# Services Committee - March 4, 2008 > Auto-transcribed civic record · Committee · March 4, 2008 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/410 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/410?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2008-03-04 - **Body**: Committee - **Last revised**: February 2, 2026 - **Length**: 10,872 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed by OpenAI Whisper-1. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude Sonnet. Speaker labels and verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Urban County Council held a committee meeting with the Chair presiding. The meeting addressed five agenda items, with four items presented for informational purposes and one item deferred for future consideration. The committee heard informational presentations on several key policy areas, including a Housing Code Enforcement Recommendation, Title VI Compliance matters, Local Enforcement of Federal Immigration Laws, and a Panhandling Ordinance Update. The Graffiti Ordinance agenda item was deferred and did not proceed during this session. One formal motion and vote was recorded during the meeting. No public comments were received or heard during the proceedings. The meeting focused primarily on receiving information and updates from staff on various municipal policy matters rather than taking final action on legislative items. ## Attendance The following individuals were present at the committee meeting: • Ms. Rabel • Commissioner Tim Bennett • Mr. Bledens • Isabel Taylor • Mr. Beard • Mr. Stennett • Ms. Henson • Commonwealth Attorney Ray Larson • Mr. Myers • Mr. Washington • Mr. Blevins • Ms. Crosby • Officer Gaines • Mr. Barbary All expected attendees were present for the meeting. No absences or late arrivals were recorded. ## Votes and Decisions The committee conducted one vote during this meeting. **Motion to Adjourn** - **Outcome**: Passed by voice vote - **Vote Type**: Voice vote - **Details**: The motion to adjourn was approved without a formal roll call. No specific vote counts were recorded for this procedural motion, which is standard practice for adjournment motions in committee proceedings. The meeting concluded following the successful passage of the adjournment motion. ## Contested Items The committee engaged in a heated discussion regarding the local enforcement of federal immigration laws, specifically focusing on the jail's current policies and potential agreements with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The contentious debate centered on the jail's existing policy of notifying ICE about foreign-born nationals in custody and the broader implications of whether the county should enter into a 287G agreement. A 287G agreement would formally authorize local law enforcement officers to perform immigration enforcement functions under federal supervision. The discussion revealed disagreements among committee members about the appropriate role of local law enforcement in federal immigration matters. The debate touched on both the practical implications of current notification procedures and the potential legal and operational consequences of formalizing the relationship with ICE through a 287G agreement. While the extracted data indicates this was a detailed and heated discussion, the specific positions taken by individual committee members, the exact nature of their disagreements, and any final resolution or outcome of this debate were not captured in the available information. The topic clearly generated significant discussion among participants, reflecting the complex and often divisive nature of immigration enforcement policy at the local level. *Note: Specific transcript timestamps and detailed participant information were not available in the provided data for this contested item.* ## Housing Code Enforcement Recommendation Commissioner Tim Bennett led a discussion on enhancing the city's housing code enforcement capabilities through technological improvements and community engagement initiatives. **Technology Implementation** Commissioner Bennett presented plans to implement new technology systems designed to streamline and improve the effectiveness of code enforcement operations. The technology component focused on modernizing current processes to better identify, track, and resolve housing code violations throughout the city. **Neighborhood Task Force Proposal** A key element of the recommendation involved establishing a Neighborhood Task Force. This proposed task force would serve as a comprehensive approach to addressing various neighborhood-level issues beyond traditional code enforcement, creating a more holistic strategy for community improvement and problem-solving. **Discussion Focus** The presentation covered how these two initiatives would work together to create a more responsive and effective system for addressing housing code violations and broader neighborhood concerns. Commissioner Bennett outlined how the technology upgrades would support enforcement efforts while the task force would provide community-level coordination and problem-solving capabilities. **Outcome** This agenda item was presented for informational purposes, allowing committee members to review the proposed approach to housing code enforcement improvements. The discussion provided an overview of the planned technology integration and community engagement strategy without requiring immediate action from the committee. The recommendation represents a dual approach combining technological modernization with community-based task force coordination to enhance the city's ability to address housing code violations and related neighborhood issues more effectively. ## Title VI Compliance Isabel Taylor presented a report on the review of divisions for Title VI compliance during the committee meeting. Taylor's assessment focused on examining various divisions within the organization to determine their adherence to Title VI requirements. The review revealed significant compliance gaps across most divisions. Taylor highlighted that the majority of divisions currently lack proper policy statements related to Title VI compliance. Additionally, she noted a widespread absence of language access plans, which are essential components for ensuring equal access to services regardless of national origin or language barriers. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin in programs and activities receiving federal financial assistance. Organizations receiving such funding are required to have comprehensive policies and procedures in place to ensure compliance, including language access provisions for individuals with limited English proficiency. The findings presented by Taylor indicate that substantial work is needed across multiple divisions to bring the organization into full compliance with federal requirements. The lack of policy statements suggests that divisions may not have formalized their commitment to non-discrimination principles, while the absence of language access plans could potentially limit services to non-English speaking community members. This agenda item was classified as informational, meaning no immediate action items or decisions were made during the discussion. However, the report serves as a baseline assessment that will likely inform future compliance efforts and policy development initiatives across the affected divisions. The presentation underscores the importance of systematic compliance reviews and highlights areas where the organization needs to strengthen its civil rights protections and accessibility measures. ## Local Enforcement of Federal Immigration Laws Commissioner Tim Bennett provided an update on the county's approach to federal immigration enforcement during the committee meeting. The administration confirmed its agreement with a previous recommendation not to enter into a 287G agreement with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The 287G program allows local law enforcement agencies to enter into partnerships with ICE to enforce federal immigration law. Commissioner Bennett also updated the committee on the current jail policy regarding foreign-born nationals. Under the existing protocol, the jail notifies ICE when foreign-born individuals are in custody, maintaining communication with federal immigration authorities while stopping short of the formal enforcement partnership that would come with a 287G agreement. This agenda item served as an informational update rather than requiring any action from the committee. The discussion clarified the county's current stance on immigration enforcement cooperation, distinguishing between notification procedures already in place and the more extensive enforcement role that would come with formal ICE partnership agreements. ## Panhandling Ordinance Update The committee received an update on the city's panhandling ordinance during this meeting. Mr. Barbary presented information regarding the current status