farmer - Outcome: Passed by roll call vote (1 aye, 0 nays) - Voted for: Farmer ## Public Comment The meeting included comments from both private citizens and council members regarding helicopter access and helipad regulations in Lexington. **Support for Helicopter Access** Pilot Bill Daugherty spoke in favor of increased helicopter access, noting that expanded landing capabilities would improve business efficiency by reducing travel time and enabling quicker trips to and from eastern Kentucky [timestamp: 0:52:27]. Chet Lot discussed the economic development potential of helicopter infrastructure, citing examples from other cities. He highlighted how New Orleans and Chicago use helipads to attract business and tourism, and emphasized the economic benefits that improved helicopter access could bring to Lexington [timestamp: 0:50:17]. **Council Member Concerns** Council Member Gibbs raised concerns about noise and regulation, expressing worry about increased helicopter traffic near residential areas and the University of Kentucky hospital. Gibbs questioned whether the city could effectively regulate landings in business and industrial zones [timestamp: 0:59:21]. Council Member Akers focused on public safety and transparency issues, raising concerns about public awareness of helipad locations and emphasizing the need for notification to police and fire departments in case of emergencies [timestamp: 1:08:34]. Council Member Lamb stressed the need for additional information before proceeding, emphasizing that more data on existing helipads and their locations should be gathered and reviewed before approving the ordinance [timestamp: 1:07:27]. ## Contested Items **Taxicab Ordinance Repeal** The meeting included a contentious vote on the repeal of the entire taxicab ordinance. The motion passed 7-3, revealing a significant division among council members. Those voting in favor sought to eliminate regulatory oversight of taxicabs, while the three dissenting members argued for retaining regulations to maintain public safety standards and preserve municipal revenue from taxicab licensing and fees. **Helicopter Landing Frequency** A proposal to increase the frequency of helicopter landings generated heated debate among meeting participants. The discussion centered on multiple concerns, including public safety implications, the extent of the city's regulatory authority relative to FAA jurisdiction, and whether the ordinance should be approved as presented. Council members disagreed about whether additional clarification and safeguards were necessary before proceeding with the measure, with some questioning whether the city possessed adequate authority to regulate helicopter operations. ## November 10, 2015 Committee Summary The committee reviewed and approved the summary from the November 10, 2015 meeting. [timestamp: 00:04:05] **Key Speakers** - Kay - Henson **Outcome** The committee approved the summary without dissent. ## Community & Market Gardens The Division of Planning presented proposed code and zoning changes to regulate community and market gardens throughout Fayette County [timestamp: 00:04:37]. The presentation covered regulatory frameworks including definitions, signage requirements, operating hours, and standards for accessory structures related to garden operations. Key speakers Jim Duncan and Tracy led the discussion on the proposed amendments. The presentation outlined how the new regulations would apply to both community gardens and market gardens operating within the county's jurisdiction. The committee reviewed the proposed code changes and discussed their implementation across Fayette County. Following the presentation and discussion, the committee agreed to move forward with the regulatory process by having the Department of Law draft the ordinance based on the Division of Planning's recommendations. The outcome of this agenda item was deferred, with the next steps delegated to the Department of Law for ordinance preparation. ## Taxicab Ordinance The committee discussed amendments to the taxicab ordinance to bring local regulations into alignment with state law. [timestamp: 00:20:27] **Key Participants** The discussion involved committee members Henson, Glenda George, Rusty Cook, and Rick Curtis. **Main Issues Addressed** The proposed changes focused on two primary modifications to the existing ordinance: - Removing the local permit requirement for taxicabs - Adjusting associated fees These amendments were intended to resolve conflicts between local regulations and state law requirements. **Committee Action** The committee voted to repeal the entire taxicab ordinance. Additionally, the committee agreed to suspend enforcement of Section 18a of the ordinance. **Outcome** The motion to repeal the ordinance was approved. ## Frequency of Helicopter Landings [timestamp: 0:47:59] Council Member Hensley presented a proposal to increase helicopter landing frequency in business and industrial zones from 3 to 30 times per month. The presentation prompted discussion among committee members regarding operational, safety, and regulatory considerations. **Key Discussion Points** The committee examined several aspects of the proposal: - FAA oversight and regulatory compliance requirements - Public safety implications of increased helicopter traffic - The need for clearer notification procedures to affected residents and businesses **Speakers and Perspectives** The following individuals participated in the discussion: - Council Member Hensley - Chet Lot - Bill Daugherty - Commissioner Bastin **Outcome** The committee failed to pass the motion to bring the proposal to the full council. The item was deferred, meaning it was not advanced for further consideration at this time. ## Items Referred [timestamp: 1:30:13] The committee discussed several referred items during this portion of the meeting. Key speakers included Farmer, Henson, and Brown. The discussion covered multiple topics: - Greenway Manual - H-1 notification process - Downtown traffic study - Additional referred items Most of the items under review were deferred for future consideration rather than resolved during this meeting. The committee did not reach final decisions on these matters at this time. --- ## Decisions - **Ordinance 0130-26** — passed: Motion to approve the November 10, 2015 Planning and Public Safety Committee summary - **Ordinance 0130-26** — failed (5-5): Motion to approve the amended Taxicab Ordinance as proposed in the packet - **Ordinance 0130-26** — passed (7-3): Motion to repeal Section 18a of the Code of Ordinances related to vehicles for hire - **Ordinance 0130-26** — passed: Motion to suspend enforcement of Section 18a of the Code of Ordinances until the ordinance is updated - **Ordinance 0130-26** — passed: Motion to approve the chair reporting out the Taxicab Ordinance item at today’s Work Session - **Ordinance 0130-26** — failed (5-5): Motion to bring the Helicopter Landing Frequency Ordinance to the full council for approval and vote this evening - **Ordinance 0130-26** — passed (1-0): Motion to remove Sky Lanterns from the committee --- ## Full transcript Music Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. guitar solo guitar solo Ladies and gentlemen, we're about to start the 1 o'clock Planning and Public Safety Committee. I believe we have a quorum. I have a motion to approve the minutes from the November 10, 2015 committee meeting. is there a motion I have a second motion in a second to approve the minutes from the November 10th 2015 Planning and Public and Safety Committee all those in favor those opposed councilmember I'm sorry Vice Mayor Kay I believe you're first up on the community and Market Garden I think we have, thank you. This is an issue that we have not addressed before, and as more and more people get interested in urban gardening, there was felt need to propose a regulatory framework for both community gardens and for, what's the other term, for market gardens. And I believe there's one or more people here from either planning or I see people nodding their heads. If you would mind coming forward and providing a little background, that would be helpful. Thank you, Jim. Hi, Jim. How are you? I'm fine. Thank you, Madam Chair and Vice Mayor, members of the committee. Jim Duncan with the Division of Planning. We're here today to talk to you briefly, or to a great extent if you'd like, about the proposals for community and market gardens. This was an idea that was passed by the Planning Commission as they adopted the 2013 Comprehensive Plan. One of the recommendations of that plan was to look at the regulations that enabled community gardens throughout the government, in all zoning districts. They weren't necessarily prohibited, but we wanted to ensure that there wasn't a measure that was an impediment to that. So we looked at it and thought we could come up with a way to address that through both the code of ordinances and the zoning ordinance. And we can talk to you about both of those today. the one we want to really talk to you about is the code of ordinances where we would suggest that language could be placed that would enable community gardens across the county, across the urban area. And Tracy will give us a presentation in just a moment to explain that. But then following that, we also have the market gardens, which would be addressed through the zoning ordinance. and we wanted to introduce that to you as well and talk to you about what that might look like, give you the opportunity to comment on that and give any direction to the Planning Commission you would have on that. But then we would take that back to the Planning Commission and develop a text amendment for the zoning ordinance and then that would follow its normal course. So we really have two issues here, both of them dealing with the production and distribution of locally grown food, perhaps as a way of making food more available to the community, more affordable to the community, available in areas where food is not readily available. And that's really the impetus of all of this. So with that, if you have any questions of me, I'll ask Tracy to walk us through the details. Tracy, it looks like there are no questions for Jim, so go ahead, please. Thank you. Happy to be here to introduce this topic to the planning and public safety. Is that not on? It is on. to really introduce this topic to the planning and public safety committee as jim mentioned it is a comprehensive plan