And especially with the James and Ms. James, would you like to start with us? Sure. Sorry, I'm chewing my lifesaver. This, the issue of the sidewalk cafe came up during our discussion at Disabilities Commission, and one of our building inspection staff members talked about how repeatedly they are seen to have to go, they have to go to businesses that have tables and chairs in the right-of-way, cutting off access to not only folks with disabilities, but anybody walking, and just the public right-of-way, and that their tables and chairs were encroaching upon the right-of-way. And we had an existing ordinance. The revision would allow for, would give it a little bit more teeth, and the revision would allow for kind of a staggered or stiffer punishment or penalty once someone is seen to be in an encroachment area. What had happened is that, you know, people start, as with many of our government policies, people just start incorporating what the fine is into their regular budgets, and this would allow for, on our end, for it to be a little bit more stiff and more enforceable from building inspection standpoint. So our citizens, our Commission for Citizens with Disabilities of who the chair is here today, if anyone would like to speak with him, but we discussed this at length and researched what other cities did. We researched Austin, Boulder, some other places, and saw what they did, and the enforcement and the changes that you see underlined in the ordinance that should be in your packet, or maybe it's not. It's in there. Anything that's underlined would be new, and anything that's new was created to deal with the current problems and the reasons why it's difficult to enforce the existing ordinance. If you have any more questions specifically, I know I kind of rambled, but if you want to ask anything specific about any of the changes, I'd be happy to address that, or Maury, our board chair, could address that as well. Thank you. Okay. We have the ordinance in here. Is there Mr. Barbery? Is that who worked on the ordinance? Do you want to kind of give us just an overview of what the changes are from the legal standpoint? We've got a maze for you set up to get here. Primarily, what this does is it under-environs the express to allow building inspection to actually evade. This allows building inspection to evade the actual furniture that's encroaching primarily is what it does, and it also provides for automatic revocation of their license if they have the same type of encroachment violation into the four-foot zone area three times within a monthly period. So that's the primary effect of it. And I think as a practical matter, I'd have to defer to Mr. Crow, but I think when we talk about removing furniture, I think they would remove the encroaching furniture rather than all of the furniture necessarily. But what would happen at some point is if someone no longer had the license because it was revoked, they would be required to remove all of their furniture because they no longer have a permit. So the teeth that Councilmember James was talking about would be more on the practical end of enforcement. We already had the ability to remove the furniture or the tables and chairs in some instances, and this just kind of clarified that and expanded it to other situations. And I guess the other big issue I notice in here, it's taken out the Department of Public Safety and, as you were talking about, it puts in the public works? Well, that's technically, my understanding is Mr. Crow's division has been reorganized under that particular department, which is why that change was made. Okay. Because building inspection would still be the one primarily enforcing the violations. Okay. Is there any questions from the Council? Mr. DeCamp? Yeah, just I was curious whether the committee did talk to the Restaurant Association about this just to give them a heads up. Not that I know of. We did not. I think it might be a good idea at this point if we do pass it is to give them notification of it so they'll be aware of it and there won't be any surprises. We have discussed as a committee that and side conversations that it would be nice, similar to when the arborist had their new ordinance and kind of a warning kind of system possibly to go in place so that they would know there's been a change to the ordinance, excuse me, and when building inspection as the cafes start to pop up during spring and people put their tables out, that building inspection would possibly consider doing some type of a walk through and notifying the establishments of where the encroachment would be and define that. But, yeah, working with maybe the downtown restaurants would be great, maybe DLC, Renee Jackson's group. Well, I think if it looks like we'll probably pass this, but I think before it comes up in front of council that just a letter to the association saying that these are proposed and that it will be voted on in council might be a courteous thing to do. Sure. We would be happy to consider that. We probably have or have easy access for all the people who have a permit presently right now that we could contact all of them by