and effectiveness of the existing regulations. The police department and Department of Law provided their assessment of the current panhandling ordinance, recommending that no changes be made at this time. Both departments indicated that the existing ordinance is working effectively in its current form. This agenda item was informational in nature, with no action items or policy changes proposed. The recommendation to maintain the status quo suggests that city officials and law enforcement are satisfied with how the current ordinance addresses panhandling-related issues within the community. No specific concerns or challenges with the current ordinance were raised during the discussion, and no timeline for future review of the policy was mentioned. ## Graffiti Ordinance The committee discussed the ongoing development of a graffiti ordinance during the meeting. Officer Gaines and Mr. Barbary provided an update on their collaborative efforts to finalize the proposed ordinance. The key focus of the discussion centered on ensuring the ordinance would be legally enforceable. Officer Gaines and Mr. Barbary reported they are currently working with the county attorney to review and refine the ordinance language to meet legal standards and requirements. No specific details were provided about the content of the proposed ordinance or timeline for completion. The speakers indicated the review process with the county attorney is still underway. The committee took no action on the graffiti ordinance at this meeting. The item was deferred pending completion of the legal review process with the county attorney. The ordinance will presumably return to the committee for further consideration once Officer Gaines and Mr. Barbary complete their work with legal counsel to ensure enforceability. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Motion to adjourn --- ## Full transcript The administration is going to speak on that, I believe. Ms. Rabel, would you like to give your comments, please? Thanks, Kevin. Thank you. Welcome. Thank you very much. If it's okay with you all, what I'd like to do is just go recommendation by recommendation and have the appropriate staff member come up and tell you, elaborate on what we have in your packet and tell you what activities we've started, if any. Is that okay? Certainly. That would be great. Okay. So we'll start with the housing code enforcement recommendation, which is to enforce housing ordinances more stringently. So I'm going to have Commissioner Tim Bennett come up. Nothing like being first, is there? Welcome, Commissioner. A couple of things we've implemented, I guess, since the ‑‑ some of them were in the works as the commission's report came out, but some of them have been implemented as we've moved forward. Two things. One is to improve the efficiency of code enforcement through the improved use of technology. One of the things we did, you all and the mayor approved in the current year's budget, some handheld computers, tablet computers as a pilot project for code enforcement. We have those now. They're in computer services being configured, so we'll be able to use those and improve the productivity in the field. One of the second things we did was to build on what we thought was a fairly successful program last fall, the Game Day program, kind of centered around the U.K. area during football games and some of the issues that caused, to broaden and expand on that and create what we've been calling internally just the Neighborhood Task Force. And the effort there is not only to team code enforcement and police, which are primarily the two agencies that teamed up on the Game Day Task Force, although we had support from other divisions, but to also bring in other divisions of government who can have an impact on improving a neighborhood, not just concentrate on the housing code violations or the law enforcement issues, but what other issues are impacting the neighborhood. Is it a traffic issue? Is it a trash issue? A parks issue? Whatever may be involved. So what we've done a couple of times is to assemble representatives from a lot of the divisions around government, from Streets and Roads to Waste Management to Parks to Code Enforcement, Building Inspection Engineering, Traffic Engineering, everybody that can have a hand in improving a neighborhood and try to get everybody focused on doing just that, not just handling their area of a problem, but cooperating together to help us address the whole issue. Code Enforcement and Police primarily have been identifying areas because they're the ones that are out there more than anyone else and identify the issues, but we're trying to change the mindset a little bit and have a government-wide view of these neighborhoods rather than a division-by-division or activity-by-activity view. We've been in a couple of areas so far using this approach. It's early in the game, so it's too early to declare victory in any area, and victory is hard to achieve anyway because you have to keep going back and reinforcing. But we've been in the Hawkins Avenue and Smith Street areas between 4th and 5th Street, one on the west side of town, one on the east side of town, and we've also been to the Ward Drive area out in the Winburn area, the first two areas that we've attempted to concentrate on. As I said, it's early in the game, so we're still working through that process with the property owners and with the issues in the neighborhood, but we're getting good cooperation from the other government agencies, and we're very optimistic this program will make some significant improvements in neighborhoods. We'll be identifying additional neighborhoods to go into in the coming months, and we'll be letting you know where those are, which neighborhoods those are, as we identify them and start to move in and take action. Anyway, those are a couple of the things that we're doing to implement the recommendation and just try to overall improve both the code enforcement effort as well as the entire government's response to community needs. Thank you. Mr. Bledens, did you have a question on this? Yes. Thank you, Chair. Mr. Bennett, one of the suggestions that citizens have made is to have extended hours for code enforcement or at least split shifts so that we have, I guess, officers? Is that the right word? I don't even know what the right word is. Officers in the field after 5 o'clock is the idea, maybe even well into like 6 or 6 to 8 p.m. that time zone. Have we looked at that, and if so, where does that stand? We are looking at that and evaluating implementing it. We have made some schedule adjustments, both schedule adjustments as well as some overtime expenditures, to get some weekend hours for code enforcement officers, particularly as we dealt with some of the sign issues and things of that nature. But David is evaluating split shifts, schedule adjustments, so that we can get coverage in large part when people are home because a lot of times we go in to deal with the issues and they're away at work, away at some other activity. So if we can extend some either evening or evening and weekend hours, I think we'll have better success. Great. That's good. Keep us up to date as you all make decisions as to what you're going to do. I'd like to know. The second question is also for David, I guess, or you. The abatement budget, has that become a constraint for you? Because I know we sort of shorted you last budget cycle. Currently we're okay as far as abatement budget goes, but we're going to be going into spring, and you know how that goes when the weeds start growing and we start finding the trash areas. So we may come back to you with a request for that, but we move some money around and we're okay for now. And it's one of those things, you know, the abatement budget can be as big as we want it to be. It's just how aggressive do we want to be in cleaning up some of the areas. Right. Right. