# Urban County Council Services Committee - August 12, 2008 > Auto-transcribed civic record · Council · August 12, 2008 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/563 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/563?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2008-08-12 - **Body**: Council - **Last revised**: June 17, 2026 - **Length**: 13,764 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 met on August 12, 2008, at 1:00 PM, with CM Ellinger presiding. The meeting covered three agenda items spanning municipal regulations and procedural matters. Over the course of the meeting, four votes were taken and five public comments were heard. Of the three agenda items considered, two were approved: the News Rack Ordinance and Items in Committee. The Residential Parking Permit Procedures item was tabled and did not receive final approval at this meeting. ## Attendance The following members were present at the Council meeting on August 12, 2008: - CM Ellinger - CM DeCamp - CM Crosbie - CM McChord - CM Blues - CM Lane - CM Myers - CM Blevins - CM Beck - Dr. Stevens - David Barberie - Dick Murphy - Craig Hardin - Mike Johnson No members were recorded as absent or late. All 14 listed attendees were present for the meeting. ## Votes and Decisions Four votes were taken during the August 12, 2008 Council meeting. - **Draft Ordinance on Vendor Regulations** [timestamp: 0:44:24]: CM DeCamp moved, and CM Myers seconded, to accept the draft ordinance with caveats addressing liability, an annual permit fee, a single additional fee, and a phase-in period. The motion passed by voice vote, with one abstention. The conditions specified that liability, the annual permit fee, the single additional fee, and the phase-in time are all to be reviewed before the ordinance is finalized. - **Exemption for 315 Transylvania Park from Parking Ordinance** [timestamp: 1:14:33]: CM Ellinger moved, and CM Crosbie seconded, to exempt 315 Transylvania Park from the parking ordinance. The motion failed by voice vote, 2 ayes to 3 nays. CM Ellinger and CM Crosbie voted in favor; CM DeCamp, CM Blues, and CM Blevins voted against. - **Referral of Parking Situation to Parking Authority** [timestamp: 1:15:07]: CM DeCamp moved, and CM Ellinger seconded, to turn the parking situation over to the parking authority for review. The motion passed by voice vote with no recorded opposition or abstentions. - **Consolidation of Advocate Standards and Citizen's Advocate Policy/Procedures into Intergovernmental Committee** [timestamp: 1:16:44]: CM Myers moved, and CM Crosbie seconded, to combine the Advocate Standards and the Citizen's Advocate Policy/Procedures into the Intergovernmental Committee. The motion passed by voice vote with no recorded opposition or abstentions. ## Public Comment Five members of the public addressed the Council during the August 12, 2008 meeting, with the majority of comments focused on the proposed News Rack Ordinance. **News Rack Ordinance** Four speakers weighed in on the ordinance, with opinions divided between opposition and support: - **Chuck Creacy** [timestamp: 0:13:09] spoke against the ordinance, raising constitutional concerns and arguing that publishers should be allowed to regulate themselves rather than be subject to a municipal mandate. - **Jeff Zaske** [timestamp: 15:19] also opposed the ordinance, focusing on the financial burden its requirements would place on small publishers. - **Renee Jackson** [timestamp: 32:42] offered a contrasting view, supporting the ordinance and arguing that enforceable regulations are necessary to address non-compliance that self-regulation cannot adequately prevent. - **Mike Turner** [timestamp: 34:24] echoed earlier opposition, expressing a preference for self-regulation over a formal ordinance and citing First Amendment concerns. **Residential Parking Permit Procedures** - **Mike Johnson** [timestamp: 1:12:21] spoke in support of the current residential parking permit system, stating that it has successfully reduced abuse and has functioned well for his neighborhood. The News Rack Ordinance drew the most public attention, with speakers split largely along the lines of constitutional and financial concerns on one side versus the need for enforceable compliance mechanisms on the other. ## Contested Items Two items on the August 12, 2008 Council agenda generated notable disagreement among members and the public. **News Rack Ordinance** The proposed news rack ordinance drew heated discussion, with opposition centered on First Amendment concerns and the financial burdens the regulations would impose on publishers. Publishers or their representatives raised objections to the ordinance's requirements, arguing that the restrictions infringed on free speech protections and would place undue costs on those operating news racks. The structured data does not specify the final vote outcome or the names of the specific parties involved, but the discussion was characterized as contentious, reflecting the tension between the city's interest in regulating public space and publishers' constitutional and economic concerns. **Residential Parking Permit Procedures** A motion related to residential parking permit procedures resulted in a split vote, indicating divided opinion among Council members. Specifically, a motion to exempt a particular property from existing parking restrictions was brought before the Council and ultimately failed. The disagreement highlighted differing perspectives on how parking permit rules should be applied and whether individual properties should be granted exceptions to established procedures. The specific property involved and the vote tally are not identified in the available data, but the failed motion reflects that the Council was not in consensus on granting the requested exemption. ## News Rack Ordinance [timestamp: 0:00] The Council took up Agenda Item 1, a draft ordinance regulating news racks, including provisions related to permit fees and placement restrictions. Key speakers in the discussion included CM DeCamp, David Barberie, and Chuck Creacy. The item centered on the proposed regulatory framework governing the placement of news racks, with the draft ordinance addressing how and where news racks may be situated as well as the associated permitting requirements and fees. The Council discussed the terms of the ordinance as presented. Following deliberation, the ordinance was approved. *Note: Detailed arguments, specific fee amounts, particular placement restrictions debated, and individual positions of speakers are not available in the source data for this item.* ## Residential Parking Permit Procedures [timestamp: 1:03:39] The Council took up Agenda Item 2, a discussion regarding Residential Parking Permit Procedures, with a focus on parking permit exemptions for certain properties on Transylvania Park. Key speakers in the discussion included CM Ellinger, Dick Murphy, and Craig Hardin. The item centered on how the existing residential parking permit framework should apply — or potentially provide exceptions — to specific properties along Transylvania Park. The outcome of the discussion was that the item was **tabled**, meaning the Council did not reach a final resolution and deferred further action to a future meeting. *Note: The available structured data for this agenda item does not include detailed information on the specific arguments made, concerns raised, or the precise reasoning behind the decision to table the matter. Readers seeking the full substance of the debate are encouraged to consult the meeting transcript or video beginning at timestamp 1:03:39.* ## Items in Committee [timestamp: 1:16:44] The Council took up Agenda Item 3, which addressed the consolidation of two existing policy frameworks — the Advocate Standards and the Citizen's Advocate Policy/Procedures — into the Intergovernmental Committee. CM Myers and CM Crosbie were the key speakers during this discussion. The item centered on the proposal to combine these two related policy and procedural documents under the Intergovernmental Committee's purview, streamlining oversight and administration of advocate-related standards and citizen procedures into a single committee structure. The item was approved by the Council. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Accept the draft ordinance with caveats on liability, annual permit fee, single additional fee, and phase-in time - **Motion** — failed (2-3): Exempt 315 Transylvania Park from parking ordinance - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Turn parking situation over to the parking authority for review - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Combine Advocate Standards and Citizen's Advocate Policy/Procedures into Intergovernmental Committee --- ## Full transcript And this is -- although I didn't have the starting ordinance, it was kind of handed off to me by, uh, another attorney in our office. Um, as far as I can tell, this is modeled strongly after existing legislation that exists in other localities in the country. Um, what you'll find from a legal standpoint is, and First Amendment law is very context-specific, most of the cases arise in the context of a municipality attempting to ban outright newspaper stands or commercial newspaper distributions. Um, so when you look at First Amendment law that comes up in this area, that's kind of the focus of those cases, is on municipalities that have attempted to essentially say that you cannot distribute these in the rights of way at all. Um, the reason that's important is there's not going to be a whole lot of case law, at least publicized case law, on some of these exi- existing ordinances in other areas to say whether or not ultimately some of these issues would be legally defensible. We do know, as a matter of practice and fact, that there are ordinances like this on the books in other areas, and that's how these other areas operate. Um, I was in receipt of a letter, I think late last week, um, that raised some legal concerns. I will address some of those that, that probably do need further exploration from you all before you make a final decision on this, um, once we go through the overview. Um, essentially, if you have any newsstand, you'd have to pull a permit. You... And, and the way the administration saw it, it would