letter, do we not? That we can say what the new or actually what is going to happen and what they're supposed to be doing as is and just the change. I think you would like to answer a question. You had your hand up. And if you gave your name and your address. My name is Maury Latour. I'm the chair of the Citizens for People with Disabilities Commission, and we have drafted a letter that is going out to all the restaurant owners as they apply for their permits, kind of stating, you know, our view on the, you know, trying to keep them from or warning them from encroaching onto the public access and then this ordinance draft is just in addition to that. So there is some kind of a letter going out to all the businesses as they apply that the problem does exist and to please be careful and be aware of it. And this is just in addition to that. Thank you. And Mr. Crow, could you come forward, please, since you'll be the one I think will be handling this? I'd ask that question, and I believe you have all the permits, so you could do that also, could you not? We have all the information of the previous permittees. The permits run for one year. Right. They are renewed each year, so we could certainly notify the ones that were permitted last year. We normally about this time of year, once they start setting up the cafes, if they haven't come in, we normally send inspectors down to the central core downtown area, do a walk-through looking for locations to see if they've set up properly and to see if we have locations that didn't come in and get permits, and we've done that in previous years and we will do that this year. Great. We could send out a letter just to make sure when this does become a new ordinance that they would be all aware of what is required of them. I think Mr. Lane had a question. Yeah, I was curious. Have you received any complaints at your office because of the sidewalks being blocked, and could you give us an overview of that? Yes. We do occasionally get complaints throughout the normal sidewalk cafe season during the warm weather. When we get those, we send an inspector to that location. We require them to – it usually involves the tables or chairs have gotten pushed out and is encroaching upon the four-foot-wide clear walkway that you're supposed to maintain, and we will tell them and require them to pull them back. They always do. They've always complied with that, and then we'll try to do follow-ups on those locations. Is there any charge for getting the permit, or is it a free permit? There is a basic charge on that. I believe it's $25 is our minimum permit fee. All right. That's all I had. Thank you. I think Mr. James had a follow-up question. I do. Thank you for coming. Is it identified easily? Is it marked where the encroachment would begin at a place downtown? Do you mark it at all? The sidewalk typically is not marked at that four-foot – where the four-foot is. Normally, we will look at – it's just a measurement. People from the curb measure in four-foot, and they have to maintain that. What normally happens is during the course of business and course of the night, tables will sometimes get pushed out and chairs pulled into that area, which creates a problem. And, you know, we'll always – when we get those complaints, we follow up and address those. And they're generally fairly self-policing, but, yes, we do have issues where things kind of got out of tilt. Okay. Thank you. I want to say something, too, Chair, that I think that this goes – this may seem like an individual concern, but the Commission for Citizens with Disabilities is really striving to make the places that we really want everyone to come. And, you know, we're promoting downtown as an accessible, fun, friendly place for everyone. And so the commission is thinking in advance of many things. The growing number of folks that are becoming disabled are elderly folks that potentially will need a little bit more space passing through if they're using a walker or wheelchair, things of sorts like that. But also the 2010 Games and the Paraequestrian Games, and having that – if we're going to promote downtown as a place where we want folks to come and we're seeing these restaurants that are – these cute little restaurants that are popping up that I know that a lot of the residents from other countries will want to come and visit as well. So it's – not that we're doing it for the 2010 Games, but we – that is a prime time to highlight our city as ADA compliant and accessible. And this is one small step in making sure that for our existing residents as well as for our visitors that this is – it's an accessible place to come with our sidewalks and that are hazard-free. Thank you. Mr. Beard. Thank you, Chair. I'm a little confused, Council Member James. Are you saying take away all the tables? So what is delineated? Are we still working with the four feet or are we widening the four feet or? If Dewey would want to respond to that. We would still be dealing with the four foot. The ordinance requires four foot clear walkway. What would happen typically is if they were asked to move the tables or to clear the four foot