# Services Committee - August 14, 2007 > Auto-transcribed civic record · Committee · August 14, 2007 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/44 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/44?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2007-08-14 - **Body**: Committee - **Last revised**: February 1, 2026 - **Length**: 9,604 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed by OpenAI Whisper-1. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude Sonnet. Speaker labels and verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Services Committee convened on August 14, 2007, at 1:00 PM with Mr. Ellinger presiding as the meeting chair. The committee addressed four agenda items during the session, covering topics ranging from traffic safety measures to alcohol sales regulations and transportation services. The committee took three formal votes during the meeting, with one item receiving approval - the Headley Ave/6th Street Drive Multi-Way Stop proposal. The remaining three agenda items were handled as informational presentations, including discussions on Alleghany Ave, Sunday alcohol sales, and the relationship between taxi ordinances and the ITN (Independent Transportation Network) program. Five members of the public provided comments during the meeting, contributing to the committee's deliberations on the various municipal matters under consideration. The session balanced both actionable items requiring committee decisions and informational briefings designed to keep members informed about ongoing city services and regulatory matters. ## Attendance All committee members were present for the August 14, 2007 meeting. **Present:** Ellinger, Myers, James, Blues, DeCamp, Beard, Crosbie, McChord, Blevins, Lane **Absent:** None **Late:** None ## Votes and Decisions The Committee took three unanimous votes during the August 14, 2007 meeting, all related to traffic safety matters and agenda management. **Multi-Way Stop Request at 6th Street and Headley Avenue** [timestamp: 00:00] CM James motioned to request a multi-way stop installation at the intersection of 6th Street and Headley Avenue, with CM McChord providing the second. The motion passed unanimously. **Removal of Panhandling Item** [timestamp: 00:00] Chair CM Ellinger motioned to remove the panhandling item from the Committee's agenda, seconded by CM Beard. This motion also passed unanimously, effectively removing this issue from further Committee consideration. **Removal of Multiple Traffic and Infrastructure Items** [timestamp: 00:00] CM DeCamp made a motion to remove several items from the Committee's purview, including the proposed multi-way stop at Kastle Road and Montclair intersection and sump pump redirect program issues. CM Crosbie seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. All three votes were conducted as voice votes with unanimous consent, with no recorded individual vote tallies or dissenting opinions. The Committee demonstrated efficiency in addressing both new traffic safety requests and administrative housekeeping matters, clearing multiple items from their ongoing agenda while approving one new traffic control measure for implementation. ## Budget and Financial Actions The Committee addressed one financial matter during the August 14, 2007 meeting. The Committee considered an appropriation of $86,618 for a traffic engineering project on Allegheny Way. This appropriation represents funding allocated for traffic-related improvements or studies along this roadway corridor. No additional details were provided in the available materials regarding the specific scope of the traffic engineering work, the timeline for completion, or the contractor selected for this project. The resolution number and vendor information were not specified in the meeting documentation. This single financial action comprised the entirety of the budget-related business conducted during this Committee session. ## Public Comment Five speakers addressed the committee during the public comment period [timestamp: 00:00]. **Traffic Safety** Robo Sutherland spoke regarding a proposed multi-way stop at the intersection of Headley Avenue and 6th Street. Sutherland discussed the impact and reasoning behind the request for implementing the traffic control measure at this location. **Sunday Alcohol Sales** Four speakers addressed proposed changes to Sunday alcohol sales regulations, all speaking in favor of the modifications: • **Anna Marletta** expressed support for the proposed changes to Sunday alcohol sales policies. • **Renee Jackson** spoke on behalf of Downtown Lexington Corporation, advocating for the proposed Sunday alcohol sales changes. • **Gene McLean**, identifying himself as a Frankfort lobbyist, represented both the Red Mile and the Kentucky Beer Wholesalers Association in supporting the proposed modifications. • **Jason Baird** also spoke as a Frankfort lobbyist in favor of the Sunday alcohol sales changes. The public comment session focused primarily on the Sunday alcohol sales issue, with multiple stakeholders from business and industry organizations providing testimony in support of the proposed policy changes. The speakers represented various interests including downtown business development, horse racing facilities, and the beer wholesale industry. ## Contested Items The Committee meeting on August 14, 2007, featured one significant area of contention that generated substantial debate among members. **Sunday Alcohol Sales** A heated discussion emerged regarding proposed changes to Sunday alcohol sales laws. Committee members expressed sharply divided opinions on the potential impacts of modifying existing regulations governing alcohol sales on Sundays. The debate centered on two primary concerns: the potential effects on local tourism and public safety implications. Some members argued that changing Sunday alcohol sales restrictions could benefit the tourism industry, while others raised concerns about public safety consequences that might result from expanded alcohol availability. The disagreement reflected broader policy tensions between economic development interests and public health and safety considerations. Members engaged in significant discussion about how modifications to Sunday alcohol sales laws might affect the community, though the extracted data does not specify which individual committee members took particular positions or provide the specific details of their arguments. The contentious nature of this item suggests that committee members held strong, opposing views on the issue, making it one of the more challenging topics addressed during the meeting. However, the available information does not indicate what final action, if any, was taken on this matter or whether the debate was resolved during this session. *Note: Specific transcript timestamps are not available in the provided source materials for this contested item.