task or implementation item and when the staff dove into the topic we did already know obviously that the ordinances don't address community gardens they're silent to that topic and so they've really just been permitted more in an open regard so these amendments to the code of ordinances and the zoning ordinance are intended to provide somewhat of a framework for how those uses continue in the future. The primary purpose as Jim mentioned was to provide the gardens to promote sustainable and affordable local food production. In the background I think Jim mentioned the first point but secondly that the Division of Planning did meet with the mayor's office and our food coordinator Ashton Wright as well as members of seed leaf the no lie CDC and the UK Extension office regarding this topic to provide input into how those regulations would would take shape but we also did speak with the green space Commission about the regulations that they were working with with the division of parks and recreation related to how gardens can be permitted on public property so parks and rec does have guidelines for Or in the public parks, people can ask for a plot of land to have a community garden. We wanted this to be, to work with that and be similar in a lot of the regulations. The Code of Ordnance regulations proposed deal primarily with the private and community gardens, and they would specifically be allowed anywhere in Fayette County and provide some of the logistics as to what could happen within the community garden, hours of operation, et cetera. But the market gardens is a piece that goes a step further beyond what you would think of in terms of a community garden, and that step further is the sale of produce or anything else that's grown within the garden. And that would be permitted in our research. It would best be permitted in only some locations within Fayette County, And so for that reason, we would regulate it based on the zone of a piece of property through the zoning ordinance. In terms of private gardens, I think that one's kind of a common sense definition, but just an area of land used for cultivating food or non-food crops, so flowers or some other type of crop for personal use and consumption. and clearly that's going to be something in your backyard or on a church property if they're selling, or excuse me, if they're just growing flowers, it's their garden. A community garden and a market garden are, again, the next step beyond that. Community garden, this regulation defines it as more than, or excuse me, less than five contiguous acres. At five acres, that distinction is in Kentucky KRS law, at five acres it's an agricultural use. And so this is not meant to regulate agricultural uses. Those are already regulated or not regulated in different ways. This is meant to regulate the less than agriculture. So again, it's meant to address where people are coming together to grow things, So not just one individual, but a group of individuals or some sort of nonprofit at one location. A market garden, again, is that next step beyond that, where there's going to be either on-site or off-site selling of the produce for a profit. And in our definition, it actually allows some additional types of accessory uses along with that. Greenhouses, high tunnels, vertical gardens, aquaponic systems, which wouldn't be common in a community garden. the proposed regulations just go on to the next one for community gardens that's going to be in your in your handout on i believe page seven and eight of the packet the code of ordinance regulations would address the definitions again but also more the specifics of what could occur and what can occur within a community garden. So it allows for a sign, which currently without any regulations, the community gardens technically aren't permitted to have a sign. They're also not permitted to have a shed or any type of accessory structure because there's no principal structure on the property. So this is meant to address those kind of issues that have bubbled up and the seed leafs of our community would like to have sheds to keep their equipment in would like to have a sign so that people know where the community garden is so they can come and pick produce or share in the in the benefits of that so the community garden regulations would address signage hours of operation what accessory structures could be permitted that drainage and soil erosion control is important in addition to maintenance and those other kind of typical things with code of ordinance issues and they're interlinked in terms of referencing a nuisance issue to a separate section but then also the it addresses keeping a foul which could occur anywhere in a residential area now this would allow specifically for keeping of foul if the not just if there's a structure for a residence but also if there's a non-profit who's maintaining the garden on a daily basis so checking the foul on a daily basis but it does again prohibit retail sales of the produce and then also livestock the next step after that would be the retail sale of your produce and that's where the division of planning felt the zoning ordinance would be the most appropriate avenue to regulate the retail sale. And at this point, these are the kind of the breakdown of where we think a market retail sale of garden and a garden, it's sort of they work hand in hand, would be fit, would fit most appropriately. So in the business zones, the list there includes the zones where you would typically see retail sales of food of some other sort that's already packaged so we want to be consistent in addition the projects that the zoning ordinance currently does permit as well for adaptive reuse and flex space to allow their retail sale and gardening in those but make it a conditional use which means it goes to the board of adjustment for approval within our residential zones the kind of higher intensity business zones where you might not expect to see a garden and then also our industrial zones where it might not be the best fit for a garden and then it's sale i think that kind of wraps up my short presentation so if you have any questions i'd be happy to answer do any of the council members have any questions of either jim or tracy on this issue you council member kade or i'm sorry council member farmer go ahead so if we make approval of this would you just draw up regulations and let us pass them at our next meeting or something yes i believe the division of law is working on the code draft that you see today into a codified form for us to take up at our next meeting yes very good thank you thank you madam chair Well, Councilmember Kay, any comments since this was your item? Yeah. Actually, I thought that we had that in codified form in our packet today. Oh, you do? Yeah. I believe so. Is that not, or is this just a... This is the... MaxiCabs. change the division or the department of law is working on it but i see so this is this is a so far in draft form it'll look like this but it'll be in an ordinance right correct this is a this is a draft from may um but it is something they're working to draft by whenever you're ready okay so it would come back in final form so that we could then forward it to the full council was that okay that's fine that will work unless there's any specific changes anyone wants to bring up that's in front of us today go ahead council member Gibbs it's one clarification one thing say someone has a market garden on the property if they're in r1 they're going to have to get a conditional use is that correct that's our proposal yeah but so even if someone's selling it off-site they would still have to get it so someone's got a big yard and they grew it and they were selling a farmers market or subcontracted to the farmers market they would they would have to get the conditional use for that I can see the need for a conditional use if they're gonna have a farm stand out front of their house but I was it seems a little bit restrictive on somebody's property for them to get a conditional use of the if the produce is being sold off-site I I just want... No, if it's sold off-site, I don't think that that applies. We're talking about when it's... Okay, so only if they have, like, a farm stand up front. Okay, good. On the property. So community garden, if they're taking the produce to, for example, Seedleaf had eight locations, and they chose to only make one a market garden, they could take extra produce from one community garden and take it to their market location and sell it. But I'm talking about an individual market garden, say, in an R1. That would be okay as well. Okay, I misread that then. Thank you for the clarification. Sure. I have one question. Vice Chair of Scotchfield, if you'd take over the chairmanship. I noticed that parks aren't on here at all, and I know in a lot of other cities that I've seen, they have a lot of the community market gardens in parks. Was that an intention, not to have parks there? Well, where it's public property, if the Division of Parks and Recreation chooses to have a market garden, that would be, I mean, it wouldn't be regulated through zoning. they would be exempt. So they could certainly choose to host a market garden if they chose to. Okay. I didn't know that was specifically left out because we didn't want to get in that kind of business. No, I think that would be up to that division specifically. Okay. Thank you. All right, then. Council Member Lamb. Thank you, Chair. The reference you had on the one slide to Fowl, if I remember correctly, there's a chapter referencing foul in our code of ordinances and i was just curious if you all looked in to that section because it seemed like that there was if i'm remembering correctly that there's no foul to um on the proper to be running upon the property so i don't know if that could be some a conflict with this we can look into it okay just i'm just i just remembered that in the in the back of my mind for whatever reason. You don't know what things are. These crazy things that come to mind. So thanks. Thanks, Chair. Okay. There are no further questions. We'll move on to taxicab ordinances. And I'll let... I'm sorry. Council Member Farmer. May I make a motion on behalf of the committee to ask the Department of Law to draw this up in a codified form or bring it back to us? So moved. Second. The motion is second. All those in favor? Aye. Those opposed? Okay. you'll have that for us i guess we'll put you on the