walkway and we followed back up and they had not done that, we have the right to pick those tables and chairs up to open up that four foot walkway. We would not, as a general enforcement practice, remove all of their tables and chairs, only those that are creating the blockage in the four foot clear path. Now, if they – if over time they have these repeat violations, as the ordinance provides for, where we would revoke their permit and then they continue to operate the sidewalk cafe without a permit, then the ordinance gives us the authority to go in and remove all the tables because at that point they would all be in violation by having them set up as a sidewalk cafe without a permit. And you mentioned the curb before, but, you know, in many cases, especially downtown, there are utility poles and light poles and things like that that also would narrow. If we were talking about the curb and four feet, a wheelchair probably couldn't make it through there anyway. So you're talking about four feet in addition to whatever space that the pole takes? The ordinance requires a four foot clear walkway. Typically we will look from curb in, but if there are obstructions that are further reducing that, we use our own best judgment as to where that four foot needs to be maintained. That could vary from location to location. As you're well aware, you may have a series of utility poles at a location that further impedes the sidewalk and measurement from the curb would not be appropriate. You obviously need to maintain the four foot from inside the utility pole to the closest point. And we have to use our best judgment when we run up on those because it basically says you have to have a four foot clear walkway. The curb provides the typical measuring point that we use in typical applications, but we have to use best judgment when there are other obstructions. So if a disabled individual is heading down the street going somewhere, anywhere, and can't get through, then he's the one that makes the complaint? He doesn't get through? Typically that's where, when we get called in complaints, that's what's happened. Someone, it could be a disabled individual, it could be anybody that had a difficult time getting through down the sidewalk past a cafe setup. Then we follow up to see what's occurred out there. Now at the time when we get there, we may get the complaint today, but the instance may have occurred the night before or possibly a few days before that. What we do is the inspector then will talk to the cafe owner and remind them of the four foot requirement. And a violation of that could result in the loss of their ability to have the sidewalk cafe. But the outcome of the initial problem, the individual can't get through, means that that evening or afternoon or whenever, the person can't get through. That's correct. They have encountered a problem and obviously could not get through. That's prompted their complaint. Again, by the time we get there, whether that be an hour later or 24 hours later, the problem may still exist or it may have been already corrected. But, yes, it has presented a problem to that individual at that moment in time. Well, this seems like a step forward. I'm not sure whether it's a complete 30 inch step, but it's a step forward. I think James wanted to answer one of the questions or follow up with. Sure. I think where you're getting is a really good direction is that kind of the way that I see it as a board member, as a commission member, is that education is key. And that when you're educating, at the same time you need to also be able to say, we're educating you because there's a consequence to this, but we want to be sure to give you that opportunity. So in the case that Mr. Crote spoke about, about, you know, if the person calls the next day, that's their opportunity to go out to that business owner and say, did you realize or do you understand that and here's our policy as it stands with Urban County Government. And hopefully that the person who was not able to go that direction understands that that restaurant or business or whatever just needed to be educated, hopefully. And they probably will go that way again and see if they're able to pass and see if we've done our work here at Urban County Government. I don't doubt that at all, but they're going to put us in check and they're going to put that business in check, especially if that's a normal route that they take. You know, getting to somewhere or they're a new resident somewhere and that's their new route that they take. So I think the education is key and I would like to say that this, if we need to come back and revise this at a later date, if something's not working effectively and put something in there about immediate abatements or something where we involve public safety, I'm not too sure what we would need to do. But I think this is a great step in the right direction, as you said, but probably not the final thing. Right. I'm feeling or sensing that many of these have cropped up because of the smoking ban. And I'm sure what we'll hear is first you take our cigarettes and now you're taking our only other way to