* ## Alleghany Ave [timestamp: 00:00] The committee discussed traffic patterns affecting Rosa Parks Elementary School and potential solutions during this agenda item. Key speakers included Blevins and David Magner, who presented information about current traffic conditions in the area. The discussion focused on how traffic flow on Alleghany Avenue impacts the elementary school environment and student safety. Committee members examined various proposed solutions to address traffic concerns in the vicinity of Rosa Parks Elementary School. This was an informational discussion item, with no formal action taken by the committee. The agenda item served to provide committee members with background information on the traffic situation and allow for preliminary consideration of potential remedies. The meeting materials indicate this was the first item on the agenda, suggesting it was considered a priority issue for committee review and discussion. ## Headley Ave/6th Street Drive Multi-Way Stop [timestamp: 00:00] The committee discussed the installation of a multi-way stop at the intersection of Headley Avenue and 6th Street Drive during agenda item 5. The discussion involved key speakers James and Robo Sutherland, who presented the need for enhanced traffic control measures at this location. The proposal centered on implementing a multi-way stop configuration to improve safety and traffic flow at the intersection. While the specific details of the traffic analysis, accident history, or community concerns that prompted this recommendation were not detailed in the available materials, the discussion resulted in committee approval of the multi-way stop installation. The committee ultimately approved the proposal to move forward with the multi-way stop at the Headley Avenue and 6th Street Drive intersection. This decision will result in the installation of stop signs for all approaches to the intersection, requiring all vehicles to come to a complete stop before proceeding through the intersection. The approval of this traffic control measure represents the committee's response to intersection safety needs and follows standard municipal procedures for implementing traffic calming and safety improvements in residential and commercial areas. ## Sunday Alcohol Sales The committee held an informational discussion on changes to Sunday alcohol sales laws and their potential impacts [timestamp: 00:00]. The agenda item served as a forum for examining proposed modifications to existing regulations governing alcohol sales on Sundays. Key participants in the discussion included Ellinger, David Barberie, and Dr. Stevens, who provided various perspectives on the proposed changes. The speakers addressed the potential implications of altering current Sunday alcohol sales restrictions, though specific details of their presentations were not captured in the available materials. The discussion focused on examining how changes to Sunday alcohol sales laws might affect the community, businesses, and regulatory framework. Committee members and speakers explored various aspects of the proposed modifications, considering both the practical and policy implications of such changes. No formal action was taken during this agenda item, as it was designated as an informational discussion. The committee used this time to gather information and hear different viewpoints on the Sunday alcohol sales issue, allowing members to better understand the complexities and considerations involved in potential policy changes. The outcome was purely informational, providing committee members with background knowledge and stakeholder perspectives to inform future deliberations on Sunday alcohol sales regulations. ## Taxi Ordinance and How it Relates to ITN Program [timestamp: 00:00] The Committee discussed agenda item 10 regarding the ITN program and its relationship to local taxi ordinances. The discussion was led by key speakers Gorton and Gail Reese. This agenda item served as an informational discussion to examine how the ITN (Independent Transportation Network) program intersects with existing taxi regulations. The ITN program provides transportation services, particularly for seniors and visually impaired individuals, which raises questions about how such services should be regulated in relation to traditional taxi ordinances. The discussion aimed to clarify the regulatory framework surrounding the ITN program and determine whether existing taxi ordinances apply to or conflict with ITN operations. This type of analysis is important for municipalities to ensure proper oversight of transportation services while supporting programs that serve vulnerable populations. The item was categorized as informational, indicating that the Committee was gathering information and discussing the relationship between these transportation services rather than taking formal action. No specific outcome or decision was recorded beyond the informational nature of the discussion. This agenda item reflects ongoing considerations about how local governments regulate various forms of transportation services and ensure compliance with municipal ordinances while supporting community transportation needs. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Request a multi-way stop at 6th Street and Headley Ave - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Remove Panhandling item from Committee - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Remove multi-way stop @ Kastle Rd and Montclair and the sump pump redirect program issues --- ## Full transcript It's one o'clock. Let's begin the services committee. The first item on the agenda, we have a quorum, so let's begin. The first item on the agenda is the Allegheny Avenue. Mr. Blevins, would you present this, please? Thank you, Chair. Fellow council members, we have an issue out in the 10th district surrounding Rosa Parks Elementary School where the original implementation of the traffic patterns, now that we've lived with it for a few years, we're discovering that the neighborhood and the school itself are both adversely affected by the traffic patterns during the morning and the afternoons. I've asked several folks to be here today to give us an idea of what's going on, and we have a proposed solution to bring to you in a moment. Is there anyone here from Fayette County Public Schools? We had hoped to get a representative. Okay, seeing none. I'd like to ask David Magner to come to the microphone, please. Mr. Magner is with the Beaumont Neighborhood Association. We'll talk about the effects on the neighborhood. Mr. Magner. Welcome. Afternoon. Thanks for having me. As Mr. Blevins said, my name is Dave Magner. I'm the president of the Beaumont Residential Association. I wanted to talk about the traffic patterns at Rosa Parks as well as the bike trail, a walking trail that goes through our neighborhood. I think you have drawings of what we talked about. Now Allegheny Way can only turn right onto Beaumont Center Lane, and so cars all have to turn right when they're leaving school. They have to drop off in the morning or pick up in the morning. What they do is they then go down and do U-turns on Beaumont Center Lane in front of cars and in front of students trying to cross the streets. What we'd like to do is allow them to turn left out of Allegheny so they can then go toward Harrodsburg Road, which is where most of the people want to go in the mornings. The other issue we have is the walking trails ends at Beaumont Center Lane. They then have to go up and over the parkway or the median and then back onto the trails. And we have a lot of families with bikes, a lot of families with strollers that they have to go down the curb, across the street, up the median and down, and then back onto the walking trails. And it's very dangerous for them. There's cars coming, so they're trying to do it quickly. And, again, sorry, going down and up the curb is not a safe condition. So we have a lot of residents there. It wasn't a problem so much a few years ago, but now that the crossing, which is the last subdivision right across from Rosa Parks, has developed, there's a lot more traffic in the mornings. And it's very dangerous watching those cars U-turn in front of each other. I walk my daughter to school there every morning, and I'm always hesitant there's going to be an accident there at some point. So a lot of our neighbors support this. And, you know, the walking trails is a very heavily populated area, especially in the evenings when there's a lot of traffic. Thank you, Mr. Magner. I hope to have someone from the school system here to talk about that aspect as well. I'll just relay that in the mornings, the way the pick-up and drop-off sequence works at Rosa Parks, this is even further exacerbated because it causes the line to back up. And then residents trying to leave to go to work in the morning equally have to work around the ensuing traffic jam. The solution appears to be to allow the cut-through for Allegheny Way. So what I've done is ask traffic engineering to analyze that and come forward with a proposal. And I believe Mr. Baird is here to talk about what exactly is in our packet. Mr. Baird, could you lead us through this? Yes. When we received this