schedule for after the new year thank you very much thank you and next is the taxicab ordinance i know we've been talking about this for some time i'll turn this over to council member henson at our last meeting that we're hoping to have this reported out today at work session so if we can come to a consensus today in this committee we can go forward and do that at the three o'clock meeting so council member henson if you want to Go ahead and go forward, please. Thank you, Chair. I guess I would ask Glenda George with the Law Department. She has provided us in the packet with some information that kind of better explains how we might regulate taxes if we wanted to. I'm of the opinion and stand firm that we don't necessarily want to regulate taxes because we don't regulate the TNCs. So that was my position on it. And if you remember at the last committee, we had a tie vote. So the repealing of this ordinance failed due to the tie. So there are, from talking with Glenda, there probably are sections of the ordinance we would want to keep. So I guess, Glenda, if I could ask you to come up and talk a little bit about which portion. Sure. Sure. If you all will turn to, let me see what page it is in the packet. Page 38 in your packet. And what we've done here, and this is also not in a codified format, we just took Chapter 18 as it looks in the Code of Ordinances and inserted things that needed to be changed and struck through things that we thought needed to be taken out. So do you just want to go through this section by section? Is that what you want to do? That may give everyone a better understanding. Okay. So we'll start with Section 18A1. As you can see here, we've made some changes to some of the definitions, one being taxicab certificate. it. We deleted some things like the local taxi cab permit, which we can no longer require, the special event permit. Are there any questions about this section? Okay. 18A2 is fine. 18A3, as you can see, we made some adjustments in the language because we would no longer require the local taxicab permit. And in this, and this is something for you all to consider, there was quite a bit of discussion last time about how we would receive some type of notice that a company had been issued a certificate from the state. And so in this section, you can see right there in the middle where we've added the language that says if a company receives a certificate, then within five days of them receiving that certificate, they're required to provide us a copy of the application that they submitted to the state, a copy of their taxicab certificate that was issued by the state, along with proof of their insurance and any of their criminal background checks. Any questions? and the rest of that was stricken out as it related to the issuance of the local taxi cab permit because that section was repealed by the state statute. Next, 18A4, that was all taken out because that relates to that local taxi cab permit, which we can no longer have. we took out our language about the insurance but that doesn't mean that a taxicab company isn't required to have insurance they are required to provide that information to the state and if you approve the language that was just inserted about them having to file the application and their certificate of insurance we would still get that information 18A6 in order to operate in Fayette County. If you recall, we used to charge $120 per cab. The state has said that we can't charge more than $30, so we have reduced that fee. 18A7 relates to the driver. It seemed as though at the last meeting there was still some interest in regulating drivers, and so we've just tweak the language a little bit, but 18A7, 18A8, 18A9, 10, 11, 12, all of those relate to drivers, so we really didn't make any changes to those except inserting words like the Department of Vehicle Regulation, no changes really to those sections, as you can see. And then the last, let me see, we're on 18A15. Am I going too fast? Relating to the vehicle inspections, we changed that to be annually to be consistent with the state and then adjusted some of the language. If you look at Section D under Section 18A15 as it relates to vehicle identification, here, and we talked about this before, about whether or not we would allow taxi cab companies to use those magnetic stickers to identify their taxi cabs. And in the past, we said no. But I wanted to point out here, we said those are acceptable. But if that's something you all don't want to do, we would need to, you know, change that. And the reason we said that is because the way things are now, you know, there won't be an entire fleet of taxi cabs. Somebody could just have just their car. And some days they can be operating and some days they aren't. And so we're giving them the ability when they want it to operate as a taxi cab, they would put the identification on there. And when they're using it as their personal vehicle, they wouldn't be. Does that make sense? And so that's why we said it's now acceptable, but if you all wanted to change that, we could certainly go back. And then the rest of that we would no longer have authority over, so we took that out relating to taking cars out of service and doing the inspections. 18A-16 relates to the taximeter. it's optional some cars will have it some cars won't just depending on what type of vehicle you have at this point in order to be a taxi cab there's no requirement by the state that you have a taxi meter in your car 18a 17 remain the same 18 remain the same 19 20 and then 21 And we did take out the requirement that you had to operate 365 days a year and have a central place of business. Because, as you know, a lot of people are now using an app and not working, you know, year round. So we made adjustments to that to make this consistent with the state. And then the next section would be 18A25, where we made some changes that just related to the random inspections and our ability to take a car out of service. I don't know that we would be able to do that anymore and still remain in compliance with the state statute. And then the last was our ability to revoke the local taxi cab permit because we don't have that anymore, so there wouldn't be something for us to revoke. And then those are all of our changes, or all of our recommended changes. Thank you, Glenda. Councilmember Lamb has a question. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Glenda. I'm glad to see that we've kept several of the sections in here to try to provide some oversight. Right. Is there anything that Lexington will actually have the local taxi cabs display in their car to show that they actually will have a business license? Well, you'll still, once you file your application and all of those documents, you'll still get the sticker from us showing that you've provided the information and paid us the $30 to operate in Fayette County. Okay. All right. Now, in terms of the business license, that's something a little different, but what you're going to have in your car is that you've paid to be a taxi, you know, to operate as a taxi cab in Fayette County. Okay. Does it, so at least, okay, that's good. That's good. All right. All right. Well, I'm pleased with it. I think that it keeps, you know, we know that we can't do anything with the TNCs. We are restricted there, but at least this helps keep the information for the Division of Revenue so that we can at least keep up with the businesses and recouping that information at least. And hopefully someday we'll be able to figure out what we can do with the TNCs. But thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Any other council members want to speak on this issue? Oh, Council Member Farmer. So in your opening comments, you said that this needed to be read out today for some reason. What is that? Well, there was a tie vote last time as far as how we were going to go forward on this, whether it was going to support the ordinances with the new changes or repealed. I understand that, but I think the crux of your comments were if this were to clear committee today, we were going to act on it during our meeting this evening. Is that what I understood? We want to try to, yes, sir. My question then is, why is that? I think they want some closure on this. we've been dealing with this taxi cab ordinance issue for a while and there's some concern is do we go forward with it amended as brought forward by the law department or do we repeal it altogether so would this be a motion to do something starting on page 38 or something else in the packet on page 38 thank you council member henson do you want to bring forward any motions on this since this is your issue. You know, I guess if the law department is okay with the ordinance the way it's written, I will go along with it. And I think, Council Member Lamb, do you want to bring forward that motion? I will be happy to make a motion that we move forward with the changes and the ordinance that's in the packet today. and I so move. Do we have a second? We have a motion and a second on the floor. All those, we have discussion. Council Member Akers. Thank you. I was of the opinion that we should just repeal the entire thing originally per law, just recommendation. And so I'm still confused or not comfortable with regulating one entity and not regulating another. And so I would like somebody to help me understand why we should regulate taxi cabs and not the TNCs. And I don't think, Glenda, you want to probably answer that. We can't regulate the TNCs. I mean, I know that we can't. So why would we keep, then, any regulations for taxi cab companies? that's that's an issue for you all um if you remember because at the last meeting when we were having the discussion about how to make them equal that's why we came forward with the ordinance to repeal but then that motion failed and you all asked us to come back with some suggestions to the ordinance so yeah i can't really answer your question right i didn't i wasn't expecting you really to answer it so i guess it's just rhetorical or somebody on the other perspective can maybe weigh in and help me understand exactly. Because it just seems like it sets it up to be unfair to one group or another. If our concern is to protect the public, then I don't know that regulating one versus another is accomplishing that. So I'm just, that's my thoughts. Thank you. Council Member Hanson. Thank you, Chair. And Council Member Akers, I certainly see your