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions from council members on this topic? All right. The second one. Thank you. The second recommendation was to determine the feasibility of establishing an enhanced office of international affairs. At this stage, we have not taken any significant steps towards this. We're going to be considering it in conjunction with the budget over the next several weeks as we put our budget together. Okay. The next area is Title VI compliance. That's Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. It's recommended that LFUCG make sure that the city is fulfilling its obligations. And so I'll have Isabel Taylor please come up and tell you what she's been up to. Thank you. Welcome. Good afternoon. Thank you. Mayor Newberry asked for a review of all of the divisions of LFUCG for Title VI compliance, and I focused on 24. In January, I started interviewing and reviewing. I've done 15 divisions so far. There will be 24 total that come into contact with the public that have programs or services or come into contact with the general public. I'm not interviewing law or finance or some of those that don't have contact with the general public. I'm reviewing under what's called the LEP guidelines, Limited English Proficiency Guidelines from the Department of Justice. They have general guidelines, and they're very specific on what they want to see from federal funding recipients. Just in general, to give you some background, we have 10 federal agencies that are funding LFUCG in $13 million, a little over that, in 2007. All of the government agencies have their own guidelines, but the Department of Justice is the overall umbrella that enforces. And the enforcement is very much trying to work with you in terms of coming into compliance. Their ultimate goal is to bring you in compliance by doing a self-assessment, and you make a self-assessment with a four-part analysis. You look at your demographic profile. You look at the nature and importance of the contact with LEP people. You look at the frequency of contact with LEP people in your programs. And finally, you look at your budget. You look at your resources and the costs involved. So doing that four-part analysis, I've gone through 15 of the divisions. And there are, if I may, I'll read you some of the findings. They're not complete. So far, the guidelines ask that the divisions have a policy statement and a policy plan for language access. None of the divisions in LFUCG have a policy statement or a policy plan other than the police department. And the police department has currently undergone a civil rights office review for the past two years. They just in January received a letter from the Department of Justice from the Office of Civil Rights. It was a 16-page letter of recommendations to bring them in full compliance. They are currently drafting their policy plan, their policy and their plan. However, no other divisions have a policy or a plan for Title VI compliance. They want to see, the Department of Justice wants to see a demographic profile of your service recipients. None of the divisions have a service area profile, a demographic profile. They want to see a person designated in the divisions as a Title VI officer. Only the police department and transportation actually had a person designated for Title VI compliance. After talking to me, several of the other divisions are now designating their officers, but the majority are not in compliance with this particular requirement. They want a process of surveying, collecting and recording primary language data for LEP contacts. None of the divisions have this in place. I know the police department is working hard to design a process for collecting this data. They want to know not only what languages do you need, they also want to know the nature and the importance and the frequency of contact. None of the, other than the police department and DEEM, fire and family services, who have varying degrees of outreach programs, none of the other divisions had any outreach programs to the LEP communities. None of the divisions had any programs other than for Spanish-speaking individuals, except for the Division of Planning who had Chinese and Turkish employees who took it on themselves to reach out to their communities. The last thing that they are very specific on is bilingual employees. If you are going to be using bilingual employees to provide language access, they want to make sure that you have quality control. None of the divisions at LFUCG had quality control in terms of bilingual employees providing language access. They want to know not only that you are assessing for proficiency, but also that you are training the individuals for interpreting. Interpreting and translating are skills that need training, specific training. And there are some recommendations that will be made across the board, not just with respect to the individual divisions, but I think that LFUCG needs a policy statement so that you will have uniformity throughout your divisions, and you need a policy plan. And I think that human resources also could help in training all of the employees and their supervisors. Thank you, Ms. Taylor. Mr. Beard? Actually, nothing for you. I wanted to dial back to Shea for a second. Oh, I'm sorry. You kind of blew through the Office of International Affairs without me getting an opportunity to make a comment about that. Is there any way to tone the name of that process down a little bit? It sounds like we're going to start to go out and put embassies or consuls out in various countries and mirror the State Department. Tone my language down or the recommendation? The recommendation's language. Okay. At the time, no, not your language, Shea. It seems a bit pretentious to me, I guess. We're not going to have an Office of International Affairs in reality, I don't believe. Well, when we look into their recommendation, we'll certainly take that into consideration and make sure whatever we do is appropriate for our community. I believe Louisville has some kind of Office of International Affairs. Is that what they call it? The International Office, so we'll be sensitive. We're not doing international business is the point. That's nation to nation is what international means. We're dealing with individuals who happen to come from various and sundry other countries here, and we ought to be able to devise something that's more descriptive of that as opposed to the terminology of international. Well, one of the recommendations as a part of this was to talk with existing groups that are already in our community that are working internationally, the World Trade Center and others, to determine the feasibility of us having this type of office. And we can certainly see what they're doing and whether or not it merits urban county government having its own office or when there are international issues if we simply just refer them to an existing entity in our community. But we'll look into that. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Stennett. Thank you, Chair. Actually, I have a question for our previous speaker. Ms. Taylor. Excuse me. I lost my notes. Okay. Talking about Title VI, will you explain to the people watching what that means in a nutshell and define that because I think there's some misconceptions based on several of the e-mails that Councilmembers are getting about exactly what that is and how we should enforce it. Can you just give us a brief definition of what it is? Title VI is part of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and it's the tail end of you will not discriminate against race, color, or national origin. And the Supreme Court ruled that language is if you do not provide language access to your programs, you're discriminating against national origin. And they want to know that federal funding recipients all provide meaningful access to your programs. In other words, you need to treat everyone equally, and that means if you have a Chinese person that wants to be involved in any of your programs, they should be treated the same as an English speaker. So that brings me to the next question that's been asked to this Council. Are we required to put all of our materials, online materials, in other languages, such as Spanish, or do we do that on an as-needed basis as you just referenced? Yes, sir. It's on an as-needed basis. The more vital the document, the more important to the LEP person, the more likely it is that you will have to translate it. And for translations alone, the Department of Justice guidelines say that if you have either 5 percent of your population or 1,000 people in that population in that group, language group, then you should translate vital documents. So how many of those groups do we have in Fayette County? We have in the public schools, we have over 100 languages. However, what I look at are the 38 or so languages that are represented in the ESL, English as a Second Language, classes, and those are 38 different language groups. We don't have an accurate count. I also look at the Refugee Center. In the past two and a half years, they have resettled here over 300 people from around the world. We have just this year, we had 60 Burundi, Liberians, 40 Liberians. So it's large groups, but I can't really tell you how large they are. We need to do surveys. We need to do community surveys. And that's a couple of my points. One is, how many documents do we have in the government that were currently already translated into Spanish? Into Spanish, every division that I interviewed indicated that, for instance, the fire will have certain documents. So we have more than one or two. Yes. We have several. We already have quite a few. But we may not have critical ones, for instance, corrections. Corrections may not have all of the documents that they need, Miranda rights, et cetera, translated into Spanish. Any other languages do we have? I see Chinese as a coming language. I think that we have way more than 1,000. We have more than 1,000 perhaps in other Asian languages. I see that. There's been 170 percent growth in the Asian population here. So I guess my point is, where will we determine when enough is enough in terms of the number of documents we're going to translate? Who's going to set that standard? Is that through Title VI and you'll be monitoring those documents? I mean, are we going to look at every single language? You said there could be 38 or so that meet that criteria. My impression is that the Department of Justice expects every division to have its own monitoring, its own individual for collecting the data, for analyzing it, and for making those determinations. And when do you hope to come back to this subcommittee with all your findings? Well, I've gotten 15 out of 24 done. Okay. And as soon as I can get to the rest, you'll have it. I'm hoping that within four to six weeks. Very good. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. Anybody else for Ms. Taylor? All right. The fourth recommendation, please. Okay. The fourth recommendation was no local enforcement of federal immigration laws. Specifically, the commission found no basis for changing the police department policy with regard to immigrants and recommended that no LFUCG agency or department enter into a 287G memorandum of agreement with ICE. And the administration agrees with this recommendation. But as you know, we have implemented a new policy at the jail, which some people have confused with 287G. It is not 287G. But I've asked Tim Bennett to give you an update on the policy at the jail. Thank you. Back to February 1, we began a program at the jail of identifying foreign-born nationals, people who were not born within the U.S. and notifying the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency of those people, that we had booked those people into our facility. To accomplish that, we essentially added one question to our booking process, and that question is, were you born within the United States? We follow up that question with an additional one of, where were you born, to get the additional information. But the initial question is asked of every person that comes in, no matter how many times they've been in. And as you know, we have a lot of repeat customers out there. But we treat everyone the same. Every time they come in, they get asked the same questions. Once a day, we send a report to Immigration and Customs Enforcement with the names of the people who were booked during the previous day, who were identified and who identified themselves, in most cases, as being born outside the United States. For the month of February, we booked a total of 2,046 people. That's everybody that we booked in the jail. It's an average of about 76 a day. During that same month, we referred 264 names to the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency. That's everybody who was identified as being born outside the United States, no matter where they were born. That's an average of about nine per day. During the month of February, Immigration and Customs Enforcement filed 21 detainers for the people that we booked during February. That's an average of a little less than one per day. And during that period, one person was released to ICE custody. And how that works is we keep those people in custody until they're otherwise eligible to be released on their state charges, whether they're getting out on bond, whether they're getting out as a result of having been found innocent at a trial, whether they're getting out as a result of serving the length of their sentence and they're eligible for release. At the point that they're eligible to be released, if ICE has filed a detainer, then we turn that person over to Immigration and Customs Enforcement people, and they're responsible for them from that point on. As I said, they filed 21 detainers during February, and we turn one person over. That means we still have 20 people in custody who they filed detainers on, and the detainer is essentially an order for us to keep them past their otherwise eligible release date. That's the program in a nutshell. Prior to February 1st, ICE had 24-7 online access to our inmate management system database, so they had the ability to look at who we had in custody, look at where they were born, look at their charges, look at their criminal history. This is just one additional step that we took to identify to them on the front end the people we booked during that day who were born outside the U.S. They may look at them, they may not. It's their judgment, after we make that notification, whether they want to pursue any further immigration investigation or potential immigration violation charges against any one of those people. Questions? Thank you. Mr. Beard? Commissioner Bennett, how do you know who you're dealing with in relationship to, if they're undocumented, to what level are they undocumented? Do they have any documentation whatsoever? How do you know that they're not giving you a false name? How does that process work in relationship to detaining them? It's a three-part question. Or more. We'll stop there and let you answer. Okay. Part one, the detention center is not equipped to determine the immigration status of anyone. We don't have that training, which is part of what 287G would provide, but we don't have those facilities readily available. The second piece is we're also not equipped to determine the authenticity of any documents that someone coming in may have. They may have a passport. They may have a green card. They may have other documents that may indicate that they're here legally, but we don't know whether those are legitimate or not. So that's the reason that we've made the determination that we're going to refer the names to ICE, and they have obviously more resources than we do to be able to make those determinations. If they determine that someone's here illegally that they're interested in, they can lodge the detainer against that person with us and we'll hold them. We are working on trying to improve some identification systems. We have a fingerprint system out there which helps us identify people, but sometimes it takes a long time to get that information to Frankfurt and get it back from Frankfurt. Ray Larson and I have had some conversations about improving that system. So we're trying to improve who we deal with, and let me back up a step, also running the criminal history not just through locally but through an NCIC criminal history check to see where this person may have been previously, what criminal activity he or she may have done previously. And that's not just on immigrants. That's on everybody. You know, we need to know better who we're dealing with at the jail. So we're looking at ways to improve that. Is it foolproof? Currently, no. But we refer the best information that we have at that point to them. The 20 detainees that have not been picked up by ICE at this point, do they just stay there until they die of old age? I mean, how does that work? They stay there until they otherwise would be eligible to be released on their state charges. So to the point they're eligible to be released on their state charges, it's immaterial that there's a detainer lodged. The detainer only comes into play when they otherwise would be eligible to be released. So essentially, they're there pretrial, which could be anywhere from a short period of time to, in some cases, several years. Depending on their sentence, they can be there post-sentencing. And then once they're eligible to be released at whatever point in that process that occurs, then if there's a detainer lodged, we turn the person over to the immigration authorities. But it sounds like they're not very responsive about doing what they need to do. When they're dealing with all 50 states, I assume, and some more heavily populated with undocumented individuals, where in the world do they keep them? How does that work exactly? The mechanics of it has always boggled my mind, I guess. I'm sure they do, not to speak for them, but I'm sure they deal with resource allocation issues just like we do every day. But part of the process is once the detainer is lodged and once the person is eligible to be released, we'll keep them normally up to 48 hours after that eligible release date to give the immigration authorities the ability to come and get them. They have contracts with detention facilities elsewhere in Kentucky that hold these people against whom detainers have been lodged for longer periods of time. They also have, obviously, contracts with detention facilities in other states also. But they designate as kind of some long-term holding facilities that do this on their behalf. You know, they don't, and we typically don't expect them to, try to back them up into our jail and just have us as a long-term holding facility. That's not the way it operates. But they'll come here and get them and then transport them to the other holding facility. There's really no extra expense