probably be best done by the CIO's office. Um, they think ultimately they're going to have the capability to GIS where the actual locations of these stands would be. Um, anywhere in Fayette County, if you're in the r- and this only applies to the right of way. It wouldn't apply to a news box that's located in any other location. It has to be in the public right of way. If you, if you choose, as a publisher, to locate a box in the right of way, you'd have to pull a permit. You, you fill in an application to us. Um, it has minimal information. You're supposed to have your boxes in a minimal condition, operable condition. It restricts where they can be located. Um, it makes them so that they have to be weighted if they're easy to fall down, that kind of stuff. They're not supposed to be tied to certain things, chained up to certain other, um, things that are located in the right of way. Um, and more or less, the way that would operate is, you would tell us where you have these machines. We would give you a decal so that you could... or a sticker so that you could put it on the machine, so we knew that it was registered every year as part of the permitting process. And pretty much, as long as you're not located in an area you're not supposed to be, and the box is in a decent working condition, that would be it, with respect to, um, the machines that are located outside of this downtown district. Um, the downtown district issue, I think, is, is the focal point for a couple of reasons. That was identified as, as a area of particular focus where there might need to be further restrictions in what's taking place, because there were, frankly, more machines located in that area of town than in other parts of town. Um, and it's al- there's also this drive, as Mr. DeCamp indicated, that we now have a consulting firm that's, that's come on board and said, "Well, this is what we think a corral would look like." And so part of what we've put in here is based upon the actual physical specifications of the corral. In other words, the reason we ultimately have five boxes as the maximum limit is, that's the maximum size of the corral that will fit the boxes. Um, so you could put up to five boxes in each location. The locations, as I understand it, there were about 150 or so, and I think maybe the Downtown Development Authority would have a... or Downtown, uh, District would have more information on this. But, um, my recollection is there are... that when they surveyed the number of boxes in, within this area that's defined in the ordinance, and there's a map that goes along with it that, I don't know whether Mr. DeCamp handed it out to you all or not, but it's essentially most of Main Street in the downtown area, as you think of it, and then it goes off in some different directions from there, a couple blocks up or down either way, and then there's some streets where it actually doglegs up or down for more than a block or two. Um, but there are about 150 total machines in these areas, and this ordinance would accommodate up to 125. Some of those machines that were surveyed, I believe, were actually multiple, uh, publishers, like on, literally like a block away from each other. So in reducing the number of locations, I think part of the thought was that publisher would no longer need two locations. It would be consolidated into one. Um, so the number of spaces available, as I understand it, more or less tracks the number of publications we actually found to be located in this area as we're defining it. Um, with respect to the downtown area, there would be additional requirements that are put in place. Um, in e- in essence, there would be 20, up to 25 locations made available where you could locate, uh, these machines. There would be up to a maximum of five machines allowable. Um, there are criteria spelled out in the ordinance on how you would select, uh, which machines go into that location. Uh, primarily, they are based upon the publications that have been in those areas the longest, and then there's another process that's gone through in the event you have, for instance, eight publishers that might want to use, uh, th- that particular space. Um, there is an additional fee that would apply, because frankly, we think the administrative cost for those machines would be more than what it would be otherwise under the, under just the annual general permitting process. Um- And essentially what would happen, hopefully, is eventually the city would acquire, at the, as I, as I understand it, the city's expense, these corrals that these machines would be placed in. So this is basically a step in the direction of having, uh, ultimately having all of the downtown boxes located in corrals that essentially the city paid for and had designed by a consultant- ... as part of this, uh, master s- streetscape idea. Um, with respect to some of the legal issues, um, I do not know. I do know in the utility context what we normally require of encroachments in the right of way with respect to indemnity insurance. I do not know what encroachments we otherwise have. It was pointed out, um, by one of the publishers, they be- they thought it was unfair that we required a, a bond, um, you know, in favor of the government or insurance in favor of the government, um, for any damage that might occur. Um, that would be a valid argument if, in fact, we are not doing that for other encroachers. I know that we do it in the utility context. I do not know what other private encroachments there are in the, in the rights of way and what we're requiring in that area. So one of the things that we may want to consider is eliminating the insurance requirement unless we are also requiring that insurance of other encroachers in the, in the right of way. Um, there was a mention of an appeal process to court. Um, I think arguably, you'd have that anyway, but it certainly, um, you know, that, that would not be an issue for us to place, um, a, an appeal to circuit court if someone felt offended by the fact that they were denied placement in a particular location. Um, that, that would be fine for us to put in a process where you could appeal that decision of the government, the final decision, uh, directly to court. The fees and costs, it, it is an accurate statement of the law that, uh, we are not allowed to make money on this because it is a regulatory type of situation. Um, the fees we proposed, um, they are best guesses, uh, is, is how I would put it. Um, you all may feel that the right thing to do, at least at the beginning, is to reduce the annual general permit fee. Uh, maybe it's a 200 ... It's proposed at $200 now. Maybe you would reduce it to 100 and see what our actual experience is with respect to how much m- how many man hours we actually spend regulating this program. Um, and then there may be some need to consider whether we should consolidate. We have two different fees, uh, that would apply to the downtown boxes. One of them is just a, a perf- a per box fee of $25. The other one would be a fee, um, that would e- essentially cover any additional work that we had to do in going out there and placing it or attaching it to the corral once the corral is in place. Uh, you all may want to consider, at least at the initial stage, just reducing that down to a singular additional fee in that area, or, uh, you know, there are other models, I believe, where, um, rather than having, uh, a single annual general permit fee, you pay per box. Uh, you may want to have one fee, annual general permit fee if you have this number of boxes, um, and a higher one, uh, if you have a number of boxes in excess of that. So there are different models you could probably look at with respect to the fee issue, but, but it is appropriate. It, it, it... The appropriate legal standard to apply would be that we are not supposed to be making a profit off of, off of whatever fee we are, uh, choosing to levy in this particular area, so... Are there any questions from council members? Mr., Mr. Beard? Uh, q- quick question concerning, um, other, um, placement of whatever in the right of way. The, uh, tables and chairs that restaurants are putting out on the sidewalk, do we require bonds for those, you know? I assume we do, but I don't know that off the top of my head. There is an ordinance that specifically applies to that sidewalk, cafe permit. I know you pay a fee to do that. I do not know whether you sign an, an indemnity or insurance type of arrangement with us, uh, as part of that, uh- coughing] I know we had a discussion about blocking, uh- Sure. ... access to the sidewalks and I, I don't remember any discussion about a bond at that point. And, and, and I don't either. I don't think that came up in that discussion. Yeah, so. Okay, thank you. Are there other questions from council members? Mr. Blevins? David, I wanted to ask about... Well, first, let's go back to the insurance. We just passed a, uh, PSA with the farmer's market that included an insurance aspect as, with that as well. I don't think that we required them to cover us, but I think as part of the contract, it indemnified us, so we might be able to do that as part of the permit process instead. I just offer that as- I think it's two separate issues. I think we would... I, I, my understanding is we, if we are aware of a, of a situation where someone is actually coming to us and asking for permission, I believe it's accurate to say that we normally require indemnification. I don't... What I don't know is whether we're also independently requiring insurance or not. Um, so I, I, I think we would probably end up recommending that the indemnification stay in, but there may be a need to eliminate the requirement that they, that they also insure us in addition to indemnifying us. Yeah, or at least prove that they can insure themselves. That's, that's the main concern. So I just offer that as information. The question I had is, the phrasing on the fee is, "The annual fee for issuing a permit shall not exceed $200." Is there a reason why we phrase it as, "Shall not exceed" ? That, that... The thought was if it ended up being significantly less than that, we would not charge the full $200 amount. Uh, but- ... you know, I, I think the thought was that, at least when we first started looking at this, it probably would approach $200 worth of