point. I do know that with the TNCs, we were not given the authority to regulate. But with taxis, I guess I would have a question for possibly Rick Curtis with public safety. if he sees us, if this is a public safety issue. Well, I think that any ordinance that's enacted, obviously, is going to be a public safety issue because we're the enforcement arm of the government. But at the same time, I mean, we'll do, like I said before when I was here the last time, whatever the council wishes us to do, we'll enforce. But at the same time, we can't enforce, as everybody's alluded to, what's happening with the TNCs because the state law precedes us. So, I mean, in all honesty, I'm convoluted. We'll enforce whatever you all want us to enforce, but at the same time, it's going to be difficult because each and every person who has a car that wants to be a taxi cab driver, and Glenda can tell me if I'm wrong, if they want to go to Frankfurt and get a permit to do a vehicle for hire, then they can, in fact, do that. And we don't know who's operating the TNCs here. They should be getting business licenses, but we don't know. And I've heard numbers upwards of 400 or more that are working for the two TNCs. So it is what it is. I mean, again, we will enforce whatever you all pass. Well, the $30 fee that has been, it was decided we can no longer charge the, is it $120 and it's gone down to $30? Well, in actuality, the $120 was for the permitting for the car. that they actually had a permit for the car. It had nothing to do with the drivers. We actually enforced that they had to have 25 cars, and every year they would pay us $125 fee for each and every car to ensure that they had the 25. That's what we used to do. We did that for years. The 30 or 25 was always for the driver's permit. And then there's always been, Jeff can allude to that, there's always been a business licensing for the company itself and for the driver too, is that correct? And for the driver as well. So we're basically still invoking that the drivers have to have a license. They have to have a business license to operate because they're, for the most part, they're independent operators that are operating their own business. Thank you. I guess I'm still thinking that if we can't get the repeal passed, then it would be best to have the changes to this ordinance at least in that respect rather than leave it hanging. But I'm done for now. Thank you. Councilmember Lamb. Let me go to Councilmember Hensley. He hasn't spoken first. Thank you. Councilmember Hensley. Thank you, Chair. I'm not a voting member of this committee, but I think that Repealing this would be the right action since this issues been taken up to other cities every repealed this In Melbourne, Florida on November 11th. They repealed this it would level the playing field for the commercial operators It would also save the city operational costs and managing this I mean there's cost us to manage the program and there would be some revenue loss, but I think to make it fair for the commercial operators, we should repeal this. Thank you. Council Member Lamb. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. I guess the question I have is if we repeal this as opposed to approving it, I'd like to ask Mr. Cook if, you know, Rusty, we still, if we don't have Section 18A, and I know this might be legal too, but if we don't have 18A, they still have to get a business license. That's correct. The company would, and each driver would as well. Okay, so at the point, if we didn't have 18A, they're still supposed to have come in and get a business license, and that would be for each individual taxi. Is that a first statement? For each individual driver. For each driver? Yes, they'd be like an independent contractor. Okay. Now, the problem lies that, and I realize this is the difference between the two, the taxis and TNCs. I get that. And I get the level playing field. I do understand that. But I guess until we can figure out a mechanism in order for us to be able to get more information on the TNCs, at least we could have some level of being able to get the information from the taxis that are applying for applications over in Frankfurt so that we can at least have some connectivity to them. because right now we don't have any connectivity. We have a name of a person, if I remember correctly, a name of a person, and I don't even know if we... Operator license number. Yeah, operator, and that's all we have for the TNCs, and so there's no way we can go after them for their business licenses. So we have nothing there on that. So if we were to repeal this entire section, I think at the bare minimum, I would like for us to have something in here so that they can at least report to us. Now, if we took the $30 permit fee off and they just came to us and provided the application, I don't know how my colleagues would feel about that. Would that lessen the impact? I'm just, I mean, I'm curious of your all's thoughts on that. I mean, or is it just flat out that they shouldn't have to do anything? Because, I mean, if we ever are able to come back and we can find where that we can get information on the TNCs, clearly I would like for us to be able to do that. I think that would be in the proper venue for this city in our business license. So maybe if somebody wants to respond to that. Thank you. Council Member Bledsoe. Thank you, Chair. I'm going to try to respond. I think the point is that we don't ask TNCs, but we do ask taxicabs to pay the $30 annual fee today. Is that yes or no? Yes. Yes. So an amendment might be to remove the $30 fee, keep everything else the same. They would still apply for a business license like a TNC and be treated pretty much the same. TNCs don't have to get business licenses. Can someone come to the mic? Is that an option? We can have some of these questions answered. Thank you. So I'm not sure what you're – could you repeat your question? I think so. I think I was trying to say what Council Member Land was alluding to and actually make into motion, which would be if you change – amend this document to take out the $30 fee, filing fee, because the TNCs don't pay that today. that would in fact level the playing field between the two would you leave everything else in there well yes and no because you know the TNC still aren't required to provide us with anything so even though you're not requiring them to pay a fee the taxi cab companies or the drivers are still requiring them to do other things where the TNC's wouldn't have those requirements so the only thing that you're making equal is they're not having to pay a fee. Because if you take out the fee and leave everything else, you're still on some level regulating taxes where you're not doing the regulation of TNCs. Agreed. That's why I voted to repeal it last time. So I'm in favor of that, I guess, again. But I appreciate what Councilman William is trying to do. And I guess the other thought would just be, we can always come back at another point in time, can we not? If we do ever get the authority to regulate both, and do so thank you to that council member lamb i think what you were saying if there were what i at least think i heard you saying was that you know if we wanted the information relating to the track taxicabs and the company said the only thing we would require is just that section that we added in about the following of the application and the criminal background checks and the insurance and that we wouldn't require anything else and that we give us the information that we were concerned about the last time as to who's driving a taxi and what companies are operating in. I thought I heard you saying that would be the only thing that we would require, and we would get rid of everything else. Or that's at least what I understood you to say. You heard me correctly. Thank you, Glenda. Vice Mayor Kaye. Thank you, Chair. I think we're all in agreement that if we could do, if we could level the playing field some way and still have some regulation, we'd like to do that. But that does not seem to be possible. If you have any regulation at all, we can only regulate taxi cabs. So question for Ms. George again. If we fail to repeal this or modify it, what's the effect? If we fail to repeal it or modify it, well, there are still going to be... Just leave it on the books. Well, we still have some issues because there are still some sections that we have to get rid of because we no longer have that authority. Like that whole part about the local taxi cab permit and the things that we have currently suspended the enforcement on. We've got to get rid of those regardless. Considering the changes to the state statute, there still needs to be some tweaks to our ordinance to make it be in compliance. I guess the alternative is if we leave it as is, the state statute has a section that says if there's anybody who has an issue with our ordinance, they can file a complaint against us with the state. And then we have to have a hearing. And then they can tell us whether or not our ordinance is in compliance with the state law or not. And that's an option as well. But considering what the law is, there are some sections that we need to go ahead and change. Like, we know we can't charge $120. We know we can't require 25 cabs. We know we can no longer require the local taxi cab permit So there would really be no reason to leave those things in I see okay, so Last time the motion was to repeal and it failed on a 5-5 vote I would like to move to amend this motion to make it to repeal the entire ordinance so move I'm not sure. Yeah, we're kind of opposite here. We've got one to amend this ordinance as written, as stated in the packet today, and then we've got something completely opposite to repeal the ordinance altogether. So I think we need to dispose of this first motion first, because it's a lot different than what you're proposing. So we've got a motion and a second on the floor to approve this taxicab ordinance as written, as proposed in the packet today. We've got a motion and a second. All those in favor? Say aye. those opposed looks like it's a little red for the holidays um let's say that motion looks like it fails alright now now we have a motion vice-chair K yes I'd like to make a motion that we repeal the entire section A motion and a second to repeal the entire ordinance. All those in favor? Aye. Those opposed? No. And we need to do this electronically, please. And that motion passes. Seven