be able to enjoy a restaurant. And how many, Dewey, would you guess there are in the city? Total cafes that we've provided. Cafes. It's not a large number. I would say basically in the downtown area maybe ten or less. Why would we not be able to take a can of spray paint and actually delineate the area where they can put tables as opposed to? I mean, it's not a huge deal, manpower-wise. It looks like it would solve a lot of problems. And then an individual who's coming down can point to that and say, you know, you need to move. And I know we haven't mentioned that, but it just seems more an immediate solution and also it becomes somewhat indefensible as far as the offender is concerned if they're outside their boundaries. I would agree. Certainly something that's permanently marked there, but the sidewalk, public sidewalk is under control of the Division of Engineering and any alteration to that sidewalk, if it's not specifically spelled out, would certainly have to bear their approval. And I can't speak for whether the Division of Engineering would have issues with permanent markings for this purpose or not. Maybe we need to hire some of the graffiti experts because they sure put things all over sidewalks any time they want to. But we have to get mired down with who's wearing which hat internally, which is the burden sometimes we have to live with. But as I say, I would favor this, but I think we still need maybe a few more tweaks at some point in how we implement. Thank you, Dewey. Thank you. We've got a list now. We've got the Vice Mayor Casey, Mr. DeCamp, and Mr. Lane. Vice Mayor. Actually, I think my question, Council Member Beard has already maybe addressed it, Dewey, but I'm just curious about the number of incidents that you've experienced where the encroachment on this four feet has been illuminated to you. How often do you get reports of, maybe I missed that, I dropped in. I appreciate you all. Well, frequency, unfortunately, I don't have any numbers with me. I can get those for you, how many complaints we have had specifically filed with us. I don't have a feeling that it's a large volume of complaints, but at the same time they're a serious complaint. When an individual cannot get down the sidewalk, that is a serious complaint, and we respond as quickly as we can when we receive them. I don't have a feeling that there's an overwhelming number of these, but I can get those. So can you isolate it to particular places? I mean, when I think out loud, I think, you know, is this, we're talking about Cheapside? Is this, are we dealing with everybody when we might be dealing with somebody? Sidewalk cafes are limited to the core downtown area. That's the B-2 zone, the B-2A and the B-2B zones, which are basically the core downtown area. Once you move away from there, you're no longer, the sidewalk cafe ordinance no longer applies. If there's outdoor seatings, those are outdoor patio areas and have to comply with other requirements. So you're really just talking about a very select number of establishments in the core downtown area that have sidewalk cafes or have them. Yeah, because I'm interested, I mean, I think actually when you think of other cities similar size to Lexington that are recruiting or trying to recruit and maintain the economies that we are, there's a whole lot more than 10 outdoor cafes in the summertime. So my caution or concern would be that while it's very commendable that we're looking at this, is as we usually are in a body like this, we're dealing with issues that are very narrowly balanced. And so the consequences of and alternatives is what I'm, you know, perhaps in locations where we might have to expand the sidewalk. How does this involve, how can this issue be integrated into the streetscape plan that we're currently undertaking, for example, and translate the issue into solutions that are not punitive on one group, but are opening and supportive of all groups that have an interest in the problem solving? I think Ms. James wanted to help. I do. I do want to respond to Vice Mayor. I think when you first asked the question about frequency, I really do feel like what does it matter, the amount of times? Because truly, if it's impassable, it's impassable. And it's the same thing as, you know, anything else. You don't necessarily judge things by the number of times, but the severity and the safety concern at that time. I just spoke with a resident last night. We're putting some, we're doing a sidewalk project over on Georgetown Street. They told me the reason that that sidewalk project is going in, allowing for accessibility on sidewalks, is because several years ago a gentleman in a wheelchair was on Georgetown Street and could not pass on the sidewalk and went into the street, and a semi-truck came down Georgetown Street and knocked him dead. We cannot compromise the safety of any of our residents, whether it's 200 or 1, at any time. So frequency, it doesn't even matter. If one time it happens, then we need to look at that. And also with the streetscape committee, Bruce Burris, who is one of our board members, is extremely involved in streetscape, as I have