# Services Committee - October 7, 2008 > Auto-transcribed civic record · October 7, 2008 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/614 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/614?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2008-10-07 - **Last revised**: July 17, 2026 - **Length**: 17,367 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed with OpenAI's open-source Whisper large-v3-turbo model, run locally by The Lexington Times. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude. Verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Services Committee met on October 7, 2008, at 1:00 p.m., with CM Ellinger presiding. During the meeting, the committee took 13 motions and votes, heard 5 public comments, and addressed 5 agenda items. The committee approved several measures, including a smoking ban proposed by Stevens and an on-street parking proposal for Transylvania Park brought by Ellinger. The committee also approved items in committee. However, not all items moved forward: a proposal regarding traffic safety issues on streets adjacent to Christ the King Church, presented by Stevens, was tabled, and a virtual speed humps item brought by Ellinger was deferred to a later date. ## Attendance The following individuals were present at the meeting on October 7, 2008: * Dr. Stevens * CM Lane * CM Crosbie * CM McChord * CM Blevins * CM DeCamp * CM Henson * CM Myers * CM Beard * CM Ellinger * Mike Sanner * Peggy Miller * Mike Gobb * Bernie Lovely * John Sloan * Luke Matheson * Gary Means * Craig Hardin * Jimmy Emmons * Ashley Sells * Dr. Ellen Hahn No members were absent or late. ## Votes and Decisions **Ordinance 2008: Smoking Ban Ordinance** [timestamp: 01:56:19] The council adopted the smoking ban ordinance as amended and scheduled a public forum for October 23, 2008, at 8:00 p.m. This motion was made by CM Myers and seconded by CM Beard. The roll call vote passed 9-1, with CM Blues voting against. Those voting in favor were CM Myers, CM Lane, CM Crosbie, CM McChord, CM Blevins, CM DeCamp, CM Henson, CM Beard, and CM Ellinger. **Amendment to Remove "Temporarily"** [timestamp: 01:00:02] A motion to remove the word "temporarily" from Section 3(1) of the smoking ban ordinance, made by CM Crosbie and seconded by CM Lane, failed 2-8. Only CM Crosbie and CM Lane voted in favor. CM Myers, CM McChord, CM Blevins, CM DeCamp, CM Henson, CM Beard, CM Ellinger, and CM Blues voted against. **Amendment to Add "Leased"** [timestamp: 01:08:57] A motion by CM Lane, seconded by CM Crosbie, to add "leased" after "owned" in Section 4(1)(a) of the smoking ban ordinance passed by voice vote. **Amendment to Change "Facilities" to "Buildings"** [timestamp: 01:14:34] A motion by CM Blevins, seconded by CM Crosbie, to change "facilities" to "buildings" in Section 4(1) of the smoking ban ordinance passed by voice vote. **Amendment to Delete Paragraph E** [timestamp: 01:16:09] A motion by CM Lane, seconded by CM Crosbie, to delete paragraph E of Section 4 of the smoking ban ordinance failed 2-6. CM Lane and CM DeCamp voted in favor, while CM Myers, CM McChord, CM Blevins, CM Henson, CM Beard, and CM Ellinger voted against. **Amendment to Include Examples of Establishments** [timestamp: 01:18:55] A motion by CM Myers, seconded by CM Beard, to amend Section 3(1) to include examples of establishments (banks, laundromats, retail stores, professional offices, restaurants, bars, gaming facilities, and childcare facilities) passed by voice vote. **Amendment to Add "But Not Limited To"** [timestamp: 01:22:47] A motion by CM Blevins, seconded by CM Myers, to amend the previous motion to include "but not limited to" for clarity passed by voice vote. **Transylvania Park Parking Recommendation** [timestamp: 01:38:18] A motion by CM Ellinger, seconded by CM Crosbie, to accept Recommendation No. 1 from the Parking Authority for Transylvania Park on-street parking passed 9-1. CM Blues voted against. The motion included a condition to reconsider if the Board of Architectural Review denies two additional parking spaces. **Amendment to Parking Motion** [timestamp: 01:42:43] A motion by CM Ellinger, seconded by CM Myers, to amend the previous motion to allow one additional parking space in the back and three residential permits instead of two additional spaces and two permits passed 9-1, with CM Blues voting against. The applicant must apply to the Board of Architectural Review and Board of Adjustment for additional parking. **Agenda Items Removed or Tabled** Motions to table traffic safety issues adjacent to Christ the King Church [timestamp: 01:49:13], remove Cambridge Drive parking from the agenda [timestamp: 01:54:06], remove private swimming pool safety regulations [timestamp: 01:54:38], and remove the Par 3 Golf Course issue [timestamp: 01:55:49] all passed by voice vote. ## Public Comment Five speakers addressed the council during the public comment period, presenting perspectives on a proposed smoking ban and its potential impacts. **Mike Gobb, Executive Director of Bluegrass