to three. uh may i ask a question yes ma'am so you're going to report this out at work session and then are you going to place something on the docket for the meeting tonight is that possible i mean i don't know if we i mean is there a certain deadline we have to do this by the end of the year i'm sorry there's not a deadline that this has to be done by the end of the year We're good. No, I mean. Because we've already suspended those sections that we had issues with, so. Okay, then we're fine then. So you want to just wait until January? That's fine, unless you feel there's a necessity to move it up quicker. No, I think we're good. Okay, then we'll just wait until have it run out until the next time then. Okay. All right, thank you. Thank you. Okay, that was easy. Councilmember Hensley, helicopters. All right. Let's take a little trip back in history. So this issue I brought back to council a month ago, I believe, is to a regulation or an ordinance that was created several decades ago. it's very well written except to the point where we get to the exceptions that describes how often the helipad or heliport can be used in Fayette County we can't use them in residential areas you can use them in industrial areas you can use them in business areas and you can land anywhere in the agriculturally zoned areas. The current ordinance as it stands limits any continuous operation to a helipad to three times per month. The unintended consequence is that operators just don't mark helipads so that it doesn't apply under the ordinance. So if we wanted to go fly into some place in Fayette County, like a big field behind Malone's at Hamburg, per se, that's not a helipad. So we could go there as many times as we want this month. The unintended consequence is that we don't know where the helipads are. People may not know a helipad may be operating there, or your car may be landed next to a The aviation community wants to do better and identify these areas where we can. And so we want to change this so that it's actually something that's useful from 3 to something like 30, which would be basically once every accounting year, basically, 30 days a month. And I've got some pilot operators here with us today that might want to speak to this issue. so if we could you know have chet lot and build already if you guys want to come on up and speak to this i think that would be i think paul went to get the sign-up sheet okay there wasn't a sign up okay yes sir if you would please give us your name and address chet lot and good afternoon resided to 161 chenault road in lexington a private pilot and businessman here locally and I fly a Beljet Ranger helicopter. And this is something when I first got my pilot's license, I found odd because of the restriction. And like Russ said, it was a, there's just no reason to have an official helipad because this ordinance makes it irrelevant because no one's going to come in three times a month. It wouldn't be worth it, the cost. But I've also noticed in other cities that are progressive and which we want to be as Lexington and bring business here. For example, I was in New Orleans recently. We landed downtown right next to the French Quarter in an industrial area. It's a heliport for public use. There's a fee there associated with the heliport that goes to the city. And people come in from all over the place to eat and leave their money and fly home, which we would like people to do here, coming in from Nashville, from Cincinnati, from Dayton, from Chicago. A lot of aviation enthusiasts do that. I go over quite often to Bowman Field. They have a restaurant there. We go, we eat there, we come back. So there's some elements there that we could look at where it could help the economy of the city as well. Also, recently, the mayor of Chicago, they created a helipad, downtown executive helipad, to the same effect, to help people come in, encourage growth, and just be more progressive. and also it could be used for emergencies as well. But with this ordinance there, it's not going to be useful at all. And like we stated earlier, people just aren't identifying the helipads and they're just avoiding it is what they're doing. So I'd be glad to answer any questions further about it. Council Member Stennett, do you have a question you'd like to? Okay, thank you. yes sir would you please give us your name and address hi my name is bill daugherty i live out old richmond road at the 1571 evans mill and i'm also a helicopter pilot and i use it in my business and my office is on main street here and you know there's often times that i need to go to eastern kentucky and i'll drive down work half day drive back out to old richmond road and you know basically lose 45 minutes to an hour travel time if we had more access to piloting or, you know, helicopter pads downtown, for example. It would certainly increase my business. But, you know, as a former last speaker said, it's other cities are doing it a lot more today than even 20 years ago. Dallas has several helipads scattered across the city. Chicago just opened their first one only seven miles from the airport. You know, it's very important for business and industry to be able to travel in and travel out. And there are a lot of companies that are based outside of Lexington that just can't stop 30 minutes prior to landing inside the city, call the police department and the fire department, as the regs say, and then lift again and come back into land. I've done it, but it's really inconvenient. Is that all? Thank you, sir. Looks like Councilmember Stennett. Thank you, Chair. Commissioner Hensley, I support this, have no problem with it, but just logistically notifying the police department of fire, should we define what notify means? Are we saying by text, email, phone call, and where are they calling? And will we keep a log of every time a helicopter lands? And will we hold on to that log? I mean, there's a lot of issues happening in our world today, a lot of air issues that people are concerned about. Have you thought that through, and has Commissioner Bassett, how are we going to track all that? Well, if Commissioner Bassett wanted to talk to this just a second, I personally would move that, too. Because when we're doing this today and these guys are flying in and calling, when they do call, it creates so much confusion because you call the 911 center or you call the non-emergency center and you tell them, I'm going to land wherever, and they're like, okay, so what? I mean, I don't know this. I don't want them calling 911. That's the first point. It's very confusing. But who are they going to call? Ideally, they'd call the non-emergency line. I mean, should we put in our ordinance what the number is? I mean, this is not for public. This is just our conversation. I wanted to. Okay. We can add some information. But Commissioner Bastin, if you could maybe give us some feedback. Give us some guidance, I guess. Because, you know, otherwise we need to take it out of the ordinance. Because it seems a little far-fetched. We're going to be able to track all those calls. If you choose to do a notification procedure, we would prefer a non-emergency line. Right now, there are some landings that occur that when we don't get notified, we don't have a whole lot of heartache with that. It hasn't been a problem up to this point. In the event we choose to go the route where we have a facility that maintains fuel or fueling capability and all that, then the fire department has some suggestions that we do make sure that it's in compliance with NFPA standards. So you're for having the notification 30 minutes before landing? And who's going to track it? Are we going to keep a log of it? It's not happening right now. Right. But it will if we pass this. Well, no, I mean, this is the current ordinance, and it's not happening now. Right. That's my point. So if we're going to pass something new and increase the number of times, are we going to enforce the ordinance? And if we're not, then why is it in there? That's my point. I would remove it. Well, I mean, that's not what's in our packet today. I know. Maybe we can come back and tweak that. Or we can amend it. We're okay with it either way you choose to go. If we choose to go with a notification, we would prefer that it be on a non-emergency line to 911. And how are we going to publicize that? That's my other question. I mean, how do you get that word out? I think the pilots, you know, in the very rigorous and regulated industry, I mean, we have things called notices to airmen. So if you had an actual functioning helipad in the notums for that helipad, you could say, call LFUCG non-emergency line, and we can handle that through the FAA side of this. for example right now Central Baptist they have a helipad they could include that in their notes before we land it's the same notes for a private operator that St. Joseph would have so I think we can handle that I don't know that we necessarily need to tweak what's there if we're going to leave it other than when the operators go to create the helipads they include it in their notes on the helipad itself because as a pilot, you're supposed to brief yourself about that helipad's operating environment, trees, approaches, lighting systems. I mean, there's a lot of information that's in there. And one of the things could be call LFUCG before 30 minutes before landing. Yeah, so does the helipad in the landing, like at my office building, we land in the field next door in Hamburg. Right. A lot more times than three times a month. Absolutely. Right now. Absolutely. So is that same rules apply for a field versus a helipad? So the field isn't a helipad. Right. So this would encourage someone to create the helipad in that field. Then you'd get all the NOTAMs and the safety requirements that would go with it to have it operate correctly, basically. Okay. It's trying to correct it to make it functional. I mean, right now, the way it's written, it's nonfunctional. Right. And so notifying, do we want to make sure we clarify what notifying means? Because what if somebody sends an email? So I email them. Yeah, sure. I mean. I mean, are we asking for a true call? Are we asking verification back from the police and fire that they received it? It just seems a little vague for me. Either take it out or we need to clarify it. I would say take it out. Thank you, Chair. Council Member Gibbs. Thanks, Chair. I've got a bunch of questions. I'm not sure