quest, representatives from engineering and traffic engineering drove the area to see for ourselves how the traffic movements were. We noticed the turnaround move that the previous citizen was talking about. And saw some merit in creating this opening in the median in Beaumont Center Lane. So we also looked at the pedestrian crossing where engineering, traffic engineering, are both in agreement with creation of both of these and look forward to building this when the funding is available. And would you the cost estimate before us is inclusive of both the turn lane and the trail crossing, is that correct? Yes. And the estimate total is $86,618, is that correct? Yes, sir. Okay. Mr. Chair, I'd like to make a motion that we direct traffic engineering to go ahead with this project and that we allocate the amount listed here in the estimate from the fund balance for fiscal year 08. So moved. We have a motion and second. And for those who are watching out there, we actually, since we've come back from break, have a new system here. And we're all in the process of learning this system. So we're now at a touchstone and within a week it will all be on the screen. So at this point we're still trying to get all the system worked out. But we do have a motion and we have a second. Do we have any discussion? Who gave the second? There, okay. Let's try to push our buttons here. That's what we're trying to do now. And then we have Mr. DeCamp. Thank you. I support this. I just have a question about, you know, the traffic count. You know, when people pull out of Allegheny onto the Beaumont Center, I mean, are we eventually going to need a stop sign there of some sort? Because I don't know what the traffic is. Are we creating a dangerous situation in making a left turn and what the traffic volume would be? No, I agree with the concept, don't get me wrong. But I think, you know, we're doing something and maybe creating a situation that may not be too safe. And I just wondered if we've looked beyond the point of opening up the median. Bob, do you want to make a comment on that? I was just talking to Jeff Neal in traffic. We don't have the current counts. But what we would definitely need to do would be to keep an eye on the operation of that intersection, make sure that we're not creating an unsafe situation. Invariably, when changes are first made, things are a little touchier than they are later on. But as far as traffic counts, we don't seem to have those with us right now. What's the speed limit on Beaumont Center Lane? This is 35. Okay. Well, I just, you know, I certainly will support this, but I think it's something we really ought to keep a close eye on because there will be a lot of children, you know, in cars with their parents, obviously. And I want to be sure that we don't create something that's, even though it's more convenient to pull out, that will be more dangerous than what we have now. Mr. Blevins, I think you wanted to comment on that, too, didn't you? I just want to respond. You're quite correct. We need to keep an eye on this. I think the primary times where it will be heavy traffic flow is when school's starting at the end of the day. And we're already working with the school system to consider putting a crossing guard at this location, you know, the safety police that can direct traffic for those times. That's not a firm decision, but it's being thought about is what I wanted to assure you. So I think we've got that covered for the time being. Is there anybody who would like to request to speak? Seeing none. Now, would you all vote? All those in favor? You have your machine. Vote here. Mr. Chairman? Yes. Could you restate the motion, please? I'm sorry? Could you restate the motion? Mr. Blevins, would you restate, please? The motion is to direct traffic engineering to implement this project, which will be funded by the fiscal year 08 fund balance for the amount listed in the estimate, which is $86,618. Not everybody's been able to vote, it doesn't appear. Like I said, it will take a little time for us to get this system working properly. I'm sorry? I don't even have mine. What? Now it's gone. Well, don't put me at nay. Right. Dr. Stephens is not a member of the committee, so he should not be on the list. Dr. Stephens. Ms. Gorton is not a member. Nor Mr. Stennett. But Mr. McCord is. I like where the trend is going here, though. Yeah, I got the vote. That passes. Mr. McCord still has not got to vote yet. Just bear with us. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. All those opposed? That passes. The next item on the agenda is the Healy Avenue Sixth Street Drive multi-way stop. Ms. James? Yes, that would be me. Back in early 2007, the Northside Neighborhood Association asked our office to pursue a multi-way stop at the intersection of Sixth and Healy Avenue. As included in the packet, you can see that Traffic Engineering did their study. And by some minor, minor numbers, we missed the mark for approval from Traffic Engineering. So I wanted to invite the Neighborhood Association representative, Robo Severland, if you will step forward to talk a little bit about the impact of this multi-way stop and why they requested it. Thank you all for your time. As you said, the study, which I'm going to get to the page here. In terms of westbound traffic, that would be pulling off Broadway towards Jefferson on Sixth. The cutoff is the 85th percentile, which the speed for the study came out at 39.7. The study needed to be at 40 miles per hour, so we were only three-tenths off. Also at that number, that would cut the traffic flow volume down to 70 percent of the 300 level, which would be 210 hourly average for vehicles along that road. Our number was 207, so we really missed it by three cars and three-tenths of a mile per hour. I would also like to say that the study, it said it was an eight-hour study. The problem on this street is really in the evening hours and on the weekend. Despite a lot of mature trees, especially going eastbound on Sixth, you can see the light all the way from Jefferson. It's a short cycle. And, I mean, people just, if they see the green, they're going to floor it down. I mean, I've never gunned the mile per hour myself. But people, I would say, easily get up to 50, 55 if they're trying to make the light, either in the early morning hours or in the evening or weekend hours. And, you know, it's a neighborhood. There are not a ton of kids on the neighborhood now, but there are more coming. You have a number of cross streets, Healy, Price, Jefferson, Vaughn Alley. You have about 25 driveways that back out onto Sixth. So you have a number of instances where you can look both ways and not see anything and start backing out and somebody will be right on you. I'm also the president of the Northside Neighborhood Association, the Association of Access, and I live two doors down from the intersection. So I see it every day. The only thing I would like to say as well is in the study it said that there were no collisions on record. My parked car has been hit as well as my neighbor's has been hit within the last year and a half. And I think this said within the last five years. So it's maybe not right at the intersection, but it's close enough that I think it should count. Thank you, Robo. Thank you. I would just like to add something, if it's okay, Chair. Sure. There actually are, there's a park about a block or two from this area, Coulivan Park, and Coulivan Apartments. And a lot of foot traffic. There's a bus stop near that corner of Jefferson where the Coulivan Apartments are. So there's a lot of walking, a lot of kids standing around, a lot of people waiting on buses in that area. And it's between Jefferson and Broadway, which is a pretty high-traveled road and area. And just like Robo Sutherland said, you know, the study was probably done during the daylight hours. And the major impact of this and the collisions that we hear about as far as hitting the streets, hitting the cars on the side of the road are in the evening and weekend hours as people are, I guess on the weekend we feel a