man hours to do this. Um, but once it... You, you all clearly could say that this is what the fee is and, and establish what the fee is. So that was just to re- retain some flexibility is, is what- Sure. In other words, if it ends up being $100 to actually administer it, that's what the fee would be for this year. If, if next year it ended up being more, uh, then they could make an administrative decision without coming back to you all, as long as it did not exceed that $200 maximum amount. Okay. Thank you. That's all I had. Are there any other questions from council members? At this point, I've got, um, a list of people who would like to speak on this issue. Mr. Chuck Creasy with Smiley Pete. And if you would, limit your comments to three minutes please, and... And give your name and your address please. Chuck Creasy, 220 Urban Road, Lexington. Uh, committee members, I believe you received my notes regarding, uh, the constitutionality of this, uh, uh, proposed amendment. The, uh, uh, legal counsel a moment ago mentioned the, um, unfairness of indemnity and let's be clear here, it's not unfair, it's unconstitutional. We're dealing with a constitutional question here, a First Amendment law. Uh, Smiley Pete Publishing is opposed to this ordinance. Um, we feel, uh, that there is a problem, and we feel that the industry can self-regulate, has not been given the opportunity to do so, a best practices needs to be established, and I think you'll find that, uh, the publishing community at large will largely comply. So, um, you can review my notes. Uh, just a couple things to touch on though. Uh, one of the things that these limited availability of positions does is it opens the city up to being dominated by one publication. We have... Or by one publishing organization. For example, we have three publications that we distribute in the greater Lexington area. Uh, if we chose to permit three of those five positions in each spot, uh, you leave very little room for anyone else. Uh, and, uh, we, we fear very, very strongly that, uh, due to costs and other things, this permitting process and this, uh, ordinance gives advantage to larger organizations and larger news organizations. So if the council could keep that in mind as they make their decisions, we'd appreciate it. Thank you. The next person on the list is Jeff Zaske, The Apartment Finder. Give your name and address. I hope I didn't butcher that too bad. Jeff Zaske, Apartment Finder Magazine, 4895 Houston Road, Florence, Kentucky. Um, going through this, I, again, also as Mr. Creasy, feel that there is a need for such a ordinance in, in place. But what I've gone through and looked at, and I do come from a large company where these things have been imposed in other cities in the past, is the financial, uh, cost that is going to be given to the publishers who are all small business owners essentially, uh, in the local marketplace. Um, you're... And this was not brought up, uh, earlier, but you are requiring a designated style of box in a designated style and color, which is to be made out of metal. Those boxes run anywhere from $350 per loca- or per box, and other companies have them as much as $500. Um, what would be the circumstances of not going with a metal box and being able to use a, a cheaper type of product that would still serve the same purposes? Um, that would be one of my biggest things, you know, at this point. It just becomes cost-prohibitive for us to do business in the downtown district. And our advertisers are gonna look at that and say, "Well, we're placing our ads with you to get... To reach the people in the downtown area." So, um, those are the things that I'd like to see considered. It is very cost prohibitive, uh, you know, the way it is written in this form. And I had also submitted a written objection to the thing earlier last week. Thank you. Uh, are there any questions from council members? Ms. Crosby? I just want to clarify, um, d- did you state that we would be paying for the corals, that Irving County Government would pay for these corals? Yeah, let, let me clar- let me clarify something. It's my understanding we would pay for the corals. There are additional restrictions on the types of boxes that would fit in the corals and that- And- ... would work in them and that... And, and he's correct. It would... If you're going to choose to, to be in the downtown district, as I understand, as a practical matter, in order to function inside the coral that we were looking at using- Ah. ... you would have to be a metal type box. We designated that you could use one of two different sizes that would actually fit in there, but yeah, there are very real additional costs to the publishers that are not currently using metal boxes. In order to fit in the coral, as we've drafted this thing, they would have to, if they don't already have a metal box that would fit in there, they're gonna have to acquire the box. So if you had the opportunity as a publisher and you had all 25 locations and you chose to do that, you may end up being in the, in the... Having to acquire 25 metal boxes that you didn't otherwise have. And then pay a fee on top of that to be able to utilize that space? Yeah, and the fee would be... It's supposed to capture what our legitimate administrative costs in having to administer the program are, yes. But yes, those are... Those are in addition to whatever we are expressly charging in here. That they're currently not paying- Because in the downtown district, what this amounts to is it would be a different way... ... of having some of these publishers do business and what they're currently doing. Okay. Um, I have another question, and I'm not quite sure, um, Mr. Creasy mentioned something about, um, guidelines perhaps, and, and have, have we, and Mr. Decamp, maybe this question is to you since you, um, kind of chaired the taskforce. Have we ever asked for self-regulating or for any... Has, has there ever... Have they ever been asked to do any self-regulating or for them to create any measures or anything to improve this, or did we just decide that we were gonna impose this? Because it's, it's, it's obviously a problem. H- have we gone to them and tried to work with them in any way to do this, or have we just decided we were gonna change this via ordinance? I think the feeling of the committee was, um, if we were going to do it right and have, uh, corrals at certain places, um, that, um, you know, it pretty well dictated that, um, you know, we had to make some regulations. Uh, and as far to answer your question, uh, as far as I know, there have not been any guidelines written and, um, you know, self-regulatory, um, you know, papers written, uh, on that at all, no. And was anybody from, um, any of the smaller publishing companies on your committee? No. Uh, the Herald-Leader was, and the me- and I think, if I remember correctly, uh, and probably Chuck can answer this, um, I mean, they were notified that there were these meetings and, um, you know, anyone was welcome to attend them. Thank you. Notification Mr. Creasy, could you come to the mic please if you, to answer that? Excuse me. Uh, notification was not a regular, although we were aware of some late meetings, um, to your point. And, uh, to clarify, I believe the Downtown Lexington Corporation had an initiative at one point that requested voluntary compliance with a corral, uh, system, and I believe that most of the publishers locally, uh, were at least in agreement, uh, should those corrals be ever made available. Uh, it's my understanding that they were not, and, uh, that fell by the wayside. So if the corrals were to be made available, then maybe the... Is there... The publishers could possibly... I think most of us have conditionally agreed to do that, and those records should be on file at the Downtown Lexington Corporation. These meetings were held three, three to five years ago. That's an awful long time ago, and I know there's some new publications. Maybe they might be able to have another meeting or something and get something more recent on file perhaps, but thank you. Thank you. Uh, Mr. Decamp, did you want to follow up with that? No, I, I... 'Cause I have Mr. McCord on the list. Okay, I just wanna answer. I mean, reply to... You were aware that there were meetings, uh, to look at the news rack situation going on? Yes. That's what I thought. Thank you. Mr. McCord? Uh, uh, Mr. Barriere, just real quick, uh, with regard to, uh, self-compliance and so forth, one of the things that was very interesting for me being on the task force was seeing the law that was already written, uh, and seeing that actually there were, um, that pretty much there was violation all over the city of what we already have on the books. Can you speak to kind of the way that was written prior to, to looking at this new draft ordinance and so forth that, uh, how it was supposed to be, um, monitored? I know it was supposed to go through police and, and that type of thing. Can, can you speak briefly to that? You don't have to go into a lot of detail. Well, can I work the overhead over here or not? We do. Can you put this down? We actually have a... There is an existing ordinance on the books, um, so I, I just, I can put that up for you all so you can see what it says, but you're correct, it was, it was contemplated that division of police would do it. I think there were some restrictions on, um, some of the placement of them as well as the size and types of boxes that should be utilized. I believe it applied all the way across the city. Um, I cannot speak to whether it was ever enforced, whether it was enforced for a period of time, whether... I, I, I just don't know, um... Yeah, it wasn't. I mean, it was a situation where, you know, the bottom line was police couldn't do it, didn't really want to do it, uh, but what we've had is an ordinance, a law on the books, that really was ignored, and, uh, part of the reason for I think Council Member Decamp's wanting to put this task force together is because what we've got is, uh, a hodgepodge of sizes, shapes, colors, sizes, uh, or, uh, types, uh, some are journalistic, some are just solicitation, some block handicap ramps, some block the sidewalk themselves. All across this city out in the suburbs where I serve, you've got boxes, Herald-Leader boxes chained in