who to direct them to. Maybe Ronnie can answer some of this stuff. Ronnie? Commissioner Bastin? So my understanding is currently right now if you have a helipad, somebody can land there three times a month. Is that correct? That's what the organization is. Do you know how somebody gets the permit to do that? Is that like a conditional use? I don't know how you get one of these things. Okay, well, we don't know that. Now, the other thing is, so if you've got one of these things, you can only use it three times a month, but then people just land them pretty much anywhere they please otherwise? Right now we're getting landings in a lot of different places. Right. Why aren't we regulating that? I mean, it kind of worries me that people are just dropping helicopters like next to Councilmember Stendis' office and so on. I would like to see some regulation of that. And I'm concerned about the level of helicopter traffic. My district surrounds the U.K. hospital, and I get a lot of concern. Of course, everyone understands that the U.K. hospital is an emergency hospital, but people are concerned about the level of noise. Now if these are permitted if we start putting these in lots of business and industrial districts It could be next to residential areas and I have real concerns about that I would like to see these you know I'd like to see all of these regulated and I'd like to see them possibly I don't know the zoning stuff all that well, but as a conditional use permit So we go through a process to make sure you're not disturbing residential areas I know this is way beyond the scope of your job Commissioner Bastin But these are some of the concerns that I have with this so I don't think I'm ready to vote on this today. Actually the helipads are controlled by the state and we wouldn't have jurisdiction to regulate that. The airspace is controlled by the FAA and the landing zones are controlled by the Division of Aeronautics, the state of Kentucky. Well apparently are they controlling them now if people are just dropping them down next to offices? Yes. They are? Yes. If you apply for a helipad a guy for... Well if you apply for a helipad... Yes. But they're dropping in places where there aren't helipads, correct? But we can't regulate a helipad. We can say this is where they should be once they're constructed, but to apply for a helipad in the state of Kentucky, you make an application to the Division of Aeronautics. They come out and do a site survey, look at the helipad, and then the air study is sent to Memphis, and then they do a six-month air study. So us increasing regulation on a, I mean, it's like regulating drones. We can't do that. Okay. Looks like we got it. Again, I would like to see this. I'm no paranoiac. I'm keeping Muslims out of the country or anything like that. I'm not going to go there, but it does concern me that people can just drop aircraft virtually anywhere without any regulations. Well, they can't drop them anywhere. I mean, it's not going to drop in your backyard. That's what I'm hearing here. No, I mean, to operate a helipad, I mean, you have to have an 8-to-1 glide slope. I mean, it has to be a pretty good space. I mean, it's not like I'm going to land one in Andover. But it's not a regulated space, apparently. No, it's very regulated. No, the ones that are official helipads, we're talking about. All the FAA requires is the owner's property permission to land if there's a helipad. The ordinance is creating an unintended consequence that they're not landing there, or they're landing there without a helipad. We can't control if there was a helipad. so you're in this catch-22 situation where that the rule is so restrictive that we're not operating with helipads but you can't enforce helipad locations that's not with our jurisdiction as this council but Commissioner Baxter do we have any do it if someone you know if if you're landing a helicopter and it's not a helipad is that illegal no it's not if you have the owner's permission or permission to land there if you have permission of the landowners I understand it to land there it's not illegal to get a helipad designation then that is regulated so to be honest it sounds pretty dumb to be blunt it's like well that's why we're trying to open this up so that we at least encourage people to construct helipads so then the state can enforce it the fa can study it right now it's a catch-22 i mean it's just like the taxi cab issue you had before us i mean it's a catch-22 you can't regulate this and regulate that and create a offset in the rule so we we can't regulate because the state regulates it my time is up thank you chair yeah we've got a whole list of council members so Commissioner Baston, you might want to stay there, and I'm sure you'll have to field some questions. Council Member Bledsoe. Thank you, Chair. Council Member Gibbs was going to ask many of the same questions I was, but just to clarify, we, by zoning, are allowed to regulate where in our zoning ordinances helicopters can land. That's a little out of my opinion. So we can say they're within business and industrial zones. for instance, based on an ordinance. Okay. But the actual application for a helipad is all done by the state. We're just saying to encourage them to do the, I guess it's expensive to get a helipad. Yes. Yes. It's expensive. Okay. So the goal being it's not worth the investment on a company to do so if they can only park there three times a month. Right. This does not, I think I answered my own question. By doing this, we would encourage more development of helicopters. And by doing so, you may run into the questions that Council Member Gibbs brought up, which is they could be in any business or industrial zones as currently written. Correct? Correct. Okay. Well, and I don't think that we would have more traffic. We're going to have the traffic that we have now safer. Safer. And properly regulated. And properly regulated. Thank you, Chair. I'm sorry, Vice Mayor Kay. Thank you. I think we have someone here from law. Can I ask a question that you may not be able to answer today? Okay. The present ordinance, it looks like we restrict helicopter landings to industrial zones and business zones. Is that correct? Correct. So if we can do that, why could we not have a regulation about within those zones where these might be placed? As we do, we have conditional use for many uses within various zones. Is there... Go ahead. Go ahead. No, like you said when I walked up, we were just asked to draft this proposed ordinance for you all. We are more than happy to research with the Division of Aeronautics in Frankfurt whether we're able to actually say we can put additional restrictions on where people are able to land and where those helipads can be placed. But all I'm aware of, I'll say, is that it's business and industrial zones is what we're allowed to put inside of our ordinance. Okay. And so tomorrow if I want to have a helicopter land in my backyard and I'm in the business zone or an industrial zone, I can just pop it down. If that's a proper location. for. OK. And it sounds like from the discussion, notification doesn't really get us where we want to go. It does not seem to serve a purpose. But it's been a part of this. So I guess where I end up on this is, it seems to me we need further clarification from law about what, if anything, we can do in terms of regulating because, I mean, I would agree with some of the comments I already made. We seem to be in a situation where something that it seems like ought to be somewhat regulated does not seem to be regulated at all within those two zones. It sounds like you can come and go as you choose. So I think we need more information about this, And I would not be in favor of expanding the number of times that people can land before we know what rights we have in terms of regulating that and protecting the public. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Vice Mayor Kay. Council Member Akers. Thank you, Chair. Well, this started off, I thought, easy, and it has grown much more complicated, like everything seems to. So I guess one of my first questions is, is there anyone here from planning? to answer or field any of these questions? No. It doesn't appear to be. So perhaps in the future for the planning committee meeting, we could have planning staff here. It might be logical. Secondly, I would like to know maybe in the next meeting on this topic that we answer questions like how many helipads are there in Lexington and where are they located? Personally, I would just be curious to know how they're marked. Does the public know, for instance, if they live next to them? They probably do know if they hear them. But does the public know where the helipads are? And as far as increasing the number of times you can land there, how do you pilots know if someone's already there? Like if you're coming in to dinner on a Saturday night from Nashville, How do you know when you come that someone isn't already parked on that helipad? So in the FAA guidance for the helipad, there's a thing called a prior approval. Usually you would call the person who operates that helipad, and there's a number published in a thing called an aircraft facilities directory. And you'd say, you know, do you have someone else there? Or, you know, it's a helicopter, so when you fly over it, you look down, and there's a helicopter there, and you can go somewhere else, like the airport, and then you Uber yourself back to where you're going. Oh, my goodness. Okay. I mean, again, I think we're just realizing how much we don't know about helicopters and landing them. So as far as the public safety notification, I agree that maybe it's a little bit vague, as Council Member Stenet stated, and that we should clean that up. But I do think that we should require notification. Especially if we're considering, you know, landing in downtown. I think that it's very important that our police and fire know, in the event something goes wrong, you know, that there's one coming in. And maybe there's a parade that day and we don't want a helicopter flying over 20,000 people or something. I don't know. I just worry that one's going to, you know, I've seen a lot of action movies and they hit a building and wings spin and blades spin or whatever. And, yeah, I don't want them crashing into Main Street. and, you know, that could cause a lot of problems. And that's nonquant. I know that that's very rare. I would like to