Airport** [timestamp: 00:09:00], expressed concern that the smoking ban would negatively impact the airport's competitiveness, particularly with business travelers who value access to smoking lounges. He noted that the airport has invested heavily in secure, ventilated smoking rooms and warned that removing this amenity could drive customers away. **Dr. Ellen Hahn from the University of Kentucky College of Nursing** [timestamp: 00:28:45] countered that enclosed smoking rooms do not effectively prevent secondhand smoke exposure. She stated that workers who clean these rooms remain at risk and cited the 2006 Surgeon General's report to support her position that such enclosures are insufficient. **CM DeCamp** [timestamp: 00:50:16] argued that the airport's restricted access area justifies an exemption from the smoking ban. He reasoned that passengers and employees cannot easily leave the secure area to smoke, unlike in other public spaces, making the airport's situation unique. **CM Blevins** [timestamp: 00:46:16] emphasized that the ordinance is fundamentally a public health initiative. He warned against setting a precedent by granting exemptions, particularly to government buildings, cautioning that such exceptions could lead to widespread exemptions undermining the ordinance's purpose. **CM Lane** [timestamp: 01:01:07] raised a clarification question about the ordinance's language regarding "temporarily enclosed" spaces. He expressed concern that the definition could allow restaurants to permit smoking in patio areas when tent flaps are down, and he requested clearer language to prevent confusion and unintended loopholes. ## Contested Items The October 7, 2008 meeting included three significant areas of disagreement among council members: **Airport Smoking Exemption** The committee was divided on whether to exempt the airport from a proposed smoking ban. Some members supported granting an exemption, citing security and competitiveness concerns. Others opposed the exemption, arguing that it would establish a dangerous precedent and violate legal principles governing uniform application of smoking policies across government facilities. **Definition of "Temporarily Enclosed"** Council members engaged in heated discussion over the meaning and implications of the word "temporarily" as used in the ordinance language. The central concern was that an unclear definition could create loopholes allowing restaurants to permit smoking in patio areas when tent flaps or temporary coverings were lowered, potentially undermining the intent of the smoking restrictions. **Legal Precedent for Exemptions** A procedural dispute arose regarding the council's legal authority to grant an exemption to the airport without violating KRS 61.165, a state statute that prohibits local governments from selectively applying smoking policies to different government buildings. Council members debated whether exempting the airport would constitute impermissible "picking and choosing" among government facilities, thereby violating state law requirements for uniform treatment. ## Smoking Ban - Stevens (1-14) The committee discussed amendments to the smoking ban ordinance during this meeting. [timestamp: 00:00:00] **Key Participants** The discussion involved Dr. Stevens, Mike Sanner, Peggy Miller, Mike Gobb, and Dr. Ellen Hahn. **Main Discussion Points** The committee addressed several specific amendments to the smoking ban ordinance: - The addition of the word "temporarily" in the definition of enclosed structures - The impact of the smoking ban on the airport - Questions regarding the legality of exemptions under the ordinance **Outcome** The committee passed a motion to adopt the ordinance. A public forum has been scheduled for October 23, 2008, to allow for additional community input before final implementation. ## Transylvania Park On Street Parking - Ellinger (15-21) The committee reviewed recommendations from the Parking Authority regarding on-street parking accommodations for a duplex located on Transylvania Park [timestamp: 01:26:34]. **Key Participants** The discussion involved Gary Means, Craig Hardin, and Jimmy Emmons. **Committee Action** The committee approved a motion that allows for three additional residential parking permits for the property. The approval also grants the property owner the opportunity to apply for one additional parking space in the back, contingent upon approval from the Board of Architectural Review. ## Traffic Safety Issues: Streets Adjacent to Christ the King Church - Stevens (22+47) The committee discussed traffic safety concerns affecting streets adjacent to Christ the King Church. [timestamp: 01:49:13] **Key Participants** The discussion involved Dr. Stevens, CM Blevins, and CM Myers. **Outcome** A motion to table the issue was made and seconded. The committee passed the motion, deferring the matter until the next meeting. ## Virtual Speed Humps - Ellinger ( ) Ashley Sells of Traffic Engineering presented information on virtual speed humps to the committee [timestamp: 01:50:17]. The