little bit more free-spirited or something and drive faster. So please take that into consideration. It looks like maybe somebody wants to speak, but I will make a motion after someone speaks. Okay. Mr. McCord? I'll make my motion. Please help me with framing my motion because what Council Member Blevins said about out of fiscal year, the fund balance, I don't know anything about that. I just want, you don't have to do that. Okay. I would like to make a motion to submit the recommendation to full council to request installation of a multi-way stop at the intersection of West 6th and Healy Avenue. We have a motion and a second for Mr. McCord. Do we have any discussion? I'm stuck. Oh, here we go. First motion is done. And now it's got Mr. DeCamp. Wonderful. Thank you, Mr. DeCamp. Do we have any discussion? I would like to hear, is there anybody from Traffic Engineer here? I would like to give them an opportunity to speak. Thank you. Brad Frazier, Traffic Engineering. The only points that I'll just make about the report, what the Council Member has said and what the gentleman had also said, just a point of clarification, we do do a 24-hour study out there and we take the top eight hours and we use that as our average in the analysis. The gentleman that was here talking about the speeds being a lot higher, could be possibly higher than some of the traffic he's witnessed, that could be very true. I just wanted to make that point because it does represent 85 percent of the speeds out there. So that means 15 percent of the traffic was going beyond that speed. So 85 percent was actually less than that 39.7 which was discussed. So there was traffic out there, it was going beyond that. The collisions that he mentioned, we get our collision information from the police. If there is a collision that happens and it doesn't become reported to the police, then we don't have that record. But what we generate and what we provide to Council is basically what is of record. So I just want to make those points to everybody. It sounds like everything else has been summarized fairly well. Thank you. Is there any other discussion from Council members? Ms. James, did you want to make a comment? Yeah, I just wanted to thank Brad for clarifying that. I was not aware that it was a 24-hour study and you pulled out the eight. Thank you for that clarification. And also that the majority of folks don't, if they repeatedly, if their vehicles continue to get hit, they don't report them because their insurance goes up. So that's kind of the flaw with reporting it to police and using that. It will be as best to ask the neighbors around that area if there's collision that have happened. Thank you. Any other discussion? It's now time to vote. All those in favor? Push yay. All those nay. Mr. Lane. Mr. DeCamp. Okay. Those pass. The next item on the agenda is an issue that I brought up is the Sunday alcohol sales. And at this point I'd ask Mr. Myers if he would chair the meeting because I would like to talk about this issue. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll gladly take over the meeting and yield the floor to you. Thank you. One of the issues I wanted to discuss here was the Sunday alcohol sales. And after what the legislature had done in the spring, I'd ask Mr. Barbary with the law department to come back and give us an opinion on what we can do as a council if we look towards the Sunday alcohol sales. Mr. Barbary, if you would, would you summarize what you presented to us in our packet on what the new law is and what we can or can't do now, please? Sure. There were two changes to the pertinent statutes during the last legislative session. The first one was with respect to buy the drink sales of distilled spirits and wine. And that's in the memo that I provided you all, the July 18th memo. That's the first paragraph, KRS 244.2955. Essentially what that does is it's the legislative attempt to allow you all, via a local ordinance, to establish whatever hours you choose on a Sunday for the sale, buy the drink of those types of alcohol at whatever types of establishments that can otherwise sell those types of alcohol on Sunday. Currently, I think you all are limited to, under the existing law, to buy the drink sales in essentially restaurant seating capacity of 100 seats or more. This would allow you all to expand that to virtually any type of establishment that could otherwise sell, buy the drink of this type of alcoholic beverage. The other change that was made was a more general change, which is the paragraph 2. That was to KRS 244.290 subsection 3. With respect to that change, that deals with the package sale of the distilled spirits and wine. So that would allow you all to expand your Sunday sales to include package sales of those types of beverages as well. As we have pointed out to you all previously, although you have chosen not to do it to date, with respect to malt beverages, you pretty much have the discretion locally to do as you so choose with respect of malt beverages, which is essentially beer. Thank you. This issue was kind of brought forward when we had, I guess, the Sunday was the December 31st of last year. So I want to bring this forward and have a discussion on it. And I think Dr. Stevens, who's not a member of the committee, but he was going to bring some issues forward. And I'd like to at this point recognize him and have him discuss some of the ideas he had. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Currently we're circulating a rough draft among the council people to see if there's an agreement about an ordinance that could be presented. And the second draft will be circulated among the council people today. And following that, we'll see if there's an agreement. If there is, we'll bring the ordinance forward at a later date. Thank you. Is this being circulated now, you're saying? Yes, sir. Mrs. Kidwell is preparing it now. Okay. We circulated one last week, which we've had some replies from. And this is a reiteration after discussion with Mr. Barber and some others. Is this something that we're going to want to keep in committee then, or is this something you're going to bring forward? I don't know. We'll see what the other members of the council have to say. Okay. We'll bring it forward right away. Okay. There were some people here that also might want to speak, and I don't know if I saw some people in the audience that might want to talk on this issue. Is there anybody that would like to talk about this or not? Would you come forward, please? Thank you, counsel. I wasn't prepared to speak today. Just give your name and your address, please. I'm sorry. I'm Donna, general manager, Bellini's Restaurant, 115 West Main Street. You know, I've done a lot of engaging in many of the businesses downtown. We currently do have a license to operate on Sundays, but it was a very difficult thing for us to obtain. I think that it would be very, very good for downtown Lexington to, in light of all the new development that's been going on down there, in light of the equestrian games, I think that it would, you know, Sunday being one of the busiest shopping days next to Saturday, I think downtown Lexington is the heart of Lexington, and I think it would really help a lot of the smaller businesses that can't meet the 100 seating capacity to be able to be open. I just think it would be a wonderful thing for downtown Lexington in general and all of Lexington. Is there any further discussion? Thank you. Thank you. I'm sorry. Is there any further discussion by council members? Let me hold. There's one more speaker in the audience. Hi. I'm Renee Jackson with the Downtown Lexington Corporation. I live at 743 Zandell Drive. And I just wanted to let you know that this has been discussed amongst my board of directors, which has a wide diversity throughout the community in their leadership roles, and they 100% support this. We heard from Congressman Chandler yesterday about wanting to make Lexington a cosmopolitan city, and we have looked at a lot of research and feel like this won't have a detrimental