address it. If I could say something real quick. Hang on just a moment. Are you finished, Councilman? She's got the floor. So I think that there is a lot more that we need to discuss and a lot of unanswered questions, and so I would like to see this brought forward in a future meeting. Okay, thank you. We'll come back to you, sir, if you don't mind. Councilmember Farmer. Actually, that was going to be my point. We have members of the public here, and they want to give comment. I was going to let them use some of my time to make comment. Thank you, Bill. I want to address a couple of these things that have been going on because I do this, so I understand. So I'd like to let you all understand how it works. First of all, you can't just come in and land willy-nilly. That's not what happens. You have to call the tower in Lexington. We are under control of Class C airspace in downtown Lexington. You cannot fly in here. There's a section, there's areas that are controlled. So from the surface to 5,000 feet, I believe, is what it is. You have to call. If you're a jet really high, 30,000 feet, you can fly right over Lexington. But if you're under 5,000, which helicopters are, you have to call the approach. You have to tell them, or at request, I'm requesting come into Class C airspace, for example, maybe go into TAC Air. They will give you a number that you put into your transponder. They can watch you. They know who you are. They know your address. They know your registration of aircraft. They know how fast you're going, your altitude, everything, your model and type of your aircraft. They then track you. You're under their control. They tell you what you can do and what you can't do. Now, you request, and they generally grant it, but they will deviate you according to other aircraft or buildings or issues. For example, ballgame downtown, there's a thing called a TFR. It's a no-fly zone during the ballgame, so that's a non-issue. We can't fly over that unless you get special approval from the FAA, which is not easy to get. You'd have to have a really good reason to get that because they're protecting the public in that area. So then as you come in, you're handed off to the tower. Now you go from approach to tower. Now the tower is controlling what you're doing, and they're telling you what to do. So you can't just fly in and land anywhere. That's the main point I wanted to make because you are under air traffic control, and they're controlled by the FAA and they do a really good job. And so if you're coming to a specific area that's off airport, you would request it and then they would either say yes or no and then you would have to say landing assured and you're in communication until you're on the ground and everything's safe. So that's all I really wanted to say. Do you have anything else, Council Member Farmer? No, ma'am. Okay. Vice Mayor Kay. I'm sorry, Council Member Lamb. I don't know if you've spoken out, and you have not. Go ahead. I'm sorry. I have. I haven't. I don't think you haven't. Maybe you haven't this time. Thanks. I guess I was curious from Commissioner Bastin. So do you guys, and I really appreciate that information as well, because clearly I don't fly a helicopter. The most I do is a motorcycle. But Commissioner Bastin, do you all communicate with the FAA tower? I mean. We can. We have that capability. Yes. We normally don't, or they don't let us know when medevac helicopters are coming into the hospitals and those things. That's a frequent occurrence, and they're on with the tower and approach and departure when they come and go from those helipads on top of the hospitals. Cool. This is truly an education for me, and I appreciate it. It's another component of loving the job. I learn something new every day, so thank you. Thanks. Thank you. thank you councilmember lamb vice mayor kay thank you chair um one very minor thing there i think there's a typo in the second paragraph after it says faa authorities and that seems like that means to should be faa authorizes i don't know if that's in the original ordinance or it's just in the transcription is that right otherwise the sentence doesn't make any sense but we can get an answer to that. But the main point I wanted to make is really a question for Councilmember Hensley. As I understand that this proposal, while it would encourage more helipads, would not mandate them, and it would not prevent someone without a helipad, as in Councilmember Stinnett's office complex, from simply landing more. They would not have to become a heliport. they would not have to set one up. So this would, is that correct? That's correct. In the FAA parlance, that's a field landing. So as part of the FAA air system, that is not a helipad. That's just an off-field landing. So why, if I'm already bringing my helicopter or somebody else's helicopter into the field next door, why would I want to transfer that into a helipad? I guess the rationale, the reason I brought this forward is that right now it's happening now, and so no one's complaining about it. It's not an issue. But the businesses that would like to put in a helipad who routinely fly into their businesses or would routinely fly are discouraged to do that. For example, I know Bill had operated a business out at Richmond Road for a number of years and has a helicopter in his business for 20-some years. And rather than locating a helipad properly marked at his business, he never chose to do that. So he's kept it out of Fayette County because of regulation or out of the urban service area, I would say. And allowing him to fly in and out more than he already is doing? He's not doing it. He didn't do it. I mean, that's the point. He didn't invest in infrastructure that would properly have that asset land at that business because of this regulation. So he's not been flying in and out? Not in the old business location. Okay. Because he can't. Yeah. Did you want to? You just pointed out in that, and I just want to let you know that, yes, in the actual one, it says authorities. So it does appear to be, I guess, a typo. Okay. All right. Well, I mean, the only thing that we're asking is to open this up, where that people would properly construct the things. And, you know, this isn't been an issue that anyone's complained about is happening now. And, you know, I think I don't want to have a knee-jerk reaction from the council to look at something that otherwise should be something as simple. I mean, under this ordinance that was written in the 70s, right now Central Baptist and St. Joe are operating their helipads illegally. I mean, consider, you know, if you don't act on this, under our court current ordinances, St. Joe and Central Baptist are at an unfair competitive advantage to the U.K. Because the only thing that's exempted in this is state, local, and federal authorities. So this, whenever this was created by whoever wrote it, it's full of holes. I'm just trying to make a tweak to make it apply that it's functional. Well, I sympathize with the intent. Unfortunately, the way it's written, all it looks like is it allows something that's going on now at a low level to go on at a high level. And I understand that's not the case. But when you just look at what you're proposing, the only change is from three landings to 30 landings. All right, one per business day. It's just one per business calendar day. In accounting years, 270 days a year, or 360 accounting days a year. I defer to Fred Brown, our council accountant. But it's, okay, I think I've made my point. Thank you, Chair. Councilmember Stennett. Thank you, Chair. I just wanted to circle back to our guests. Are you all notifying our police and fire now that it's in the ordinance? Is that common in other cities as well that you fly in, that you have to notify the local police and fire before you land? I have never had that in any other city. You were under control of the FAA. You were flying into the authority of the FAA. You were under control of the tower. I think to call is an unnecessary step. I mean, because if something happened, the tower would immediately call the police and fire department because you're talking to them. So it's kind of a step that we would have to take. I'd be glad to take it if I thought it was going to be effective. But you're under control of the FAA at that point. And like I said, just like it would happen in any aircraft accident, they would notify the emergency services if something happened. Right. I think the FAA is our record keeper in this case. They're the record keeper. So I think this is a little redundant. I mean, I don't mind passing what's in our packet today, but I think we need to tweak it to get that notification issue solved at some point in the future. Because I don't think we need it. I think the FAA is controlling it and tracking who's in that helicopter and who's flying it. And I think our police have access to it. Commissioner Bassett said so we had that information if we need it I just if it's a step people aren't following now I'm not sure how we would enforce even in the future so thank you councilman Hensley for bringing this forward and the answer to council vice mayor Kay how do you prevent someone from landing in the field if they sell the field and develop it because you know that's what's happening they're using vacant lots and that's what's happening right now that's another reason on how you prevent that in the future and why you would actually have to have a helipad in Hamburg as soon as that happens and it's It's developed out. They couldn't do it anymore. But you still have to have permission of the owner, so it doesn't matter who it is. Thank you. Councilmember Akers, and also I wanted to let you know that we do have someone from planning here, Jim Duncan, in case you have a question. Go ahead. Thank you. That's why I saw him come in, so I thought I should ask him this question. Jim, can you provide any background or insight from your perspective of how planning and zoning or the Planning Commission handles helipads at all or not, or any information about those? I can tell you that this is not an issue that comes up very often to us. In fact, in my 12 years here, I'm not aware that it's come up at all as far as a planning issue. but the way it is regulated through the zoning ordinance is it is a conditional use in several zones, the industrial zones, the agricultural zones, and the professional office projects, such as St. Joseph Hospital or