committee acknowledged the concept of virtual speed humps during the discussion. However, rather than making an immediate decision, the committee determined that further research on the topic was warranted. The committee decided to defer action and revisit this item at a future meeting to allow for additional study and consideration of the proposal. **Outcome:** Deferred ## Items in Committee (48-49) [timestamp: 01:54:06] The committee discussed the removal of several items from the agenda due to lack of progress or resolution. **Items Removed from Agenda:** - Cambridge Drive parking - Private swimming pool safety regulations - Par 3 Golf Course **Key Speakers:** - CM Henson - CM Blues - CM Beard **Outcome:** The committee approved the removal of these items from the agenda. --- ## Decisions - **Ordinance 2008** — passed (9-1): Adopt the smoking ban ordinance as amended and schedule a public forum on October 23, 2008, at 8:00 p.m. - **Motion** — failed (2-8): Remove the word 'temporarily' from Section 3(1) of the smoking ban ordinance - **Motion** — passed: Add 'leased' after 'owned' in Section 4(1)(a) of the smoking ban ordinance - **Motion** — passed: Change 'facilities' to 'buildings' in Section 4(1) of the smoking ban ordinance - **Motion** — failed (2-6): Delete paragraph E of Section 4 of the smoking ban ordinance - **Motion** — passed: Amend Section 3(1) of the smoking ban ordinance to include examples of establishments, including banks, laundromats, retail stores, professional offices, restaurants, bars, gaming facilities, and childcare facilities - **Motion** — passed: Amend the previous motion to include 'but not limited to' for clarity - **Motion** — passed (9-1): Accept Recommendation No. 1 from the Parking Authority for Transylvania Park on-street parking, with the option to reconsider if the Board of Architectural Review denies two additional parking spaces - **Motion** — passed (9-1): Amend the previous motion to allow one additional parking space in the back and three residential permits instead of two additional spaces and two permits - **Motion** — passed: Table the issue of traffic safety issues adjacent to Christ the King Church until the next Services Committee meeting - **Motion** — passed: Remove the issue of Cambridge Drive parking from the Services Committee agenda - **Motion** — passed: Remove the issue of private swimming pool safety regulations from the Services Committee agenda - **Motion** — passed: Remove the issue of Par 3 Golf Course from the Services Committee agenda --- ## Full transcript Music Yes. Yes. Thank you and I hope you feel better. a pain in the neck is both literally and figuratively nothing to have. We last met at the service committee, as you recall, to consider the proposed amendments to the Clean Air Act. And since then, there have been multiple meetings. Some of our members of the committee, Mr. Lane and others, have met with Ms. Miller, who is planning to be here. I don't – is she here? Oh, yes, Peggy, thank you. And Mr. Santer. And the latest iteration was mailed or emailed to everybody on Friday or Thursday night, last Thursday night. However, since then, further changes have been made. and today I circulated a draft of the ordinance to all present. I think there's some extra copies that some people in the audience might want. And I'll briefly go through those, and Ms. Miller and Mr. Sanner are here to answer questions. We also, since then, have contacted the booster clubs and offered her help in ways that we might be able to ameliorate some of their problems. And I think there's some data that relate to swing goes and other things that you might want to look at before we're through, and I believe that's been circulated also. But there are representatives here from the university who've been working on, of course, the smoking ordinances around the state and the nation and can bring us up to date on any questions. So would you want to hear from the law department first? Well, I'll just briefly mention these things, and then the law department will be happy to answer the questions. Yeah, why don't we bring the law department up, and they can just tell us what the changes were, if you don't mind. Okay. Okay. On page two, we have added the word temporarily to paragraph one, temporarily this would preclude somebody with an outside smoking area from having temporary screens or blinds which would close them off and prohibit the 60% openness of an outside bar. On page three, relating to business... Dr. Stevens, I think we had a question on that. Mr. Lane? Dr. Stevens, would it be all right with you as we went over each proposed change and discussed it item by item so we could air out that issue and ask any questions we may have? Because we end up having to go back and do it anyway, probably. But it's not going to take me very long. All right, sir. I'll let you be the judge. I'll let you summarize it, then we'll come back with the law department. If there you have some questions, then we can ask questions of all of them. On page