to speak of that we're undergoing in feeding and housing and that type of thing? Not at this point, no. Okay, thank you very much. You're welcome. Mr. Stinnett. Thank you, Chair. Commissioner, I just have a couple of follow-up questions. One, I assume the 264 names that you turned over to ICE were people that did not have a valid form of identification? Not necessarily. They may have had some form of identification, but they were identified as having been born outside the U.S. Based on their response to that question? Yes. So if they were to answer no, what do we do? And they have no ID, they answer no. They would answer no, that they were not born here? Well, no, if they were to answer yes, they were born here, but they had no ID to prove it, what do you do there in that situation? At this point, we're not referring those people. Are we trying to figure out their identification by fingerprinting? Sure, yes. So we do run their fingerprints? Yes, yes, we fingerprint everybody that comes in. I know about it. Up until about at least a year and a half ago, we weren't running fingerprints nationally. We were just running them within our borders of our state, and that was some of the problems that have changed and caused some of these changes. Right. So we are currently running fingerprints nationally. That's my understanding. So if somebody committed a crime in Texas, we will know about it? We should, yes. Okay. And how many ICE officers do we work with or would that cover Fayette County? How many are there? Actually, I don't know how many. I think there are only a handful, though, that are responsible for the entire state. I don't know if there's anybody that's solely responsible for Fayette County. Okay. And then in terms of costs, are we being reimbursed any costs from the federal government for housing those 20 that we have now and any more in the future? No, because, again, we're housing them now on their state charges, so that's a cost we would be responsible for anyway. It's not an additional cost that we're incurring. Right, but beyond their charges, once they're satisfied, either they've served jail time or been found not guilty, are we able to recoup any of those dollars? To my knowledge, we're not, but I'll look into that and confirm it. Because, again, for each of these people, we're only talking about a couple of days. Sure. We're talking about long-term housing. Well, I can see as we start building this effort up, it could be long-term. What's the average cost to house an inmate now in our jail? Do we have those numbers? Round numbers, average cost is probably about $60 a day, $60 to $65. I know there's a segment of our community that wants us to enforce 287G, and you and I have talked about one of the big obstacles is the logistic purpose, trying to house those people in our jail because of the size or overcrowding. I think we're overcrowded now. We're starting to push the limits. So it would, in essence, cost several tax dollars, several million dollars of taxes to raise or expand our jail out. It certainly could, yes. And at $60 a day, it becomes quite a cost to us. I know there are some communities that do recoup money through 287G. There's not a lot of federal funds out there for that effort, but there are some. There are some, and those communities who are, as I understand it, who are 287G enforcement communities also house those folks on a long-term basis. They're not the two-day turnaround as we are. We're not ready to house them on a longer-term basis. So there are more implications. But we have agreed, too, if they give us a – are you saying those 20 people, we're not agreeing to house them long-term? That's correct. Once their state sentence is over, they've got 48 hours, typically 48 hours to come get them. Okay. Very good. Thank you, sir. You're welcome. Thank you. Dr. Blues? Thank you. Commissioner, I just wanted to ask, does the federal authority always pick up the detained person within the 48 hours? Or do we sometimes? I can't say always. I would say typically they do, yes. They're under that obligation to do that. There are some times that it can be a little longer if it's over a holiday period or something, but typically it's 48 working hours. Okay. So sometimes we keep them beyond the 48? Sometimes we may keep them a short period beyond the 48, yes. If it's, what, like a weekend or a holiday? Holiday. Right. Now, we don't know how many people are just after they've been detained for two days or three days simply are released to the street. I don't know that. We can go back and research it, but I don't know that right now. Okay. Thank you. Ms. Henson. Yeah. I was wondering, the 21 folks that were placed on detainer, and if ICE does not come get those within the 48 hours, then they're released, correct? Typically that's true, yes. Well, yeah, past their release date. What kind of offenses do you know what kind of offenses they're in there for or being detained for? ICE does not have to necessarily give us a, to detain them for a specific state offense. I don't have kind of the list of charges here, but I do know of the detainers that have been issued. It's a mixture of people who are in on current charges of felonies. Some people are in on current charges of misdemeanors, so some of them are more serious crimes than others. Again, not to speak for ICE, but my presumption is they look at the person's criminal history, and while the current charge may not be a serious charge, there may have been serious charges in the past, they, I would assume, would look at their criminal history not only here but other places, which we wouldn't have in our jail database but would be available through other means. So, you know, my assumption is they don't base their decisions on whether to issue a detainer solely on what the person is in jail for on current charges. Right. It would be their past. Correct. And I think that's kind of scary if they don't come get them. And, you know, they could be a murderer from somewhere. Right. Given, you know, given, again, the numbers, less than 10 percent of the people we've referred to them they've issued detainers on, the ones that they've issued detainers, I think they're probably pretty serious about coming and getting them. So you don't know exactly how many they have. Of the 21, you don't know the number that they have actually come to get of the 21? Of the 21, they've gotten one. Just one? Because only one of those has been released from state custody. The other 20 are still in jail. Oh, okay. They're still in jail currently. Okay, so only one was actually released. To ICE, that's correct. Okay. Thank you. You're welcome. I don't think there's any other questions, but I would like to ask Commonwealth Attorney Ray Larson's here, and he is going to give what they're doing with the Commonwealth Attorney's Office, and I think Ray has probably some information he'd like to give to us. Welcome. Thank you. Let me try to answer some of the questions that have been raised. I originally was for creating 287G training for people at the detention center. I have never believed that the police department should be trained under 287G because our police department is basically a call for service organization. Police officers are asked to answer calls, deal with those as effectively and efficiently as they can, and get on to the next call. If they were to enforce the immigration laws in this community, it would take hours and hours for them to make that determination, and it's just not practical in my opinion, and I would discourage that from happening. The question, this report from this Immigration Commission came out on October the 22nd, 2007. Shortly after the 1st of November, our office just on its own just implemented a policy where we would review cases that are brought to our office to determine whether or not those people were illegally in this country. Illegal immigrants were here at some point legally, and they may have overstayed their visa. Illegal aliens have no right to be here in the first place, so I use those terms advisedly. Here's what we did. We get this form, an offender index form, from the detention center, and we look for two things. The first thing we look for is the social security number because the detention center, if a person does not have a social security number, they add the prefix 999. Then we look down at a block called POB, place of birth, and if that's out of the country, then we email ICE. There is an individual that's assigned an ICE detention and deportation division of ICE that works with us in Fayette County because this is sort of a pilot kind of a project. Now, what he does is determine their immigration status. Now, we have sent 40 names to that individual, one of which was determined to be here legally. The remainder, the remaining 39, were determined to be in this country illegally. We ask what kind of crimes these people are charged with. Assault second, several rape first degree