Central Baptist. But even so, those applications have to be made to the Board of Adjustment, and then they're approved through that process, so not necessarily through the Planning Commission. I suppose that through the Planning Commission, if it was a development plan, that they could act as the Board, But regardless, this is a conditional use in these zones. Okay. That's very helpful. And so I think in the next committee meeting, too, to have that information in our packet as well as how they're regulated through the Board of Adjustment. And so I guess my understanding is even if you apply for the conditional use permit and you get it approved, you're still technically by this ordinance only allowed to land three times, which obviously UK may do that twice a day based on emergencies. whatever okay all right well anyway thank you Jim that was that was helpful and I look forward to learning more the next time thank you chair thank you Councilmember Akers Councilmember Gibbs thank you chair Jim and how about residential it does also have the permission to the owner they can land on residential property residential yes I may have exhausted my off-the-cuff knowledge of helipads but that doesn't sound quite reasonable that residential would have that but regardless it would it's a conditional use so there's no no even if it was residential would be can it's not a an accessory use for a no for residential okay thank you thanks chair you've got your answer correct 2a 16 says no person shall land a helicopter in the urban county in a residential area as defined by the zoning ordinance except in an emergency yeah thank you councilmember Hanson thank you chair Melissa I was just going to make a comment about our medic, our helicopter, medical helicopters, and perhaps if we do an ordinance, we could exempt them from the number because I think Council Member Akers brought up a very good point that they are probably landing, you know, they could land every hour, I would think. So, and I know in other ordinances, we have exempted emergency type situations. And they may be exempted because of an emergency already, but we can do additional research to be sure that if you want to do a specific exemption. That's what I was going to suggest, that we definitely look at what some other cities have done. And I think Paul's going to help with that, too. Okay. Thank you, ma'am. Yes, ma'am. Council member Hensley you have certainly brought us some information today that we I guess hadn't looked at for 30 40 years so you want to make any suggestions as how you would like to proceed you want to leave this in committee obviously there's a lot of questions still out there so so my final comment I guess would be that you know there's tons of regulations around this already in place I mean, we've just heard that from zoning they want to have a conditional use permit for what would be a helipad that's not being applied to now because the rule is so restrictive that we don't construct helipads to apply for conditional use permits to build them in the first place. No one's going to make the investment if they can't use this. So, again, the process is broken, as it is, because we're simply limiting the number of times that this is used. So I think, you know, I don't want us to get lost in the weeds on this to look and try to apply more regulations to the regulations that are already there, both from this government and the FAA, to simply just change this so that people will go through the process and construct these and go through our ordinances that we have. I mean, it sounds like from planning, you know, they would say if we applied for a permit, that it would be a conditional use permit. Well, we're not. No one's going to even apply for it if they can't use it for 30 times. So the process is broken. And to Council Member Henson's position or request about emergency medical, UK is the only one that's exempted under this now. So Central Baptist and St. Joe are not exempted from this. So, you know, if we open this up, I think it's a one-size-fits-all, opens it up, lets the processes start flowing into position so that we can see how this works properly. So are you prepared to have a motion on this? Do you want to move this ordinance forward? What's your plan here? My motion is to move this onto the docket tonight as it's proposed. Second. We have a motion and a second. to put the ordinance on the docket, basically amending Section 2A-18 on helicopter landings within business and industrial zones to increase the frequency of helicopter landings from three times per calendar month in any one location to 30 times per calendar month in any one location, effective upon passage. Well, that's true. withdraw my second since that's right you are not on the committee so i'll have to have a motion from someone else that's on the committee in reference to this ordinance i didn't i didn't recognize him initially so it looks like we might have to have this back in committee Council member Senate I'll make a motion to bring this out to the full council for approval and vote this evening so moved motion on the floor to bring this out to full council the ordinance in front of us we have a motion in a second all those in favor those opposed we need to do this electronically please Siobhan's a... This is just a fucking hell. Right. It's... One, two, three, four, five. it doesn't matter afraid that we've got a tie here and that does not pass so looks like it may come up at another time Councilmember Lamb. I just want to say that my no vote doesn't reflect that I'm against this. I think that there was a clear, I heard a lot of people say they wanted a little bit more information. So I would like to have that little bit more information and bring it back. But I'm not against it. I just think that, so, I mean, I think that's what I would like. I just don't want you thinking that this was a no vote, that I'm totally against it. It's just that I think that we need a little bit more information. Thank you, Council Member Lamb. That concludes our meeting, but we need to go over some of the committee referrals. Council Member Farmer, I guess we'll pass on that. I'm going to go ahead and leave the Greenway Manual and Plan in there. We still have a lot of work to do on that. We have a couple of Council Member Farmer. We have the H-1 notification process and the downtown traffic study. Both are yours. And Skylanterns as well. All righty then. I'll be glad to take up the H-1 notification whenever you want to find time for it on your agenda. Okay. So ready to go there. Then what was the next one? Downtown traffic study. I think we keep it around for an update and probably we're due for an update because we've been studying that for a long time. About 15 years, I think. If we don't watch out, everything will be two-way before we know it. Okay. Skylanterns. You know, the chief farmer is here to talk about that. I took that over from Harry. You know, he's wanting us to codify something that he's already saying no to. And I'm closer to taking it out of committee than leaving it in myself. But you all may want to benefit from the conversation. I don't know. Personally, after meeting with him, I have less interest in it than I did before I knew anything about it. Move to remove. Is there a second? So we have a motion to remove the sky lanterns from the committee. In a second, all those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Okay. Next thing, Council Member Henson, I think we had a time limit on this, didn't we? This is the Herald Leader. I think we have until March. We'll just leave it in there. To review. Okay. And then we look like we did community gardens today. And then Vice Mayor Kay, I believe you have a subcommittee on the design excellence. I think that's coming back next month, right? Both those? I'm not sure about next month, but we'll look at that again, I'm sure. Okay. Taxicab ordinance, looks like that's been resolved today. Council Member Gibbs, we have a couple with you. Snow removal on sidewalk enforcement and officer turnover. I'm sorry, that's Council Member Evans. Snow removal on sidewalks enforcement. Okay, keep that on. We'll pass on Councilmember Evans. And Councilmember Gibbs, review nuisance ordinances. Okay. Councilmember Brown, Fred Brown, fire and EMS vehicle replacement plan. Madam Chair, that's a, really, administration is going to bring that forward. I think the fire department, the chief, or somebody from the fire department is going to automatically bring that up whenever you ask for it. But I don't think they were going to be ready probably until about March. So you want to leave it in committee then? Well, that's the only reason I put it in committee was for them to report back on the replacement plan. So I can follow up on that to see if they're still going to do that and then get back with you. But leave it in there for right now. Okay. We did discuss body cameras, and I believe they're going to be coming back to us on that, so we'll just leave that back, I would say, probably sometime late spring, early summer. Councilmember Hensley, you put in committee special events, traffic in the rural areas. It should be ready in spring. Looks like that will be ready in spring. And looks like we talked about the helicopter landing frequency. That may be discussed today, so we'll just go ahead and leave that in today. Oh, I'm sorry. Code enforcement policies, guidelines, and resources. Vice Mayor Kay. I think whenever there's space for it, it's not time sensitive, but sooner rather than later, I guess. Okay. And then Council Member Farmer, you've got a couple more left. The electronic billboard signage and the Euclid Ave corridor study. I think they're both evolving and we'll be ready whenever staff says so. All right. Thank you. And then Council Member Brown, safety officer. Madam Chair, just leave that in there for the time being. I'll get with the appropriate parties to see if they are interested in giving a presentation and maybe an ordinance change related to the safety officers. Thank you. Thank you. If there are no other concerns to be brought up, I'll take a motion to adjourn. Motion and second. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Thank you. Thank you. The words of a sermon that no one will hear. No one comes near. Look at him working. Notting his socks in the night when there's nobody there. What does he care? All the lonely people. Where do they all go?