been as well and have talked to, as you have been as well. And one of my first meetings that I had with the consultants was we really need to, anything that we do, we need to look at how does this affect disabled residents. So if we talk about putting in parking or removing parking from a street, where will folks access if there's not accessibility on a sidewalk? It's all very related. It's all interrelated. So, yes, we have been part of the streetscape in talking with them. Bruce has been very involved. I don't know that we need to get into name-calling for restaurants, which restaurants are the violators or whatever. I think that through this process, we will see where the complaints are coming, and it's not necessary. I don't believe it's necessary at this point. I think if building inspection had been able to really get anywhere with name-calling and identifying single folks, it would have been fixed by yet, and it never would have been suggested that the sidewalk ordinance be amended to help them deal with it. They're strapped. And, yes, we are in an economic situation, and I understand your comment about, you know, in a time where we're trying to encourage people to come, but we should be encouraging all people to be able to come, and accessibility on a sidewalk invites all people and allows all people to pass, and we can't forget that as we evolve as an economic, potentially an economic-thriving downtown. And some of the cities where we've been, they've made sure that they have pedestrian-friendly and bike-friendly roads as well. So we need to make sure that we are, you know, if we don't, you know, that part of Limestone. If you take Limestone, for example, from Main up, do we have a bike lane there? Do we have other places where other people can walk if we did not require for this ordinance to go through? So I see somebody over there twirling, so maybe I need to stop talking, but I think my point has been taken. Thank you. Thank you. Any further questions? Vice Mayor? Ms. Crosby? The vice mayor actually asked my question. Okay. I had one. Before you come, I just want to ask one question, if you don't mind. On the permit, when you have the 10 or 11, do you go out there when they get the permit and show them where they can and can't put their cafe? Yes. Once the permit is issued, an inspector follows up to see how they've set the cafe up to make sure that it's in compliance, and they're told what it may maintain so it stays in compliance. I thought you had said that. I just want to reiterate that. Mr. DeCamp? Thank you, Chair. You're welcome. You know, basically, we're not changing any regulations. They're there now. All this is doing is just beefing up the enforcement, basically, and making it easier for building inspection. I don't want to waste any spray painting to do it. I think the owners can go get a four-foot yardstick at the hardware store and begin policing themselves. If they don't, then it gives building inspection a better chance to just enforce it. That's all. We're not making any changes as to what we already have in the books. Therefore, I make a motion that the changes proposed in the ordinance referring to outdoor cafes be approved by this committee. We have a motion. Do we have a second? We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? I have Mr. Lane down. Did you want to ask a question? I just wanted to sort of support Councilmember Beard's comment and Vice Mayor Gray's comment. I frankly like the idea of having a line on the sidewalk because it's not just the owner of the property, but their managers, their employees, the customers that come there, and they move tables around. And I think it's going to be very difficult to enforce the location of tables and chairs on the sidewalk because over the process of an evening, you know, people move around and all that. I think it would be very helpful to have a line so that, you know, people know where the line is, and then you could sort of manage that. But if you don't have a line, then it's going to be sort of arbitrary and somebody's got to make a subjective interpolation of, you know, do we dogleg around this pole or what have you. And if there's only 10 or 12 of them, it might be nice to see if we could get a line put in. Thank you. Any further discussion? Mr. DeCamp? Yes. One thing I forgot in my motion. I want to be sure that in the motion that it says that we notify either through the restaurant association or individual that have or have had cafe permits before that we're bringing this forth and that they know before it's put on the docket. So would you just reiterate your motion? All right, that we approve the changes in the ordinance referring to outdoor cafes, which is not making any change in the present regulation that we have, and that we approve this pending before it goes on the docket that either through the restaurant association or notifying all those cafes that have been or are presently have a license to operate an outdoor cafe, be notified of the changes we're making and notified before it goes on the docket so they have a chance to be here if there are any objections. And you agree