effect on Lexington, but will bring us in line with what our neighbors in Louisville and northern Kentucky are already doing. Thank you. Mr. Blase? Thank you. I just want to get some clarification on the hours that we're talking about here. On item A, distilled spirits and wine by the drink in bars and restaurants, what the draft proposal would allow would be Saturday from 7 a.m. until Sunday at 2 a.m., and then Sunday 11 a.m. to 2.30 a.m. Monday, and then Monday through Friday 7 a.m. to 2.30 a.m. Is that correct? I think that's for Dr. Stevens. The new draft, which you will receive, are you talking about the draft you got today? Yes. No, I didn't get a draft. Oh. You'll be receiving it. It changes the hours. So what I'm going to do. The original draft said from 2.30 a.m. Saturday until liquor would not be permitted to be sold. That should be 2.30 a.m. on Sunday. So there are some mistakes in that draft. So this document is already out of date, so to speak. That draft you're reading from, yes. Okay. So I'll. So stand by and you'll get that later today. Thank you. Mr. Baird. Thank you. David, if you don't mind, you know, this is deja vu back to December of last year, I think. The question about malt beverages, if you could kind of roll that past us again. My desire is to get all these things on the same page at the same time rather than having this fractured where you need to carry an attorney around with you to find out exactly what the law is. Malt beverages is simply a different state legislative scheme. It's covered totally different. There was no change necessary to the malt beverage law. You have always had the ability locally to establish whatever malt beverage sale law you want on Sunday. There is, I think, provision that requires that if you allow malt beverage sales that you have to allow them to be sold by 6 o'clock Monday morning, but that's really not an issue. So the state law allows you to pretty much do what you want and pretty much always has with respect to malt beverages. The issue that you all need to be concerned about with malt beverages is it's one type of license. So from a legal standpoint, it's probably going to be more defensible to treat the malt beverage sales the same, regardless of whether or not they're packaged or by the drink because it is only one type of license at the state level and it will be difficult for us possibly to defend a different treatment in Fayette County than the state allows. That's not necessarily the case with liquor sales. With liquor sales, you all could decide, for instance, to expand the buy the drink liquor sales and not do anything with packaged liquor sales, and that would be perfectly appropriate. You are going to have potentially an issue with malt beverage sales once you expand it. There will be a potential legal issue if you decided to treat packaged sales differently because of that one license distinction. So my point is now, though, as it stands, if we pass the spirits wine and move that to 11 o'clock, let's say, in the morning on Sunday, beer would still be at 1 o'clock? Beer, you all need to do whatever you all want to do with beer. You need to go ahead and handle in the local ordinance as well. It's not going to automatically change. No, I understand. But, I mean, we do have to address that if we want to move that. Yes, you would. Because as it stands right now, it would not move with the other. That's correct. Okay. Well, I'd like to see it all on the same page. It makes no sense at all to take the mildest of all the alcohol and restrict it more severely than the distilled spirits and wine. Thank you. Councilman Stennett. Thank you, Chair. David, I have another question for you as well. Currently, and Julian alluded to that as well, the 1 o'clock, it's 1 o'clock now for buy the drink, correct? Buy the drink in a very limited number of types of establishments. Okay. You have to have a seating capacity and sell a minimum percentage of your revenue has to be from food and not alcohol. Right. Speaking about the downtown area, since a lot of our focus, a lot of things we're trying to do now, improvement wise in the city is downtown focused and oriented. What, is there an ability within the state law to do a designated area of our city that could have the Sunday Liquor Sales versus the suburban area? I mean, could you distinguish between the areas by geographical boundaries? That would be a potential issue. Frankly, we haven't really looked at that. I think in a lot of jurisdictions it becomes a precinct issue. And you vote, you have different potential votes how the precincts are laid out. I'm not aware that we have looked at an area of town designation, so to speak, with this. There, I do think there would, any kind of restriction you would place allowing one type of establishment to sell versus another, you're going to have to have defensible reasons why you do that. Okay. So, any changes to the current state law does not have to go back to referendum? That's been a question asked, too. Since the original Sunday Liquor Sales were on a referendum, we won't have to go back? The legislature has attempted to avoid the referendum issue. And the state law is now good. If the state law was overturned, you would have to go back to a referendum. There is going to be a potential legal argument out there on the fringe that someone could bring that you would have to go back to a referendum, even though this legislation went through. So, with that likelihood, I mean, what's our defense on that if we were to pass what's written now? We are reading this state law as being good. So, until the day comes, if it ever comes where this state law is thrown out, we can operate under this state law as being a valid act of the legislature. And right now, the state law currently today allows you all to go ahead and do this. Okay. Thank you. Councilman James. Councilmember James. Thank you, Vice Chair. I wanted to respond to a couple of things that were already said. First of all, Councilmember Beard mentioned that beer is the mildest of alcohol. I think it depends on your consumption and the amount of consumption. So, I would beg to differ with that a bit. Also, Renee Jackson made the statement that Ben Chandler said that he wants Lexington to be a cosmopolitan city, and I don't think he meant the drink. I just, I'm having a little bit of an issue with it. Paul did some research for me, and I've done some research on my own, and my legislative aide has done this. But overall, I just don't feel like liquor should be a tourist attraction. And that's what I've heard a lot, is we want tourists to come and let's be able to sell liquor on Sundays because it's an attractant and it will make us look good compared to Louisville and Northern Kentucky. And the first thing that came to mind was, well, Louisville and Northern Kentucky have the residential, inpatient alcohol facilities that people that live in Lexington have to go to for alcohol treatment. People on the waiting list here are so overwhelmed, you can't get in. So, you know, we're looking to compete with those cities, but we're not looking at what they have in place to deal with what happens due to excessive alcohol consumption. So, please keep that in mind as you consider your vote on this, Councilmembers. And also, as residents and people that want tourists to come, we have to think about the tourists, but we have to think about those that live in the city currently as well and our quality of life that currently exists. Also, just as a note, my district specifically, within the past or since May, has had at least four liquor license requests for retail liquor stores or sales in near residential areas. That's since May. And I have kind of a thought that maybe they know something like this is coming up. That's increased sales opportunity for them. However, my district also has the highest number of homeless shelters and soup kitchens than any other district. So if you look comparably at the liquor sales versus, and that's beer, that's malt too, and homeless rates, unemployment rates, educational