the right-of-way that break, break the law, and people have just grown very tired of it, bottom line. So I don't think that the self-policing and all that kind of stuff really, uh, worked. I don't think that, uh, there's anything, uh... What, what I saw from the task force was we've got a, a pretty, uh, I would call it a very ugly scar in our downtown when you come up on these, this rainbow of colors and shapes, sizes. Uh, you, you've got some, uh, accessibility issues for handicapped folks, you've got just some, uh, mobility issues, and, and what I see this as an attempt to do is let's, let's get it down to where in the downtown specifically, we have a, a nicer way of doing that, let's put them into a place where it's very, uh, eye-appealing for drivers and for pedestrians, that people can find the things they need to find. Um, so I think, again, the task force wanted to come forward with, with... ... here's what we have to this point, uh, and this is about a year's worth of work, and working through the committee and hearing your all's, uh, very valid, um, uh, concerns, but recognizing that we need to do something, uh, that something is going to get done, trying to find the best way to do it, whether it's a matter of, uh, unified boxes and they all have to be said size and all that, uh, is, is, certainly an issue that, uh, is not hard and fast that we discussed the color scheme last time, you know, is it all, does it all have to be Keeneland green or can people have their own colors and so forth? And at the end of the day, what I think, uh, the spirit of all this is, is that this body needs to give some guidelines and some guide rails, uh, to this particular thing with given emphasis into downtown, but also some of these, uh, blatant, um, uh, I guess, neglect for, for the law, uh, in all areas around town. So as we kind of discuss this further, I think that that's, uh, why this is really, really important to hear from you all and to hear what the legitimate concerns are, but recognizing that we need to work together to get this thing done, uh, and not, uh, and not stalled out or hung up over a color or a, or a sized box. Thank you. Dr. Blues. Uh, Mr. Creasy, if, if in, in, in earlier when you talked about self-policing, the, did you, did you, do you have anything more to add on that than what you've already suggested? To stand with you on a point, there is a problem, and I think we can all agree. However, um, I, I find it unusual that the council has heard so many complaints from the public, and, uh, well, my company has not. In fact, in the entire time we've been maintaining boxes, we have not had any complaints from the public about the location or condition of our boxes. Uh, in terms of self-regulation, uh, I believe a list of recommendations could be put forth by the task force. Um, a best practices, if you will, uh, suggesting, uh, different, uh, uh, points that we ought to observe to, um, clear up some of these situations. For example, limiting the number of groupings together. We can do that, but, you know, as a, as a council, I believe it would be honest and constitutional for you. This is not about, uh, this is not about anything but limiting our distribution, um, and, uh, we, we very much, uh, need to have freedom to distribute our publications. Without that, we can't, um, you know, publishing them as an act really becomes invalid if people can't encounter them, read them, enjoy them. It's in- it's interesting also, Councilwoman Cord, your, uh, analysis to the rainbow of color of boxes, and that's, uh, that's a good point, but I do believe fr- from, from my perspective that this rainbow of color is in some way reflective of our city's diversity and the community that some of these publications represent, and to exclude them from our street corners i- is, is, is kind of a negative on our town. We don't want a homogeneous, uh, city, you know? We want a, a diverse city. So, uh, again, uh, a best practices seems to be the answer to me. And yes, I know there have been violations certainly. Uh, we are all, in many ways, unclear on this current, uh, uh, requirement, uh, that is on the books, and while I, I would assert that it's unconstitutional, um, at the same time, I think that there's a general willingness among the local publishers to comply with recommendations to the best of our ability. But, but, uh, do the publishers themselves have any recommendations, suggestions that, that- I would be happy to compile those and submit them to the council, absolutely. Or to the task force. I mean, it might be, this might be a little better for us to have your, your ideas rather than, than it to be a kind of a one-way street, and you simply reacting. Sure, sure. Uh, again, I would be happy to put together a more formal report, but I do think that we could, uh, uh, we could cooperatively, uh, agree on some best practices. Thank you. Thank you. Uh, Mr. Beard. Uh, Chuck, hang, hang on just a second, if you mind. Um, what is the useful life of a, um, a, a stand? A news box? Yeah. Uh, well, the plastic ones, uh, I suppose, would last forever. Um, they're, they're, uh, you know, corrosion-proof in many ways, in many ways superior to the metal boxes, and they're, uh, recyclable and also, uh, for sale at a cost that's far below the metal boxes. Um, another stipulation in the report was the spring hinge doors. There are consumable parts. Doors wear out, hinges wear out, things break, but these are all interchangeable parts, uh, and, uh, can be replaced and maintained. Paint corrodes, salt from the roads causes it to rust, um, and, uh, corrode, so there's more of a maintenance issue with steel boxes and metal boxes. I would argue that plastic boxes, there, there are, there are many advantages to those, uh, beyond, uh, life, but I mean, indefinitely, uh, some of the boxes that we are currently using have been in service, uh, with other publications for, uh, as many as 10 years or more. I, I, I know one problem, I guess, I have was in the, they always look dirty and dingy for some reason, and they, because they have a, a, a texture to them that attracts dirt and, and, uh, obviously there's no ongoing maintenance there to, uh, keep them from- Darker, darker colors tend to attract dirt more readily. That's absolutely true, Councilman. Um, of course, we use black on some of our boxes, which helps in that situation and scenario. ... of the decals and whatnot, there's occasional vandalism. We try to keep that cleaned up. Uh, that's to, you know, that's to our benefit because if our boxes look bad, people don't buy the papers out of them. Would it be fair to say though that, um, n- no matter what happens, uh, maybe a, a, some reasonable phase-in time, uh, would be of help to y'all, as opposed to, uh... ? Certainly, to the smaller organizations, that would be an advantage. Uh, while I'm not ready to, to, you know, completely agree wi- with th- the task force's proposed ordinance, um, I think you all got my notes, uh, perhaps yesterday afternoon. Uh, we're looking at an implementation cost in the range of $12,000 in the first year for our company alone. And, uh, while that's not insurmountable for a company of our size or the Herald-Leader or any of their subsidiaries, it certainly is insurmountable for many of our counterparts in the publishing industry who are struggling, uh, in- in this new age of, of, uh, you know, economics and, and also, um, uh, competition. Uh, the smaller publications are, by this ordinance, at an extreme disadvantage, and you risk pushing them completely out of business. Thank you. Are there any other questions from council members? I've had some people in the audience that have requested Ms. Jackson has, uh, has requested to speak, and also, uh, Mr. Turner from the Herald-Leader has requested too. Ms. Jackson, can you give your name and address? And you have three minutes, please. Renee Jackson, 743 Zandell Drive, representing the Downtown Lexington Corporation. Just to address some things that were brought up, uh, before I was at the Downtown Lexington Corporation, which was summer 2006, there was an effort to get all of the publishers to comply, and many of them did sign on to a petition that would agree to go into the corrals. And at that time, the corrals were gonna be privately funded, but many of the people that wanted to privately fund them were very concerned that there was no teeth to putting people in the corrals, that what if a new publisher came to town or somebody just did not wanna comply, then they would just put their box anywhere and there'd be no way to make them not be there, essentially. So that is why a, a long time ago, this came up through the Downtown Lexington Corporation, and through Councilman DeCamp's help, we've been pursuing an actual ordinance because while a lot of the publishers do tend to want to comply, without some teeth to it, there is going to be someone who doesn't. And then, all of this will essentially be for naught. And there are still people that are willing to privately fund some of the corrals that the Streetscape is recommending, but again, they don't want to put out 3,000, $3,500 for these corrals without knowing that the next morning there's not gonna be someone tied on to the outside of the corral. So with respect to that, we would ask that you would consider continuing on with having an actual ordinance and with, you know, reasonable modifications, which I think some of those have already been addressed. Um, and I think that's really all that I was gonna say, I think. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Turner? And give your name and address, please. Yep. It's Mike Turner, 484 Gaffney Ct. in Versailles. Uh, I'm the audience acquisition manager at the newspaper, and I was a member of the task force. I sort of wanted to reiterate, um, what Ms. Jackson said 'cause, uh, I was part of the group that we tried to create a self-governing, uh, group of publishers to, to address the concerns of City Council mostly and the Downtown Lexington Corporation about the, um, the racks downtown. Um, where we got to, and we actually... and Chuck was part of that, and we, we had several publishers, um, who agreed to do that, and that's, that's actually what we would rather do. We would rather self-govern, we would rather avoid an ordinance because you do get into, to First Amendment questions, and, and we would fight any infringement on our First Amendment rights to the max. So that, that would be something that we would obviously, uh, uh, fight. Uh, and when you start getting into the, the question, uh, a- and I was a member of the task force, and we're on record as saying we will not agree to changing the color of our racks. Um, and we, we will, uh... and, and that's something what the other publishers, when they have a brand for a particular rack, a particular style, a particular color, that, that's something that is important to them. So I understand that. So it's not a minor issue in the, in the terms or in the eyes of a publisher. Um, the other thing I wanted to say in respect to, to Mr. McCord in terms of the, the current ordinance, I've been at the newspaper for t- more than 23 years, and I've been responsible for single-copy racks, and I didn't even know there was an ordinance until about five years ago, and I immediately went to the, to the chief of police, and I talked to different council members to determine that that just was not an ordinance that was, was being enforced or was not on the books and was not, uh, something that, that we should, uh, abide by. So we weren't, we weren't knowingly, uh, uh, disregarding a city ordinance. And so I just want to make that clear. Uh, and, um, at that time, a- a- and in subsequent meetings with different city council members, we rarely get a complaint about our newspaper racks. And when we do, we take care of it. If it's, if it comes from a citizen, if it comes from a council member, then we, we try to address it and take care of it. And, and, and that's our, that's our position. We just, we're trying to, to work with the city. ... and we're trying to come up with something that works for all the publishers, and I think if we can come up with something that works with the publishers where, in conjunction with what the city's trying to do, that's where we're gonna have the most success. Thank you. That's it. Are there any further council members with questions? Mr. Beard. And, uh, this is for our law department, I guess. Um... There is su- um, an ordinance on the books as to the placement of, um, political signage in the right of way. And, um, is there not? I, I, I, I believe there isn't. Well, I mean, I, I know co- code enforcement goes around and picks them up when they find them, so I assume... Well, there is a, there is a, there is something on the books that addresses right of way signs, both at the state level and the local level. Political signs, it's my understanding we have something on the books possibly, but I don't really know what we have with respect to political signs. Well, I, what I'm leaning toward is, is to make some comparison about the r- the right of way and, uh, the First Amendment. If, in fact, the claim is by, uh, the publishers that their First Amendment rights are being infringed upon, are not the, uh, political signs a infringement also under the First American... Amendment, um, the First Amendment? I, I, I believe- Or do I need to go to the Supreme Court to make- I believe the... Well, I believe the, the analysis is slightly different. Um, there is case law that, that, that does support, and this is the context that it came up in. There were cities, I think one of them was Cincinnati, one of them was Cleveland, they tried to either outright ban the distribution of newsracks in the right of way, or outright banned commercial publications in the right of way. Both of those lost at the United States Supreme Court level for First Amendment reasons. So, it's clear that, that publishers do have First Amendment rights when it comes to having some access to the right of way. I don't know that they are the same rights that have been, uh, articulated with respect to how our proposed ordinance would work with respect to, uh, the Densmore & Shull letter. There are some legal issues that came up, uh, that we briefly discussed earlier that I think are legitimate. Um, but the fact of the matter is, you don't have reported case law where someone has adopted something like, let's say, a mo- they, there's cities that have modular newsracks. Instead of having any branding at all, and this is something this committee discussed, and they, they did not want to do it. The task force did not wanna have the city acquire the modular racks, where there's X number of spaces involved and all you do is rent a space and put your paper in it. Okay? To my knowledge, there has not been a challenge of that t- a reported challenge at a higher court level of that type of arrangement. As a factual matter, that type of arrangement is not uncommon in other cities in the United States. So, um, clearly I think you all have some rights to regulate this type of stuff. With political signage, I don't know that there's the same First Amendment argument. What we do on signage, and it's a state law as well, is there is a flat out prohibition period to having signage in the right of way. Doesn't matter whether it's political signage, commercial advertisement, doesn't matter what it is, you just can't have it there. And that's a state law as well as a local law. So, um, and I'm not aware of there being a reported case that challenges someone putting a p- there, I think there's reported case law on you having it in your, on your private property, but with respect to placing a signage, a political sign in the right of way, I'm not aware of there being a reported case law that says... A- as long as it's in the context of a flat out prohibition, where you would get into issues is, "Well, I'm gonna let this type of sign be in here, but I'm not gonna let this type of sign be in here." That's when you open the door, I think, on the First Amendment issue on the public right of way, on the signage issue, is when you get into that. Well, th- that's my argument, and I guess when they put a decal on a newsrack, and put it in the right of way, it seems to be the same thing as a political sign, or for that matter a, uh, uh, a yard sale sign. And, uh, I know we, we, we can't try the case right now, but uh it, uh, it does le- leave one to ponder. The, the question, uh, is, is somewhat interesting. Thank you. Thank you. Is there any further questions from the audience? Uh, Mr. DeCamp, how would you like to proceed at this point? Um... Uh, uh, at this point, I think, you know, we've, we've looked at some possible, uh, uh, input into this ordinance, like, uh, looking at the, uh, liability insurance and mah- possibly the annual fee, and, uh, I think these are reasonable things to look at. But when we get down right to the, the bottom line, this is public right of way, this city has got to know what's in the public right of way. And the only way we can do it is by setting up a system like this. And, uh, it's, it's certainly outside of the downtown, it's certainly more restrictive in the downtown, outside of the downtown. We certainly, again, need to know where a newspaper rack is going, if it's in the public right of way. Now, if it's inside a building, that's none of our business. ... and, uh, many of them are, and we see them, uh, in entrances of buildings, inside lobbies, and those kind of things. But I think if we are going to have any kind of safety or beautification in this city, uh, th- and a lot of thought has been put into, uh, this ordinance, uh, that we need to have a, some sort of control of what goes in, uh, on the public right away. Especially in our downtown, we are now going to have a big push to, uh, you know, improve the sidewalks and the street furniture and the trees, and in this whole design process, uh, they are designing, um, corals by which they can f- n- fit in, uh, five, uh, uh, newspaper distribution racks. So, I, I, I mean, I think it's reasonable. I think we should all want to see our city look a heck of a lot better than it looks. And one of the biggest eyesores, in my estimation, and in many people's estimation, have been the indiscriminate placing of newspaper racks. And it's not... I don't put any blame on any of the newspaper people because we had something, uh, in effect, which we didn't pay any attention to. Now, we've got something which I think will be a real positive step, uh, in, uh, uh, for our city and, as long as it's in the public right away, I think we should know exactly what is happening. So therefore, um, I would make a motion, uh, that this committee accept this draft ordinance, and, uh, with the caveat that, um, these four issues such as the liability, the annual permit fee, the single additional fee, and possibly a more reasonable phase in time be looked at by the committee and, uh, some recommendations be brought up, um, before, you know, at the time that it's presented, uh, to the full council. Second. We have a motion to second. Do we have any discussion from council members? All those in favor say aye. Aye. I think actually before I vote, Mr. Lane wanted to recuse himself. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes, since my company is in the publishing business, um, I am electing to recuse myself from that vote on this matter. Thank you. So noted, and I'm sorry, let's take that vote again. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed? That passes. And we will present that... I, my only concern on that is the way that that was drafted with the... Before I read that out to the full council, what's going to be the timeframe to, to have those, uh, four issues addressed? Will they be done between now and next Tuesday, or? Not between, not between now and next Tuesday. If you could hold off and do it the following Tuesday, I'm sure I could have those answers. Okay. Uh, Ms. Crosby had a question. It... Mr. DeCamp, is there any way maybe we could just hold off to our next services committee meeting and maybe get the answers to those questions? I think there were like three or four, like the, um, appeal, whether or not it could be appealed in court, and the need to eliminate insurance. There were, I think there were about four things legal discussed. There were four- And maybe if we could just wait till our next services committee and have it all addressed at the same time and then vote on it, you know, it'd be the first thing on the agenda at our next meeting, and have us prepared to vote on it when they're all addressed at that services committee meeting, table it till next month, have all the answers at once, and then take it to full council after that, versus trying to discuss it again at a full council meeting where we don't have all the answers to the questions. We'll have to, we'll have to readdress it at a council meeting wh- when we already are on board with this committee, where we can have the questions maybe the first on the agenda. I understand where you're coming from, Ms. Crosby. I would prefer to do it this way, and I think there's been a vote been taken. We have voted that mildly. Um, at this point, I think we have to just have the, the timeframe of when that's going to be presented. And I think that's still left out there. I, I think you and I can work it out. Okay. So we'll, we'll try and do it the next two weeks. Right. When I report out. Okay. We'll do that. The next item on the agenda is... And I need my... Thank you. Is an item that I brought forward. And at this time, I'd like to relinquish the chair to Mr. Myers and let Mr. Myers, um, chair this for the residential parking permit procedures. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, I'll go ahead and allow you to bring your witnesses forward and start the conversation. Thank you. In our packet, there is the... On page 12 through 23, it talks about the procedure and request to establish the resid- residential parking permit program. And, and I agree in principle with how, what is presented, because I think we want to make sure that the neighborhoods aren't being encroached by people who are using their parking. I was addre- I was, um, presented a situation that I brought up in the work session from a constituent that lives, uh, that has r- property at 315 Transylvania Park. And at this point, I think they are here along with their attorney, Dick Murphy and Craig Harden. I think they want to address a specific issue to what we did back in 2006, and we restricted some of the parking on this, on Transylvania Park. With that, I'd like to recognize Mr. Murphy, I guess, and then Mr. Harden. Ah, thank you very much. Uh, I'm Dick Murphy, I represent, uh, Craig and Carmela Harden who owns the property at 315 Transylvania Park. We were here and we briefly addressed this work session, but what the situation is, is about 10 years ago, council passed a residential parking system for Transylvania Park because a lot of people who didn't live on Transylvania Park were parking there, coming from UK, students, and, uh, parking there during the day and taking up the parking area. Um, the, that system worked well. Um, however, two years ago, without notice to Mr. and Mrs. Harden- ...the ordinance was amended to exempt seven properties from that parking system. And what it did was it said that people living in those seven properties may not get permits to park on the street. So in, in essence, it said people living in those properties are not allowed to park on the street in front of the building where they live. Um, we're concerned about that obviously. Uh, Craig has a dupl- Craig and his wife have a duplex that, um, has three off-street parking spaces. Uh, they have more residents than that, and they need to be able to park on the street in front of the unit where they live. The, the, we have two concerns really, two or three concerns on it. One is that, uh, it's, it's a change in the purpose of the residential parking ordinance. The ordinance is designed so that residents will be allowed to park on the street where they live, that people coming in from outside to work or go to school will not occupy all the spaces and prevent the actual residents from living there. What we've done through this ordinance is prevented people who live there from parking on the street right in front of where they live. It was f- it was ra- uh, Craig may have discussed this a little further, his tenants have to go park on another street and walk to this location, often after dark to get there, which means, to us seems to be opposite the intent of the residential parking system. We're concerned about due process, and that is because in the ordinance creating the residential parking system, you have to have notification to all property owners and a hearing before you all before a residential parking system can be started. And however, to then come back and say, now these people cannot park where they live, no notification is required, no hearing, and that's exactly what happened in this case. So there's no notice to the seven properties that now cannot park in front of the places where they live. Um, now, we would hope that the ordinance would simply go back to a residential parking system for residents of Transylvania Park. Now, if that's not the case, obviously we would like Mr. Harden's property to be allowed to park, the residents to be allowed to park on the street in front of the place where they live. Um, I did do a little, little legal research on this one too, and ironically, there has been a US Supreme Court case on residential parking systems. Back in, uh, 1977, 31 years ago, the US Supreme Court did rule that it is legal for a city to discriminate in favor of residents against non-residents in one of these residential parking systems. And it, uh, I can't remember if it was a school or a business. It was a similar case where business, I think business people were parking on a street, and a city in Virginia passed an ordinance saying that y- only residents could park there, and that you had to have a residential permit. And the US Supreme Court actually went up there, said that is legal, it's legal to discriminate between residents and non-residents. However, there have not been any cases that say that it's legal to discriminate based upon what kind of a residence you live in. There's been no, no test case on that, and I know of no other ordinances on that saying that just because you live in a multi-family residence, you will not be allowed to park on the street in front of where you live. Whereas people who live in single family residences can park on the street where you live. And I know you all know, I know in my neighborhood, we have houses where it seems like 20 people are living in a single family house. Uh, so it's not necessarily a, a barometer of how many people are living in each unit, depending on the number of units that are in there. We just don't think it's fair to, uh, to say you cannot park on the street in front of where you live. And Craig, I know there's been some comments that, well, people were, students who lived there were giving parking passes to non-residential students and then letting them come in and use, illegally use those permits. And we certainly support any effort to be stricter on that. Uh, as far as Craig and his wife knows, none of their residents have ever given away parking passes to anybody else in the area. I think your ordinance right now says it's illegal to use a parking pass when you don't have a right to use a parking pass. So there is an ordinance on the books I think that can be enforced, and, but we support whatever needs to be to make that easier to enforce to make sure that only residents are parking there. But it is an important issue, and I think if you can imagine that if you weren't allowed to park on the street in front of your house, it would concern you. And it concerns people who rent just as much as it concerns people who live there. So again, we'd like that, uh, so-called exemption, which is actually a prohibition from parking, to be repealed, and if not, to be, at least Mr. Harden's property, which is, is just a duplex with three off-street parking spaces, those residents to be allowed to park in front of theirs. There, there is another duplex on this street with, uh, three off-street parking spaces, and they are allowed to get residential permits, and Mr. And Mrs. Harden's duplex, their residents are not allowed to get on-street parking permits on that. So I'll conclude up there, and, uh, Craig may want to add some comments on that as well. We thank you for your all con- you all's consideration of this. Mr. Harden, could you state your name and address please for the record? Yes, sir. I'm Craig Harden, 228 Lexington Avenue. Um, first of all, I appreciate everybody's time on this. This seems sort of, sort of petty compared to what a lot of the things you all are dealing with. So I apologize for taking your time with this, but it's important to, to me and my wife and, and particularly our residents. Um- I guess really the thing that concerned me the most was the w- the way this thing came about. We got no notice that this was gonna... that we were gonna be exempted from, from being able to park there. Uh, our, our tenants didn't and, um, and then... And further, um, I had gone through a renovation of the property, which is an original 1908 duplex, um, a number of years beforehand and been through... uh, before the, um, the Board of Architectural Review and they had limited me to only being able to put in three parking places. So, this government has told me I can only have three parking spaces off-street. Uh, I have a larger than average lot than all, almost all of the other properties there. It's a 60-foot wide, wide lot, as opposed to 50 foot, where I, so I would have been eligible for, for enough parking. We need seven parking spaces. Uh, but we did not, we complied and then later now the off-street parking has been taken away and I have, I have, uh, tenants, girls that are walking between the houses and around the block there in the dark. It's, it's not a, it's not a very tenable situation. So, uh, we'd like to ha- obviously have that corrected. Um, if you don't mind, can you put this up for me? Um, Mr. DeCamp, I, I'm asking him to put up the letter that you wrote to Betty Kerr that requested a, a fourth parking spot for us. I appreciate you doing that. Um, in the middle of the, uh... In the middle of the first paragraph, it, uh, I guess explains your reasoning. "This was done at the request of the Neighborhood Association, as multi-unit buildings are required to provide off-street parking. Before this resolution, many students in these buildings were buying parking permits and either giving them or selling them to other students to park on this