charges, a number of drug trafficking charges, wanton endangerment, robbery first, CPFI, which is criminal possession of forged instrument charges, typically forged immigration documents, two burglary first degree charges, receiving stolen property, complicity to murder, criminal abuse, which is abusing a child, tampering with physical evidence. Those are the kinds of cases that we deal with. Now, what happens is our records indicate that we have 29 detainers lodged on the 39. Ten were released before the detainers could be lodged. We could have made a motion to have those people rearrested and their bond revoked, but we determined that what we wanted to do was use that as a control group to find out whether those people would return on their next scheduled court date. We've had two people who have had a scheduled court date since they were released. Neither one appeared, and they presently, there is a failure to appear warrant for their arrest. Now, as it relates to all of the numbers Tim was talking about, the 200 and however many that is, I have asked the ICE agent that works in Fayette County to spend his energy on felonies first. Let's get the process running smoothly by which we deal with that, and then let's go down into the misdemeanors, which are most of the charges that have been sent. For example, assault fourth degree, which is a punch in the nose, basically, is an aggravated felony under the ICE requirements. It's a misdemeanor in Kentucky, but it's an aggravated felony, which is deportable. I would prefer to get the rape charges, the assault charges, the burglary charges dealt with smoothly first and then move down into the numbers because, frankly, we've got one guy trying to do all of this, and he also is frequently called to go in other places. So that's where we are on that. I heard on the radio this morning about some state advising illegal aliens and illegal immigrants to refuse to talk to booking officers or police other than giving them their name. So the identification issue is critical. And some of the things that Commissioner Bennett and myself, and, frankly, we've got a real talent in our community, Sheriff Kathy Witt is on the FBI's CJIS, or Information System Committee, and we're all working to try to come up with a plan whereby we can identify these people immediately as opposed to someone coming in, getting out within three or four hours, and we find out later that he's got a warrant for murder from Kansas, you see. So in order to do that, one of the things that we've been talking about, and we've been talking about with Commissioner Bennett, is reinstituting the IRIS scan, where you look in the thing and it says whether you've been here before, regardless what your name is, you see. This IAFIS, which is the National Automated Fingerprint Identification System, and the NCIC, which is the, whatever it is, it's the criminal records checks across the country. And we need all of those systems to work together at the detention center so we can make quick identification of people to know who we got and are they wanted elsewhere. And that's something that we're in the process of working together to try to deal with. So that's what we're doing. Now these people, these 29 detainers are still there because those cases are in circuit court and won't be released until, as Tim says, the state charges have been disposed of and if they're convicted, their sentences are served. Thank you. Mr. Myers? Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Mr. Lear, for coming in today. Larson. Lear. I've got more hair than Lear. The three different systems that you talked about, do you have a name for that program, if you will, so that it's easier? I mean, all of those. The IRIS and the NCIC scan. They're all different. I mean, those are the names of the systems. And what they need to be able to do is all work together so that we can get that done quickly. And that's part of the process that Commissioner Bennett and I are working on. Okay. If I could ask either the Commissioner or Che, either one. Are you done with me? I want you to come back in just a second, though. I don't want you to go anywhere. With respect to the administration's position on number four, the three programs that he's talking about and the program that he's working on with Commissioner Bennett, can you speak to what your recommendation is, how it relates to number four? Can you restate your question, please? That's why I was trying to get him to put a name to those three different systems so we know we're talking about that program of those three systems being used together. He said he's working with Commissioner Bennett right now to implement a program in which those three systems will work together. How does that correlate with your recommendation, the administration's recommendation on number four? I don't think it correlates directly with number four because what we need is these systems that work together, regardless of who's coming in the front door of the detention center. So it's not anything that we're putting in place specifically to identify foreign-born nationals, for example. Somebody's born in Cincinnati that we need to know a criminal history about and we need to know who we've got. We need to know about that person, too. So it's not anything I don't think that's necessary, and Ray can speak to it from his perspective, but I don't think it's anything that's targeted specifically at number four. It's something that we need to do to improve the criminal justice system overall. Okay. So regardless of this report, that's something that you're going to implement? To the extent possible, yes. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Washington, since you're here, I noticed that. Well, that sounds loaded. On number four, you're opposed, and I know that you started out by saying originally you were in favor of doing one thing. Could you just kind of let us know where you stand on number four? It may have changed, it sounds like. I've expressed a lot of my memories of that experience. I don't think that we need to go through the 287G training, provided that we all work together and we have gotten the cooperation with ICE, the U.S. Attorney's Office, and all of those people. There are kinks in the system that need to be improved, but I don't think 287G is such a great idea at this point. Okay. So if you could get those three systems that you talked about, NCIC and the IRS and the other one, working together, that would suffice, it sounds like you're saying. Well, as Commissioner Bennett said, it's not just for illegals. Right. It's for any scoundrel that comes in here from anywhere. Absolutely. If you've got a charge in New York City, then we'll know that. See, the problem is, and it requires working with the state police, because the state police on their APHIS system, they work five days a week for 16 hours a day. On weekends, they work eight hours a day. You see, so things get backed up and you might not get everything done. So we need to work with them to try to get them to commit to a 24-7. It's not just, you know, Tim, why don't you get this done kind of thing. It's a little bit more complicated than that. These proposals will help because far too often, just as it deals with illegal aliens, for example, if you talk to some booking officers over there, they'll say that somebody will be booked in, released, four weeks later, booked in again under another name. And if it isn't the same booking officer that remembers, then how do you know? You see what I mean? That's where that iris scan comes in. Have you been here before? And if you were here before, what name were you booked under? Or that sort of thing. Okay. Thank you. Is that it? That's it for me. Thank you. Mr. Beard. Thank you, Chair. I'm sorry, this is all now pent-up curiosity more than anything else. An individual has been deported and then reenters after he's been deported. Does that become a crime in and of itself? Yes. Either federally or at a state level? Federal. The state doesn't have anything to do with that kind of a charge. But the ICE officer will know it. You see, if we plug, let them, for example, they need a DSL place to hook their system in. When they go down to the booking area and start using their databases, you see, they will find out whether that person has been deported before. And a second-time offender is a deportable felony under federal law. So they deport him again? Yes. And how about the third time? Well, I guess they just keep coming. So there's no bigger stick, in other words, other than running them across a bridge, which leads me to my second question. They enter at Tijuana. Do we take them back to Tijuana or do we take them to? I don't know where they take them. I just don't want them released. Once we're finished with them, if we've convicted them of a crime in our community, I don't want them released back on our streets. I want them released back where they came from. Now, the