rates, things like that, that's great. I mean, when you're comparing it to tourism, you can't really do that. You know, I don't know. It's the quality of life and who do we want to come and what do we want them to be able to do when they get here. I just don't think that modifying it to increase sales on another day is a good idea. So I cannot support it. It seems like there was something else I wanted to say before I lose my turn here. I guess that's it, and I'll just buzz in if I think of something else. Councilman Lane. Thank you, Chairman Myers. I'd like to ask David Marbury to come back up with a couple more questions. As you're aware, I represent the 12th District, which is an agricultural area of Fayette County. We currently have two vineyards and wineries that are legally can sell wine, except on Sundays. And one of them has a bistro and actually serves food there. Does this ordinance permit the vineyards to sell bottles of wine, and if they have on-site consumption, to sell wine out of the glass on Sunday? And the reason I'm asking is because I strongly support this. If you go to other parts of the country where the winemaking is a major industry, like Napa Valley, Sonoma Valley, the Saturdays and Sundays are the major days that tourists come in and visit the vineyards. And so we're basically crippling our agricultural community in the vineyard area because they cannot open on Sundays. Part of the discussion I had with Dr. Stevens was before we come forward with a final version, what we really need assistance from you all is the hours and the types of alcohol that you would want an expansion for. And then we need to go back and make sure all of the different types of licenses are appropriately tied in. So I think the answer is as long as we appropriately tie in those licenses, I'm not independently aware there being some sort of zoning issue if they're already allowed to legally sell alcohol anyway. So I think it's just a matter of clarifying the ordinance in the appropriate way, if that was the desire of the council. All right, good. Well, I would ask that you carefully look at making it available to the vineyards and wineries in Fayette County. And then I'd just like to add maybe a little closing comment on top of that, also the horse park is in my district and that's where the World Games, the World Equestrian Games is going to be coming. And we will have people from maybe 60 or 70 countries from around the world. In many of those countries, it's, you know, wine is consumed, you know, Monday through Sunday at dinner and meals and all that. And I feel that it's very important that we extend our ability to sell beer and wine and liquor on Sundays. So secondly, if we're going to encourage the growth of our vineyards and wineries in Fayette County, we need to make it economically viable for them to do that. And by closing on Sundays, we're basically taking maybe 20 or 30 percent of their potential sales away because Saturdays and Sundays are, as I said earlier, the big days for people to visit those establishments. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Councilmember James. Oh, yeah, I remembered what I was going to say. Councilmember Stennett asked if there were, if you could designate alcohol-free zone or particular areas. And that does exist. There is zoning that is alcohol zoning. We talked about that a little bit in our infill and redevelopment when we talked about ZOTA. So that is something that could be looked at for future developments. And the reason that it was brought up was because some of the mixed-use zoning that we will be changing to are very near residential areas. And there were some residents that were concerned about what's going to happen if that's, if it's a bar on the bottom and an apartment on the top. So we will need to consider that. But also, some of the research that I found was from the International Institute for Alcohol Awareness. I wanted to mention a couple of facts just for the record that this institute published. Approximately 85,000 Americans die each year from alcohol-related causes. Among the 11.1 million victims of violent crime each year, one in four report that the perpetrator had been drinking before committing the crime. Number three, alcohol was involved in 40 percent of traffic crash fatalities and 7 percent of crashes in 2003. And number four, the total monetary cost of an alcohol attributable problem is estimated to be $185 billion. Twenty-seven states have laws that ban or restrict alcohol happy hour and drink specials. And the last two, 50 percent of persons driving under the influence had their last drink at a licensed alcohol establishment. And the last one is 10 percent of violent crimes occurs in and around bars. Thank you. Council Member Crosby. Thank you, Vice Chair. I know there is approximately, like, 620 establishments right now that have some sort of license to sell alcohol. Does anybody know how many there are specifically that sell on Sundays? And then taking a little further about how much this will increase. Does anybody have any ideas? Actually, I think Gene McLean is standing up in the back, and he might give us the answer to that. We have some information related to that also. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Vice Chairman, my name is Gene McLean. I'm a lobbyist in Frankfurt most of the time. I appreciate the opportunity to come forward and answer some of these questions and appreciate all the time that Dr. Stephens has put in toward addressing this issue. Very quickly, we can supply you with all the data, and in particular to some of the questions that Councilman James has raised. But the reason why the statute was changed in the 19 or the 2007 session was because of the unique status of Lexington and Fayette County. It was an urban county government, and it was the only government body, the only jurisdiction that wasn't applied or covered under the previous statutes. Meaning that other jurisdictions throughout this commonwealth could pass similar statutes or ordinances allowing for the sale of alcoholic beverages on Sunday by ordinance as opposed to referendum. Lexington was the only city in the commonwealth that was precluded because of its unique status being an urban county government. The change was allowed in the General Assembly made the decision to allow Lexington and Fayette County to have the same rights that every other city in the state has. In addition, we'll be supplying to you the number of cities throughout the commonwealth that already permit Sunday sales. Northern Kentucky, a number of cities in northern Kentucky already do so. Obviously Louisville and Jefferson County do so. But other cities, such as Hopkinsville, has recently done this as well. And it is a primary reason or issue that comes to bear when people are considering convention business. And in particular, it becomes important with the equestrian games and other venues that are likely to come to Lexington and to Fayette County in the future. In particular, as Councilman Blaine has addressed, with the horse park and the amount of money that's going to be invested in the horse park in the near future, especially with the budget considerations in 08. I'd be happy to try to address. I also represent the Red Mile. The Red Mile is very interested in this as they attempt to do other things outside of racing to make that venue a particular of interest in the coming years. And on behalf of the Red Mile, I would like to say that they support Dr. Stephen's efforts in these regards and hope that the Council will take it under consideration. I'd be happy to address any questions that the Chairman, Vice Chairman Myers would have. If we can supply data and information. And just in closing and addressing Councilman James' question, I represent the Kentucky Beer Wholesalers Association. For the past ten years, we've run a not-for-profit organization that has done well over a million dollars to promote project graduation at every high school that submits an application. This year, we were at over 200 high schools