with that second? Is that fine with you? Okay. Any other discussion? Can you get that out to them before we'll be ‑‑ I'll be bringing this to the full committee council next Tuesday. Can you get the letter out to them the next week or so? Yes. Okay. We don't have a problem. Any other discussion? Mr. Beard. This does not preclude us, however, from investigating a bit more about this line situation that both council members. No, it does not. I mean, that's just something, a mechanism you put in place to make it easier for them. That can always be brought forward if we need to do that. Any further discussion? All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed. That passes. Thank you all for coming forward and bringing that to us. The next item is the noise task force update. Dr. Blues. Thank you, Chair. The vice mayor, as you know, has appointed the noise ordinance task force. We started our meetings on March 26th, planned to meet every other week and to, we hope, with steady progress on the part of the group to include our work and report back to committee by mid‑June. Council member Gordon and I are chairing the task force. Our first public meeting of two will be at 6 p.m. on Wednesday, April 30th, here in chambers, and we will advertise that and hope that we get a substantial turnout of people who want to come to the hearing and to discuss what they perceive as the problems with definitions of noise, with enforcement questions, with sources of, and that sort of thing. We, while our deliberations will be fairly wide ranging, we will not take up the question of barking dogs as such, since the barking dog task force has concluded its work and reported back to council. So that's my report. Thank you very much. We look forward to getting updates. And the date of the public meeting will be April 30th at 6 p.m. here in the council chambers. The next item on the agenda is the vicious dogs update, and it was first brought to the committee by Mr. Maloney, who is over in Frankfurt now. I think, Mr. Schonger, are you going to give us an update here on what's going on? I'd be happy to, Council Member. Thank you. As Council Member Ellinger indicated, this was put into committee by former Council Member Maloney, and I'm really giving it's providing you an update today really for two reasons. One, two, he had expressed an interest in clarifying the vicious dog ordinance, and that if it could, it would include attacks on dogs, because the State statute indicates attacks on individuals. There is a memo to the committee from the law department that indicates that attacks on other animals would not be inconsistent with State statute, and so that's the first part of Mr. Maloney's interest. The second reason he put it into committee was to strengthen the existing vicious dog ordinance. And that's where it gets to be a little problematic. State statute, and Mr. Horne is here. He could correct me when I am wrong, because I will be wrong in the next 30 seconds. But State statute indicates that it needs to be consistent with State law, and strengthening the vicious dog ordinance might make it inconsistent with State law. State law right now limits vicious dogs to any dog that's been declared vicious by a court of law. So if there was something that made our local ordinance inconsistent with 258, KRS 258, it might be inconsistent with State statute. So that's really where I am with this issue right now, and I don't know if any committee members had questions or comments, or I'll leave that up to you all. Mr. Horne, would you like to give your legal opinion of, I think we have it also from Ms. Weddle, from back in September, her memo and just kind of follow up with what Mr. Shongard said? I think he pretty much got it right, believe it or not. The State statute does have a definition of vicious dog and how a dog is declared vicious by a court. So there's little limit on how much the local government can do in this area, but it does have to be consistent with the State statutes that presently exist. At this point, is there any council members? Dr. Blues? Yes, sir. Thank you, Chair. If it's the case that an attack by a dog on another animal would be consistent with KRS, I think I need an answer to the question of why our division of police does not operate on that assumption. Because so far as I know, at least from one incident in my district where an officer did answer the call of a dog attacking another dog, the reason for not following up was that the attack was not on a person. So if, indeed, our ordinance would enable, you know, enable a citation for, you know, one dog's attack on another dog, then I think we need to look into that. The present ordinance does include an attack on another animal, and Ms. Weddle's opinion and suggestion was that the when that happens that you enforce the local ordinance rather than try to go through the State statute. So I'm not talking that there wouldn't have been some sort of action, but it could be purely an educational issue or a discussion to have with the police about the ordinance and why or why not they're enforcing. Okay. Well, I will follow up then with