question is frequently asked, why do we even incarcerate them for a limited amount of time? Well, if I was an illegal immigrant and I committed a rape in the first degree and I was arrested and I was handed over to ICE within two, three weeks and they deported me, they released me where I came from, chances are very good that there would be no implications that affected me negatively where I was deported to. As a result, you've got a free crime. And crime victims are entitled to believe that people that victimize them will suffer some consequences. You would hope so. It just sounded like a never-ending revolving door there at some point. Well, I'm sure there are a percentage that will continue to come back, but there are also a significant percentage that won't. Thank you very much. Mr. Stinnett. What current system are we using now at the jail? There are three you named. Which one are we using at our detention center? Do you know? The pretrial release program does an NCIC check for criminal records in order to determine bail amount. Okay. But that's done by a division of AOC, Administrative Office of the Courts, and I don't think they're permitted to share their information. Now, the detention center uses the NCIC, but it's later on in the process. So part of our change, would that be to get these type of numbers or run it through these systems earlier in the process? I'd hope so. And we have the legal balance to be able to do that? Sure. Good. So there is kinks. But don't forget, there are personnel issues as well, and the personnel issues are not just the detention center, they're also the state police, you see. I understand. So then once these three systems are in place, the current kinks, which we may not be finding people in Texas or Kansas, as you suggested, we may not know that they're wanted there. No, we may. Currently, we don't know. It will be considerably later and maybe long after they're gone. And when you say considerably? The greatest concern that the detention center and Commissioner Bennett and myself and the police have is that we have somebody who is wanted somewhere else. They get out because we didn't know about them when we could have, you see, and they commit a homicide in our community. That's the nightmare that we're all afraid of. And so what we want to do is, like I said, is we want to make our system work so that we can identify anybody that's wanted or have warrants out for them, whether they're illegal or whether they're not. It's just the whole schmear of thugs. That's exactly how I'm sure a lot of people in our community feel, but I feel personally, too. And what do we need to do to fast track? Is there anything this body can do to help? Well, let's wait. Let's wait and let's get our system discussed with the Commissioner of Public Safety and the detention center people in ICE, and then maybe we'll be back. I don't know. Tim will have to tell me that. Okay. And last but not least, does your office prosecute illegal documentation if someone uses a legal Social Security card or driver's license? We get it. See, here it is. CPFI, criminal possession of a forged instrument. It can be a check. It can be a Social Security card. It could be immigration documents. It can be anything. And if a business owner suspects they have an employee that's or they've had two employees use the same Social Security card, who do they call normally? Should they call your office? Should they call the police? They can call me. I'll just, what we do then is email ICE. And it doesn't necessarily have to be an illegal. I mean, it can be almost anybody can do that. Then you're getting into the identity theft issue. Right. But I thought under the immigration law, the forging of immigration documents is a criminal offense that we can enforce. Sure. So we can enforce. We don't have to notify ICE. We can take action ourselves. Well, we can prosecute them, but we also want to put a detainer on them. Sure. Sure. I understand that. So we are prosecuting when we find people. Sure. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Are you done with me? No, sir. We've got a couple more questions, if that's okay. Okay. If you need to go, it's fine, though. Mr. Blevins, Ms. Henson was next. She's not coming up on the computer system for some reason. But Ms. Henson? I just had a question I wanted to clarify. If you have a person that is being charged with a criminal offense in the circuit court, and they are convicted and they are sentenced, do they serve their sentence before they're deported? Yes. Okay. That's what I thought. I just wanted to make sure. That's the plan. Thank you. Mr. Blevins. Thank you, Chair. One of the problems we have on the counsel with this particular issue is that there's a lot of misinformation and citizens get confused. So I want to help us with that today because we're going to get a bunch of phone calls after this session if we don't. The first thing I want to point out is that Mr. Larson is the Commonwealth attorney. You prosecute, generally speaking, felonies for the community. These are the nasty crimes, the ones that you listed. We also have a county attorney, Mr. Roberts, who prosecutes the less heinous crimes, generally misdemeanors, theft by unlawful taking, shoplifting of small items, that kind of thing. So I want everybody to know that when Mr. Larson is speaking, he is referring to the things that he would typically prosecute, which are the worst of the crimes. The other thing I want to point out to the community is the last few minutes we've been talking about number four here, all of it has been independent of whether it's an immigrant, an alien, or just someone from our community. If you are a thug in this community, you will be arrested. If you are a thug in this community, you will go to jail. And if you're a thug in this community, you will be aggressively prosecuted by Mr. Larson. Then you will serve your jail time in this community. It doesn't matter where you're from. If you're born elsewhere, you're born here or in Texas, you're going to serve your time in this community. So I don't want people thinking that there's a gaping hole in our system here that's allowing hundreds of felons to go free. That's not what's occurring. We are very good at capturing and prosecuting our criminals here. What we're doing today is talking about going above and beyond what we normally do to ensure that the immigration system also is able to kick in and take folks who are here illegally and get them out of our community. So I don't want people to walk away with the fear that there's some major problem with our system. There isn't. What we're trying to do is tighten the net. Would that be a fair assessment, Mr. Larson? That's exactly what I was going to say. Okay. You know, I was asked a question because there was some fear in the— I was told there was some fear in the immigrant community about what I'm doing and then what's being done from the detention center, sending names to ICE. And the question was, what message would you send to that group that would allay some of their fears? And I said, it's all pretty simple. Don't commit a crime because then you don't get in. You know, we're really not interested in prosecuting victims or people that turn in bad guys. We just don't do that. ICE doesn't do that. So we're interested in the thugs who break the law. AOS, so to speak. Yeah. I agree. And I am getting feedback. I can confirm the immigrant community is confused and afraid, and I think it's mostly a communication and trust issue. If we demonstrate that our police are not out to enforce immigration law, they're out to help and provide the service that you referred to, and that if you keep your nose clean, you'll be just fine, over time we'll rebuild that trust, and our relationship between the police department and the immigrant community will continue to be a good one. Thanks for coming today. I appreciate everything you do. Am I done now? Not quite. Okay. A couple more people. Ms. Crosby. Yes, the IRS technology you talked about, how much does a system like that cost? You know, we had it before, and I don't know. It's something that I don't know how much it costs. And is that something that other communities use throughout the country? Is it quite common? Yes. Thank you. Mr. Myers. It mostly involves, have you been in our shop before, in our detention center before? That's kind of what it does. Because people come in and use different names, and you don't have to be illegal to do that. We were having a little side discussion. So it would not be able to be utilized to compare, say, like you said, somebody did something in Kansas. That technology would not be able to. That's where the fingerprints, the computerized fingerprints, and the National Crime Information Center. So if this was effective, why are we not utilizing, if we already had it, I guess what happened? I think the contract, the company that ran it, I think, went out of business. And