throughout the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth joins with us for every dollar we raise privately. They match with a matching contribution. We're very proud of the efforts that our industry has made in these regards. And we feel like our industry is very, very responsible in addressing those very particular and critical social issues. Again, Chairman, Vice Chairman Myers, we'd be happy to supply any data and information that you all might need in making this decision. Okay. Thank you. Could you do me a favor just for the record? Could you state your address, please? Sure. My business address is 8 Rockland Court in Frankfort, Kentucky, 40601. Thank you. Thank you. And I'm going to recognize Dr. Stephen's. His system is not working, so he's not on the list. But I'll recognize him and then go down the list. Thank you. I was going to. My remark would be that I think the appropriate time to debate this will be when we introduce the ordinances. And I was saving my remarks for that time. Thank you. Mr. Bluth. I just wanted to add that we can acknowledge on the one hand that we have all kinds of problems with alcohol abuse, but I don't think we solve the problems by discriminating against some sellers of alcohol, which is what we do now. We already have beer, wine, spiritus, liquor sales in Lexington on Sundays, but only at certain venues. And I think it's very important that we, you know, that we not discriminate against some businesses in any legislation that we ultimately pass. Are there any other comments from the audience or council members? Mr. Beard. Just to reinforce that a bit, I guess prior to Sunday liquor sales at all, I'm aware that bootleggers would go to suburban liquor stores and buy several cases of half pints of liquor so that they would be available for Sunday sales at an exorbitant, twice the price or three times the price. It did not stop the people from, however, drinking. It just allowed them to make a little bit better profit. And it wasn't available on Sunday, so they just moved it to Saturday and they loaded their trunks in their cars and then they went into areas where people might want to have, this is distilled spirits in this case. And so, you know, the question of, I know all of the dangers of alcohol and everything that that entails. But, again, those are individual's choices as to what they do, and they will find a way to get alcohol no matter what we do up here. So I just wanted to make that one comment because I saw it happen and it was almost comical to think that they would go within the city and take alcohol from one spot to another spot in the city to turn around and sell it as opposed to going to a dry county or somewhere, treating these areas just like a dry county. Thank you. Councilwoman James. I'll just say one last thing and then I'll be quiet. I just, you know, I appreciate the comments of Councilmember Blues and Beard. I do beg to differ. Not everybody goes to bootleggers to get their liquor if they can't go to a restaurant to go drink it. Some people have never been in a restaurant that are alcoholics that drink distilled spirits. So I beg to differ on that. And I think, you know, overall, I know that we can't control people's choices and what they do, but I think that we have a responsibility as legislators of this city, of this county to make sure that we make decisions that are for the good of the entire community, that we're not putting them more at harm when we go around and take up all the stop signs in Lexington. If one person complained about all the stop signs, we wouldn't do that. It is our responsibility to make sure that we are safeguarding the community as much as we can through the legislation that we pass. I respect your comments. I just feel differently. Thank you. Thank you. And I want to yes, sir. You know, if I could just have one, make a couple comments, Vice Chair. If you could state your name, please, and your address for the record. Jason Beard in 305 Ann Street, Frankfort, Kentucky. I'm a lobbyist as well in Frankfort. And I was just going to say that you all have set the stage for this in many ways and have done a due diligence in talking and addressing some of the things Councilman James said. You passed the mandatory server training ordinance already, and many places in the state don't have that. And that was a huge step in the right direction on responsibility. Every single person who serves alcoholic beverages in Fayette County has to go through a rigorous training program, through the STAR program, through the state Kentucky Alcohol and Beverage Control Board, as you all mandated and did. And that was a great thing. We also have a keg registration law on the books here that most of the other counties in the state don't have as well. Also, thirdly, I would say that under the proposed ordinance that Dr. Stevens has floated, it gives a third option that hasn't been mentioned on. If you also do choose, people would at least have the opportunity or ability to go to an outlet that sells packaged alcohol and take it home. That is not an option that people have right now. They can go to a restaurant and drink there, but they have no ability to buy at a grocery store or convenience store or any other place and take that beverage home. So I think that's a good point to mention and everything that we've seen from looking at Louisville. In other places, there's over 20 different locations all across the state. Even little places like Falmouth and Warsaw, Kentucky, you can buy packaged alcohol there, but liquor or wine and you can't in Lexington, not even to mention Northern Kentucky and Louisville, have not seen an increase in DUIs. It's staying the same or it's gone down slightly. There's all studies I've seen have shown nothing but the same except for one. And so I just wanted to make those brief comments. Thank you. Thank you very much. And I think Dr. Stevens' intent was really just to bring this forward but not really get into a debate until we look at the final draft of the legislation. I want to turn the chair back over to Chair Ellinger, and I want to make a couple of comments, and then we'll move on. We've got one more important issue that we need to deal with today. Mr. Myers. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would just ask that Councilman James and also Mr. McLean, you both talked about research. If you could provide that research, if not in multiples for everybody, at least just one copy so we can make copies for everybody. I'd like to read that and look at that more before I make any kind of decision as well as the final draft of legislation. Also, one more thing I'd like to say is in my district, there are some issues with alcohol sales, and we're going to be looking at, and I just want to put this out there because it's not really a response to this today, but I do want to look at alcohol sales with respect to proximity to schools. And so that's something I'm going to be bringing forth and looking at in the future. And that's my comments, and I turn the chair back over to the chair. Thank you. I just want to keep this issue in the committee, and we'll look forward, Dr. Stevens, to you bringing forth that, the information to us. At this point, the next item we have, and I have told Vice Mayor Gray that we would be trying to be done around 2 o'clock. If we go a little over, that's fine. But we have a committee of the whole meeting set up for 2 o'clock. So the final issue we have is the taxi warrants and how it relates to the independent transportation network. And, Ms. Gorton, I think you are the one who can discuss this for us. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. The reason that I put this in committee was because the council heard the basic report on this in work session before break. And it's a rather unique, innovative program which is starting to be more prevalent around the country for elders and other folks. You read your newspapers last week. There was an article about the increasing need for transportation for elders. So with that, I would just like to recognize Gail Reese, who is here, and who will give us an update. Welcome, Ms. Reese. Thank you. Gail Reese, 608 Lake Shore. And thank you. I was before you in May. Thank you again for having me give you an update. Actually, what I want to say to you today is different than what I would have said 24 hours ago, because it seems like the target is changing in this. As Linda said, this is an innovative solution to a problem I think we all know is here. Fayette County currently has 91 people per square mile, 75 or over. And that's predicted to rise as the baby boomers, as my generation ages over the next 20 years, to approximately maybe 120 or 125 per square mile. So we know that there's an issue. We know that each of us has either parents that we're dealing with this with our parents, or our friends have parents, or we have neighbors who are either driving or housebound. I don't think anyone argues with the issue and the need of this. We're very fortunate, I think, in this country to have someone who 12 years ago dedicated her life to developing a program which is innovative, is both social, and has a business model facet to it. And because it's both a social not-for-profit, but it also has a business model to it, we're having a hard time fitting within the laws. Until about 24 hours ago, I thought that it was my impression that possibly by looking at the taxi ordinates here in Lexington, that we might be able to work out a solution locally. But I was informed, actually I heard four days ago and just really believed 24 hours ago that this is a state issue. There's a state transportation law that even if we adapted the taxi issue to allow ITN to operate in the bluegrass, it would be superseded by a Department of Transportation law. So I am here today to give you an update, to tell you we are still within one of the first ten cities in the country, probably sixth or seventh, that wants to implement this program. We see it as a regional solution. Lexington, as we all know, is the hub to a community. And it's the surrounding towns that we think is one of the main draws to having a program like this. We have the medical and the social and the cultural events. And we want to help people come to Lexington for those opportunities. And, of course, there's the retail, which is good for business. So there are quality of life issues with ITN. It's allowing people to stay mobile after they should no longer be driving. There's a safety issue. Every time we're on the streets, frequently you see someone that you probably think should not be driving and wish they had another option. And then there are also work-life issues, which is kind of a new term these days. So many of us working have parents and children and many generations. And we have employees who perpetually need to take off time for parents. We are living a lot longer today. That's good news, and that's challenging news also. It has given us, if we on an average live 10 years more, that means that we may have 10 to 15 years more when we actually should not be driving. We need to find another way to help people get along, get around, and stay active. I mentioned it was a regional. This program does not compete with Wheels or LexTran. It is a complementary program. There are some people who would use LexTran and occasionally use ITN. There are some folks who have never used public transportation, and they probably never would feel comfortable doing it. And then there's also the problem of getting to the bus stops and issues like that for the frail and the older. So what I'm here to ask you for today is for your support in the state. I would like for you to help us have the Blue Grass region be the first affiliate in the Ohio Valley and in this part of the country to kick off this program and allow and give rides permanently now to people who need them today. I can't tell you how many calls that I get since we've been doing this of people who want to know when's it going to be in effect for both themselves, for their parent. I had a call the other day from a dentist in eastern Kentucky whose parents live here, and she can't get down here every time they need to go to the doctor, and she's nervous about them driving. So there's a great need growing. I would ask for your support as we go to the state and work with the State Transportation Department. I don't know what that means exactly yet. I'm learning. But I would also request that if you could identify someone in the urban county government legal department to work with us and partner with us so that as we work with the Department of Transportation and with the program, with the ITM program, that we're sure as we move forward that we will not be bumping into the taxi issue again. Maybe we can just do it in all one fell swoop, whatever that might be. So I want to let you know that we're not discouraged. We're moving forward. We're going to get something going in Frankfurt and be able to provide rides as soon as possible. Have any questions? Ms. Gorton, did you have anything further? I do not. One thing that might be helpful is if you could, May is a few months ago, and some council members might enjoy seeing kind of a brief bullet point of how this works. Yes. And if you could send that to us, you could send it to me and I'll distribute it or to Council Member Ellinger as chair of the committee, and he would see that. I'd be glad to. And that really tells about it. Thank you. Mr. DeCamp? Yes, I've read all your material. I think it sounds great, and I would love to see us get involved in this. And I think anything we can do to help you on the Frankfurt scene, we'd like to do. You've got two lobbyists sitting behind you who I'm sure you might speak to who might be interested in doing some pro bono work for you. Thank you. Is there any other issues? Dr. Stephens? We do have a governmental relations person in the government who works in the mayor's office named Ned Sheehy. I don't know if you've talked to Mr. Sheehy or not. No. But he may be able to help you with the intricacies of Frankfurt and how you can overcome that obstacle. I'm sorry that it came up. Is it going to require legislation, do you think? We don't know yet. We're still trying to find a way to wiggle into current regulations. And we've had some, we have a very talented attorney working on that and coming up with some creative ideas. So we're still pursuing any way to get it into what's already written. But as the Department of Transportation admits, the transportation laws are very outdated anyway. And there are a lot of things that it doesn't, they don't cover, they need to be updated. So hopefully we can find some wiggle room. If not, we'll go the other route. Well, we hope you don't have to wait for the legislature. Maybe Mr. Fletcher would put it on the docket for a special session, though, if you need it. Write your legislatures. Thank you so much. Anything else? Thank you very much. The last issue is items in the committee. Are there any items in the committee that I could have a motion that we could take out? One I know of is the panhandling ordinance. And I would move that we take that out because that has been dispensed of. So moved. Yes, I have. Any discussion? The panhandling ordinance on the last page. All those in favor, I guess push your button. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed? That passed, but can we get the little screen up? There we go. All right. Here we go. Now you can vote, I think. Just do a voice vote. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed? That passes. Is there any other issues? I can take two off. Okay. Mr. DeCamp? Yes. There are two that I have on there. The multi-way stop at Castle and Montclair needs to be taken off because the neighborhood decided against it. And also the sump pump redirect program. I think the issues that we had were taken care of and can be taken off. I have a motion and a second. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed? That passes. Any other issues in the committee? Seeing none. That takes care of the business. We are adjourned.