block." Um, and there are seven, seven buildings that are excluded. Um, I certainly support that effort. Uh, I... If I... If any of my tenants were to sell or transfer them, they should have them revoked. Uh, and so we would be as... in support of having that, you know, some other kind of wording put in there such that residents cannot transfer them to others. But I'm not in charge of that, and I just want to make sure that my residents will be able to park on the street in front of their house. Thank you again for your time. Uh, I just want to follow up with that. I... Of the seven that were on there, I have a list, and it appears that all of them have plenty of parking spots, except yours. It looks like you have three spaces and allowed maybe a fourth by the BEOR but the others have from seven... from five to six in a six-plex to 22 spots on a 24-unit. I guess at this point, I would make a motion that we, um, would, for your property, which would be 315, that we would exempt it from the... and re-... have that repealed from the ordinance. And actually, I think there is a gentleman. I, I, I'll make the motion, then you can, you can talk to that. So at that point, I make the motion to, um, take 315 out of it. We have a motion and second. Is there any discussion? Yes. Mr. DeCamp. Uh, yes, I would like to discuss this, because there are several things that I think ought to be brought out here. Um, and it... At, at this point there were several things that were said, like, you know, students having to come in after... There is coming in after dark. Uh, there is permit parking till 4:00 in the afternoon, and then anybody can park any place they want. Um, th- this happens to be, um... You don't agree with that? I mean, it's... It says on the sign, I was there this morning, um, that it says that the permit parking is, is... goes from 7:00 to 4:00. It's, it's just that's not practical for a re- for a student. I, I understand. I'm just making that point about that. I'm, I'm not disagreeing with you, I'm just saying students that... Look, we had a lot of... for example, a student teacher, one of them was a student teacher last year, and another, you know, getting up early to go to class- I'm just addressing the after dark- ... had to park in- I'm just addressing the after dark thing. That's, uh, that's all. We can go into other things later. Well, I'm, uh, I'm responding that I believe it's a valid argument, because they can't stack in the driveway. They have to park one behind another, and one that comes in late from a, from a job might then be behind somebody stacking in a driveway in their current system, and then the other person is sleeping in the morning, so it's a... it's not a workable situation, which then, you know, they choose to park somewhere else. Well, the other, uh, the other thing is that, that, uh, Mr. Harden has permit for three. Um, twice I've gone over there and there are four, and they were all pulled in the same way. Um, so, um, and, and I'm... I've made a request that officially that four be, um, put in there, but I, I didn't, um, hear any more, which would mean four for, uh, a duplex. Um... There are, excuse me, there are four, three spots and one half turnaround and then they block the one spot at the other. So they might have four cars f-... put in there. I mean, they... I guess there's no regulation on parking as many cars in your driveway as you, as you want. But, I mean, there are three spots. I wanna be clear about that. There are three spots and that was designated by the BOAR and we complied. And then there's a very small turn around that's not... was not allowed to be even half a car length, such that it could not be turned into a fourth spot. Well- They were very specific about that. They're, they're, they're four lined up together in the backyard. Um- I don't- I was there this morning, Greg. Um, and, you know, which I have no problem with, but what I'm saying here is, there has been, and I have looked into this, um, I just got, uh, a new recent update, uh, from PVA about the number of duplexes. There seems to be, uh- ... a -- th- they aren't complete with PVA. Uh, some of them say they're duplexes where they aren't duplexes. Uh, and I think, uh, when this was originally done, uh, Chuck Sailor, uh, who was head of the neighborhood traffic for traffic engineering, uh, went and checked all this, and this was their recommendation as to how to improve for owner occupants that live on this block. If you began to g- get permits for all the multi-unit, uh, you would have something like 300 and some people having permits where there are only less than 40 spaces on the block. So, um, this was looked at of those who had, uh, available parking, uh, those who might have been grandfathered in, and I'm saying that there is a lot of discrepancy in the information that we get from PVA. It would be my i- you know, I think a better recommendation about this, and I want to be fair about it, is now that, uh, permit parking is out of traffic engineering and into our Parking Authority, uh, that the Parking Authority, uh, meet with the neighborhood and see, again, study this, uh, from a, um... Because they are the new, uh, regulatory agency on permit parking, and come back next month with rec- recommendations, uh, to us, uh, and if anybody's been, being treated unfairly, I think by that time, they can straighten out what is a duplex, which is operating as a duplex, what isn't, and I think, uh, the number of parking, uh, places available, uh, behind each one, and, uh, I think at that time, we can make a decision, uh, one way or the other based on the recommendations of the Parking Authority, which is the, as I say, has taken over, uh, from traffic engineering the, the permit parking function. With all due respect, Mr. DeCamp, we need this parking back immediately. Students are beginning re- my residents are students, they're beginning to s- start school here in a week, and this has been delayed, uh, through, uh, kind of... We'd started this. There's an October 2007 letter here that you wrote, and this, this has taken a long time. It's been, they've been without parking now for a ye- over a year, two, started two years ago, but they, so, um, I'd- I'd like to ask, uh, that this be expedited, at least for my property. We, we, we need parking immediately. Don't need to be studying and having meetings on it anymore. Um, Councilman Ellinger, I'm in the chair's position now, but I have a question. Certainly. You just read off a list of different units- Right. ... and the number of parking places they have per unit. It was the seven, it was, uh, the seven that were taken out when they did this, and, and just looked at what th- what there was and how many parking spots they had. Is there- And I can make a, I can put that available there they put on the- Can, can we put that on the overhead? Sure. Is, is- Do you have a copy there? Is there a correlation there between the number of units that each of those properties have and the number of parking places? I'm kind of unclear as to why a duplex would need seven parking places. You can ask, Mr., Mr. Harden can answer that question. He may not have heard that question. I think Mr. Harden's duplex has seven bedrooms when it, total, through the two units. When it wa- he mentioned remodeling. When they did the remodel, they, uh, did not add any bedrooms. They added a, it was a kitchen laundry addition type remodeling on that, so he's, he's got seven bedrooms on that duplex that they have. So- So, um- So it's more or less a, a seven unit residence rather than a normal duplex you'd think of as having two- Well, it's a seven... One, one side has, is a three bedroom duplex, the other's a four bedroom duplex on it. Okay. Could you... What's that that you've put up there? I think you had another... Yeah, that right there. That's the unit. So, Councilman Ellinger, do you know if there's a correlation between the number of bedrooms that they can rent out per the unit? Say, like, a 24 unit has 22 spaces. Is that the way that that's set up? Yeah, that's w- well, that's how I looked at it, and you had 12 units had 11 spaces, and then you had eight and eight, and five and six, and the six. So it looked like they all had plenty of parking. So there- That last one on there is a duplex. Is that eight spaces? That has eight spaces, correct. Yes. So it must have multi bedrooms and, on each side? Four, I believe it has four and four. Okay. That was the, uh, that was the ordinance that they- it's an, it's an infill project. It's not an original structure. And that's why when I looked at these, it appeared that all of them had plenty of parking space except this one that only had three spaces. Okay. That, that was my question. Mike Johnson wants to- Are there any more questions from the council members? Yes. Um, let's start with Mr. Buddens. I wanted to ask, um, I guess maybe not ask, but comment. I'm worried that we're gonna place ourselves in a position where we're gonna make the same mistake over again, if this is indeed a mistake. A few years ago, we exempted a number of properties with some thought and process to it, but evidently not enough communication to the neighbors, which I can't, I can't defend at this point. But I, I worry that by exempting one particular property, we're gonna set ourselves up for the next five or six to come in and make the same appeal. And I, I, I don't feel like that's the right course in this particular case. I wonder if it isn't the smarter course to try to work with the BOAR to get him his fourth spot i- in the off-street parking, and that will, that seems a fairer solution to me, because it's two cars per duplex, which fits a normal family mode style thing. I respect your right to rent to students and get maybe as many as four people, and, and therefore four cars per side of your, your building, but that doesn't do much for the owner-occupied residents on a street where there's only a handful of slots. So, I guess that's where I stand on this. Okay, Mr. Blues. It's an original structure. Chair, with all due respect, we have a formality process here, and I would like to follow that. So noted. Mr. Blues. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, I too have some, uh, some doubts about going forward with, uh, recommending es... Special case legislation here, uh, before we really, uh, uh, have all the, all the facts that we, uh, that we need and can look at this in a little broader context. We, we did get a letter, uh, today from another resident on Transylvania Park expressing concerns about this, uh, uh, ab- about Mr. Harden's request. I think the, uh, uh, council member decamp suggestion that, that, that we ask the, uh, the parking authority and Mr. Means to, uh, you know, to look into this, into this situation and give us a, a, you know, a factual report on the street, uh, would be a good, a good way to go here. Uh, in the larger context as well and, and I, I think we do need, uh, to look at, at the parking situation in relation to the larger, uh, issue of density. Uh, and, uh, and of course, the s- student housing task force is taking up that, that issue as well. So I think, uh, I think I would prefer not to be rushed into, uh, special case, uh, uh, legislation here and, uh, and I think we should, we should not go forward on, on that motion. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Beard. Um, if I understand this right, as of right now, you're asking that you'd be allowed to park four cars in front of your property. I'm sorry, I didn't hear that- I say y- you're requesting the ability to be able to park four cars in, in front of your building because we only have three spaces on your property. That's, that would be acceptable. Okay. Well, I guess my question is, you mentioned you had a 60-foot lot and you have a driveway. You can't get four cars in front of your property. Well, I- 15 foot o- 15 feet- I'm sorry. ... f- f- 15 feet minimum on a car- Okay. ... to 18 feet. On, on the street. On the street, uh, on the block in front of the... I mean, that's on your lot. I mean, the real fact is, is that there's a whole lot more need for parking than ever, w- with the students occupying, uh, properties than there is curbs to park them all. And I'm talking about Transylvania Park in its entirety, and I'm talking about Aylesford, I'm talking about Linden Walk, I'm talking about all of them. There's, there's just more need for curb and, and you've got more cars than, uh, you've got spaces, period. Day, night, no matter when. Correct. Okay. In downtown as well, yes. Right. I agree. Just wanted to make that point. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Lane. Uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, I just wanted to add a thought here is that we were pretty quickly able to rescind the right to park on the street and, and it appears from the correspondence here that this matter has been going on over a year. I think that the property owner's entitled to due process to get this turned around on a timely basis. Even if we only, uh, permitted this parking on the street on a interim period until we, you know, made a resolution of how we wanna change the ordinance. Uh, but I feel that we're penalizing an owner who rents to students, the school year's starting and there's no parking for, or adequate parking for the students, and I think we ought to try to resolve it today. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Blues. Well, I, I don't, I don't quite see it that way. I, uh, uh, you know, we're, we're being asked to do something here at the last minute, uh, before school starts. Uh, everybody has known for, for months when, you know, when the, when the new semester begins, and I think it's really tough, uh, sometimes to take back something that has been, has been permitted. I think the, you know, the, the, the request is reasonable, but I certainly question the need to, uh, you know, to act on this, uh, and be rushed into something that we might find, uh, uh, is not so compelling later on. So, uh, I'm not prepared to go f- uh, in, to vote in favor of this motion. Okay. Is there any more discussion? Any more discussion? Um... Okay. Is this Mr. Johnson? Yes. Could you come forward please? State your name and your address. Yes. My name's Michael Johnson. I live at 339 Transylvania Park. My wife and I have worked on the permit parking on that street for the last 12 years. Uh, I have also here a letter from a neighbor explaining some of the histories of the property here. Uh, I didn't know till today that a deck had been added on in the back, so some of the green space had been eroded and parking had been eliminated there. We went through all the, uh, numbers with traffic engineering, looking at duplexes, and again, it was difficult to determine what was a duplex versus what was a single family, because some of PVA records are really inaccurate and we're trying to be fair about it and make sure that everybody has ample parking. Problems in the past include, uh, continual abuse and- ... as of a year and a half ago, all that has stopped. This permit parking dis- district works. It's probably a model for downtown. We've had no problems since this change. The abuse, the, uh, people, boyfriends, girlfriends move in, get a pass, and they also get the visitor's passes. Those seems to be, you know, the ones that were abused the most. Each person who gets a p- permit pass as a resident also gets two visitor's passes, and they get put on different cars. They're not tied to the specific car. They can be put on any car, and they end up getting passed around. They're difficult to track, so, uh, during a traffic count with Chuck Seiler, they were looking at the number of off-street parking available, found that these properties did have, under what the ordinance read at the time, available off-street parking. And to date, we've had, uh, like I said, we've had no abuse, no complaints till here recently, and, uh, I think it's worked quite well. Thank you for your time. Thank you, sir. Is there any more discussion? Seeing as there's no discussion, we've got a motion on the floor and a second. Um, all those in favor, say, "Aye." Aye. Aye. Those opposed, "No." No. No. I guess we'll take a show of hands. Those in favor, say or raise your hand. Those against. That motion fails. Does... Um, Mr. Camp, you had said about coming- ... back there. Yeah. I'll, I'll, I'll make a motion that we turn this situation over to, um, uh, the parking authority, which is now in charge, and to try to, uh, of parking permits, and try to work, uh, with the neighborhood so we can really actually determine, more accurately, the number of duplexes. I think that's the major rub here, and the amount of parking that is available, and hopefully come up with something that would be more, uh, appear more equitable, um, as, um, and come back and report, uh, to the services committee next month. Uh, I've talked to, uh, Gary Means, who's, uh, heads up the parking authority, and he's willing to take on this responsibility. Second. Second. Okay. We have a motion and a second. Is there any discussion? All those in favor, say, "Aye." Aye. Aye. Those opposed. That passes, and I return this chair back to Councilman Ellinger. Thank you. The last item is items in committee, and we have, um, Ms. Beck back here with the Citizens Advocate Committee would like to come talk to us about this issue that we have for the Citizens Advocate Standards. Thank you. At its July meeting, the Intergovernmental Committee took up a matter relating to management of the Citizen's Advocate Office, and that related to our draft, uh, policies and procedures manual. Intergovernmental Committee, um, set up a working group to, of, I believe, three council members who will, um, examine that and, and make some recommendations. At that meeting, um, it was Councilmember Ellinger who asked if that item and the item that's in the services committee, which is, um, the standards for ombudsman, if those two items could be combined. Um, I think that would be a great idea, and so that's what I'm here for today, is if we could do that. We have a motion from- I'll, I'll make that motion. I'm actually gonna be chairing that work group. Okay. So I move... Do you have a preference as whether you want both items of standards serv- ser- uh, services committee, or both go to- I think we're gonna put 'em in the intergovernmental- Okay. ... with Andrea. Okay. Then I move to combine the two issues and, and, and put it into intergovernmental. And have it removed from the services list. And have it removed from the services list. So moved. We have a motion, second. All those in favor, say, "Aye." Aye. Aye. Those opposed. Thank you. Thank you very much. As long as I have the podium, I would like to use this opportunity to make a little plug for the US Ombudsman Association Conference that we are hosting here in, in, uh, September, September 28th through October 2nd. This would be a great opportunity for all of you to, um, learn a little bit more in depth about things like best practices, and to see what's going on in the balance of the ombudsman community. There's a great session scheduled for the Thursday of that week that has to do with performance measures and evaluations of ombudsman operations by two, um, well-respected experts in the field. Please, if you have the opportunity, please consider coming. Thank you. Thank you. Do I have a motion to adjourn? So moved. Uh-oh. One moment. We have a... Yes, Ms. Carlsmen. Uh, just regarding items on the, um, uh, on the, on the, uh, committee, re- regarding on the back, um, Councilmember Student had brought up door-to-door peddlers. Does anybody know where that stands or if... I've just... I ha- I've been to several Neighborhood Association meetings, and this has come up repeatedly, and I was just wondering, maybe Paul, if- Mr. Chairman. ... if you could please check on that. Thank you. We'll get that back for you. So we have a motion to adjourn. We have a second. All those in favor, say, "Aye." Aye. All those opposed. We are adjourned. Only love can conquer hate. You know we've got to find a way to bring some lovin' here today. Picket lines and picket signs. What's going on? What's going on? What's going on? Yeah, what's going on? And then there suddenly appeared before me, the only one my arms will ever hold. I heard somebody whisper, "Please adore me." And when I looked, the moon had turned to gold. And then there suddenly appeared before me, the only one my arms will ever hold. I heard somebody whisper, "Please adore me." And when I looked, the moon had turned to gold.