so I think, but there are other companies. Okay. So we could utilize our current, I guess, system that we have and go with another company, the technology? I don't know. I don't know. Is that something that somebody could look into? Sure. I think Commissioner Binnen probably has some comments here. Would you like to? I'm out of here. No, no. Maybe. I don't know. Okay. Bring that yo-yo with you. Tag team. Actually, this is a system we put into place back in the early 80s, the iris scan one. There have been some issues with reliability of it with certain segments of the population, how reliable the scans are. So that's something we're trying to work through, see if we can either make our system that we've kind of stopped using for the moment more reliable or investigate installing a more reliable system. So that's something we'll be continuing to work on. When did we stop using it, just out of curiosity? I don't know. It was between my two tenures, so sometime between 01 and 07. All right. Thank you. Two years back. Thank you. It looks like one more question, Mr. Larson, which might be in many parts, though. But Mr. Myers. I've been thrown out of better places than this. I haven't had to say one more question ten times. But on the APHIS system that the state police use, you said there was a gap, the APHIS system? Well, it's not staffed 24-7. Right. That gap in staffing, is there something that we can do to augment, or is there another system, or do we have access to that system that we can plug in the gap while they're not using it? No. What we need to do is work with the APHIS center, with the state police, because there are other communities around the state that want to do the same thing. We're going to ask them to do that. Rodney Brewer is the new commissioner, and we'll talk to him. But we want to get our game plan together before we go over and act like we know what we're doing. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Mr. Chair, if I could ask Shea to come up and back up to number three and ask one question. Certainly. Thank you, Mr. Larson, for your time. We appreciate it. With respect to compliance with number three, one of the things that a lot of cities have on their websites, if you look at the bottom, Kansas City, Missouri is one example. They've got a series of flags at the bottom of the website, and if you click that flag, it translates the entire website to that language. Right. Is that something that we can look into doing here? Yes. I believe we already are. I think we've mentioned on other occasions that we're moving towards a new website design, and that's something that we have noted on other websites around the nation as well. And so I think we're looking at the pricing of that right now. Okay. And with the 2010 games coming, I think that would be a wise move to make. Right. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. I think moving on to number five, please. Okay. The fifth recommendation was for urban county government to issue local identification cards, similar to a program they have in New Haven, Connecticut. The administration is opposed to this recommendation, and therefore we have not taken any action. The sixth recommendation was the issuance of driver's licenses, which is a function of the state government. And so the recommendation was for urban county government to advocate that the state make driver's licenses available to all residents regardless of immigration status. The administration is also not in support of this recommendation, and therefore we have not advocated the state to make that change. Does anybody have any questions on those two? And then the last recommendation, please. Okay. The last recommendation was to advocate the state government to enforce labor laws, which is their responsibility. And in your packet we have included a letter that Mayor Newberry sent to Governor Beshear and members of our legislative delegation in Frankfurt about a month ago. And he sent a copy of the Immigration Commission report and asked that Governor Beshear share it with the appropriate people in his administration and enforce the laws, basically. Thank you. Are there any other questions for Mr. Stennett? Are we looking to also send any letters or resolutions from this body to our federal folks as well, asking for support of ICE and additional funds in those arenas? It's certainly the prerogative of the council if you're interested in doing that. We do not have a resolution prepared to ask you to do that at this time. Have we contacted or has the administration made contact with our federal folks, representatives? On this particular issue about funding ICE more? Yes. Not to my knowledge. Okay. It may be something that would be wise for this body and the administration to look into doing, at least put it on the record that we're asking for more support, because I think, you know, keep saying it's a federal problem. Let me restate that for just a second. I'll need to go back and find what information we have sent to our federal delegation. I know that we have sent a letter to our federal delegation asking them to basically either enforce existing immigration laws or come to some kind of immigration reform that's in the national attention now. So I'll have to go back and review that and see what specifically we asked them to do, and I can provide that to this committee. You probably received a copy of it. It's been several months ago. And then I know that the council, and I'm not sure if this council or the council before, has sent a resolution to the federal delegation before. But whether or not it spoke specifically to funding for ICE, I don't know, but I can find out. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Raybolt. Is there any other person who wants to make a comment on this topic? We will keep this in the committee because we will be expecting back some recommendations, some other information back. The next item on the agenda today is the panhandling update. When we passed the panhandling ordinance, we removed Section A, and we wanted the police to come back and give an update. I think Commissioner Bennett is here and is going to give us the update. Is that correct? We have a memo from Lieutenant Kurtzinger in our packet. Actually, I was not planning on doing the update, so I'm not sure who at this point is. Mr. Schoeninger, do you have? I believe we can look and see from the memo that was presented to us, it gives the recommendation that says that they recommend on the third paragraph that RCO 14-5 remain intact. They had 41 calls, and 19 of those received citations. Mr. Barbary, would you like to? I think the police's concern was that there might be a recommendation to further change the ordinance, and we had previously discussed that with them, the Department of Law had, and we did not see a reason to change it anymore. So I think the report out was to just let you all know that that was the consensus of the police department and the Department of Law, was to leave the existing ordinance as is. That is working. That's my understanding of the police department's report, yes. Thank you. The next item on the agenda is the graffiti, and I think Officer Gaines is here, and also Mr. Barbary is here. Officer Gaines, welcome. Thank you. Right now, we're still in the process of working on it. Myself and Mr. Barbary would like to get with the county attorney and have them look at it also. So at this time, my recommendation would be to hold off on anything further until we get more added on, unless there's comments or questions. How much time do you think you all need? It will really depend when we can meet with the county attorney's office. We want to make sure that they look at this as an enforceable ordinance as well. I don't anticipate that there will be a whole lot of changes to it. There may be some things like putting specific exceptions in here so that it's understood that if you're on a public property and you have an implement, but you're headed to school or something like that, you're not going to get arrested for it. So there may be some additional types of exceptions put in. I think this is pretty close to what you all will see, but we want to sit down with the county attorney's office and just make sure that they don't have any concerns with how they would go about enforcing this for the division of police. So you just get back to Mr. Schoeniger when you're all ready to present to us? I would anticipate it wouldn't be too long. It's just a matter of sitting down with them and hammering it out. We'll keep in committee when you're all ready to present to us. We'll put it on the agenda. Thank you very much. Any other questions that anybody had prior to that? Is there any questions for Officer Gaines while he's here? No, sir. Seeing no more items on the agenda, I will do a motion to adjourn. So moved. Second. We've got a motion and a second. All those in favor say aye. Aye. I suppose we are adjourned.