further communication with the division of police on this. Thank you. Mr. Beard. This consistency question with State law, is it more lenient, would you call it more lenient than what we have? For instance, a designation of what a vicious dog has to be determined by the court, and so we can't put many of these measures in place, it looks like, if that has to happen. I'm not sure exactly which measures you're talking about. For example, the only specific one that has been mentioned to me would be listing certain breeds, and I think that would be inconsistent with the State statute and the way they define vicious dogs. Otherwise, we probably need to look at any specific suggestions or ideas and try to examine that. Well, there's one provision in here about determining whether a dog is a hunting dog or not. And if he's not a hunting dog, it's okay to shoot him dead. And being a dog owner, I don't quite go along with that. That's a bit severe as far as I'm concerned. It's not exactly what the breed of the dog is from 50 yards away, maybe. And, well, it just doesn't work in my mind. I think that you're right about that. Now, I'm not, I can't remember every piece of the statute right now in front of you. But it's possible to perhaps kill a dog if it's attacking somebody, regardless. A person, yes. That's under the State statute, that's right. So otherwise, if you're saying you want to look at amending the ordinance in that type of realm, we just need to look at it to see if it's going to be consistent with State statute or not. But presently, the ordinance does say that if an animal is attacking another animal, more or less, that would also be enforceable under the ordinance. Before we go further, shouldn't maybe we go ahead and put the two side by side and just see exactly where we are and where we can go and where we can't go before we can start making stabs at something in the dark? Would that not be a better approach? Well, however you want to do it, I've looked at them side by side. The problem is, without knowing necessarily what you want to do, it's difficult to say what's going to be consistent and what isn't going to be consistent. Well, what we have here was created by a committee? What you have right now is existing ordinance. I don't think there are any outstanding recommendations at this point. But to get there, here I am with lines again like I was with the last topic. But to get there, wouldn't it be a lot easier to get there by finding out exactly where we can go and where we can't go? And that's maybe not a question necessarily for you. Then he's going to have to be able to tell us if that's consistent or not with the state law. Right. What changes you'd like to make. Without knowing your destination, it's difficult for me to tell you whether you can walk that path or not. So if you've got recommendations or some changes you would like to make in the ordinance specifically, we would be able to look at it and see if there's inconsistency or not with the state statute. I guess what I can do is if you all want to make those recommendations and give them to me as chair of the committee, then I can pass those on to the law department and they can come back. And if we have some recommendations that you all would like to make, then we can do it that way if you like. Okay. That would work, I think. Ms. Henson. I had a similar question. I'm concerned, and I'm not sure what the Kentucky statute says, but if a dog is deemed vicious and, you know, has to be behind this huge fence or chained, whatever, I would be very concerned if there were dependent children in the home. Or even a child visiting on the property. Is there any language in the Kentucky statute relating to that? There's not in the vicious dog statute or the dog control statute specifically, but any time you would have an issue of a potentially dependent or neglected child, there are other statutes to protect dependent and neglected children. Now, someone would have to make a complaint, as is the nature with most dependency or neglect, and a social worker would end up investigating to determine if there was a danger to the child. And, of course, under those child protection statutes, a child can be removed from a home immediately if there's an immediate danger to that child, regardless of the nature of that danger. Right. Well, you know, I guess I feel like, well, we have laws protecting children. They have to buckle up when they're in a car or be in a, you know, the proper seat. And if a dog is, you know, very vicious, I can understand. And I'm a dog or especially a dog lover, but an animal lover. But I wouldn't want to see any child harmed. So that's something I would like to check into. And if you'd like to send that to me, then we can pass that on. I will do it. Well, when this was brought up, was there any specific reason that Mr. Maloney gave? I mean, he obviously had some sort of reason in mind when he brought this before committee. And yet there's here we look at the our present vicious dog ordinance, which to me seems to cover it pretty well. I mean, I don't have any changes unless there is a subcommittee that really wants to make some specific changes. As I recall, there were two reasons. And Dr. Blues mentioned one, the potential inconsistency between an attack on a dog, either in the State statute or in the local statute. And he also, I think quite frankly, was looking at limiting certain breeds in the county. And I think clearly the second one would be very inconsistent with the State statute. Right. Even if you want to do that, you can't do that. So what was the first one, then? Whether an attack on another dog would deem that dog to be vicious. And I think the law department has determined yet that that is consistent with State statute. So that really seems that we're dealing with one. Well, we do say that any dog which attacks a human being or domestic animal without provocation. You know, so many of these are pretty subjective. I mean, you know, you can't, my dog didn't do that. It was your dog's fault or whatever it may be. So I think we're open, I think we've got a pretty good basis here in the present ordinance that we have, and if you're concerned about any specific thing, my recommendation would be let it stand. But I guess you're going to take any complaints that we might have or suggestions. But, you know, we're getting into a lot of area here which we've muddled around with since I've been in the council for 12 years and not come to any. I mean, this is what we came up with. It does cover an awful lot of things. I don't see anything that myself, that unless somebody comes up with a great epiphany about what needs to be done, I think we'd probably best leave it alone. Thank you. Ms. Crosby, did you have some comments? Is there any further comments? I think the chair has offered to take any suggestions. And I think at the next meeting, I mean, he has made that offer. And if anybody, if there's none that come in, I will certainly be glad at the next meeting to make a motion that we just leave the ordinance as it is. And if we don't have any, then that's what we'll do. Thank you. We have some items in the committee. Or have brought forward for the next committee meeting. Dr. Blues. I think we can probably take off the combined car radio noise, school event noise, special events noise. Since the task force is taking up that question, I'm not sure there's a need to leave it on our list. Okay. Is that a motion? Yes. So moved. We have a motion and a second. All those in favor say aye. I was opposed. We'll take that out. Any others on here? Mr. Lane. I was on the committee in 2005. That's over three years ago. I feel if there's no action taken on it after a few months, that we ought to sort of delete some of these items. But I was not on this. I guess I was on the committee. No, I don't think I was on the committee. I had just gone on to council. That was about three years ago. Curb replacement program. I seemed like we just had something happen on that already. Private swimming pool safety. These issues don't seem to be active, don't you think? Well, if you'd like to make a motion to have them withdrawn and take off the agenda. Well, here's what I'd like to suggest. I'm going to follow my senior member, Mr. DeCant's suggestion. I'm not going to be here for a year on this list at our next meeting unless somebody comes forward and activates interest in those items. Sounds like a good suggestion. Dr. Blues. I probably should have added a couple of other items, the special events and the school event noise, since those also will be included in the task force considerations. Anyone that's dealing with the noise? We have a motion and a second. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed. Any others? Mr. Beard. Many or at least several of these former council member Maloney had brought to us. Of course, he's not here to bring them any further forward. Some of them are pretty good issues, actually. And is there a mechanism to reassign those to an active member of the committee so that we could do a little research and maybe bring it forward? One of which is the red light issue. I continually see narrow misses all the time as far as red lights, people running red lights. Mr. Schauder, what's the proper procedure on that? You can do a couple of things. You can remove them and someone else can bring them to the committee, or if you'd like, I'd be happy to do a little research on any of these items and then bring it to a council member that may or may not be interested in it, see if they want to be reassigned. I think that's what we did in intergovernmental planning. I'd be happy to do the latter if that's what you're suggesting. No, I think that's what I'm suggesting. There are a couple of things there that I'd like to see laid to rest and the committee have an opportunity to vet. Mr. DeCamp. Yeah, and I think in addition to that, I mean, I see 1, 2, 3, 4 that are old that Mrs. Gorton has put on here, and we'll put these on and say we're thinking about taking them off. Do you want us to pursue these further? And then that would give Paul an indication that they need to be looked into a little further. And we can bring that to the next committee. We can bring that to the next meeting.