three, a statement's been added to the top line two. this relates to businesses which are conducted in a dwelling and it says a single or multifamily residential housing unit there's been some question about whether you might have a dwelling with a business in the same building and would the business be exempted if the person in the dwelling owned the business so that was put in for that reason and similarly on page 4 in paragraph in the last sentence this exception also extends to a business located in the dwelling owned by the occupant living in the dwelling. That's what would be exempted, not the rest of the building. On page 9 that's the next last page under B and C at the suggestion of Mr. Lane which I thought was a good idea a fine of $250.250 for the second offense within one year and similarly on line C which has been added and those are the only changes in the ordinance which you received on Thursday night so if you suggested the attorneys come up to the front is that what you want them to do? I think so. Mr. Sander, if you could come up, and I think, Mr. Lane, you wanted to go over the first issue. Okay. Well, why are we adding the word temporarily in that provision? Could you explain the reason for that? My understanding is that some of the restaurants have patios with a permanent roof on it. In the summertime, they roll up tent flaps, so it's a patio. In the wintertime, they drop the tent flaps. So the tent flaps are temporary. So the ordinance would not cover that patio when the tent flaps are down. Okay. I don't think that's the spirit of the ordinance. If there's 40% interior walls and 60% open area, Even if those flaps can be rolled down during the winter, as long as they comply when they're smoking on that area, that seems to be fair. So I would be opposed to adding the word temporarily. That's my understanding as to why it was added. Dr. Stevens, do you have anything further you want to clarify on that? That's the reason it was added, and it was in there originally, and it's still the same as it was originally. Any other questions on this issue? I don't have any others. Anybody else? Okay. Ms. Crosby, did you want to ask? I just agree with Council Member Lane. I don't understand why that had to be added in if they're currently compliant. I don't... It was originally in the ordinance, proposed ordinance, permanent or temporary. then probably revision three temporary was taken out and now revision four temporary is put back in. Hail to the leaders. Nothing has Michigan fights. I'll wait and see if anybody has further questions because I still have, I think there are a few more questions I may have. Anybody else have any questions on the new changes? Mr. Lane, did you have anything? And if there is going to be potentially an issue with that, and if you want to make a motion to change that or amend that, then we'll have to bring a motion forward towards that. Otherwise, we'll keep it as it is in the present form. Okay. Okay, I think the other item in here is on page 6, paragraph 4, and the airport is located in the 12th District, and that's the district I represent. And it's my understanding that this would affect the airport operations. And I would like maybe to ask for, first off, your comment on what this new ordinance would mean to the airport, and then I'd like to ask the airport to speak to that issue. The ordinance as written would exempt smoking in the airport. Okay. But in the amendment. I mean, not exempt. You can't smoke in the airport. But in certain areas in the airport. But the amendment that's here would eliminate smoking in the airport. Is that correct? There's no exemption. I said that backwards. There's no exemption to allow smoking in the airport. So right now you cannot smoke in the airport if this is passed. All right. Okay, perhaps, Ms. Michael from the airport, I know you're interested in speaking to this. You'd like to say something. Good afternoon. I'm Mike Gobb. I'm the executive director for Bluegrass Airport. to spend a little bit of time with a number of you over the last 10 years, my tenure at the airport. Bernie Lovely is here, the airport board chair, and John Sloan is our director of planning and development. John's passing around some of the diagrams of where the four smoking lounges are, the smoking rooms are, in the airport. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks, John. A little bit of history about Bluegrass Airport. Over the last decade, we've put considerable effort into identifying our core customer and focusing on that customer with facilities, with amenities in the airport, and have become much, much more competitive. Our competition is the other airports lying within Kentucky, CVG to the north and Greater Louisville to the west. As we're looking at the amenities, as we're looking at what our customers are asking for, one of the items that comes up on the list is access to smoking lounges. Now, the airport has four. We have one located in the ticketing lobby. And if you're looking at the diagram, the green areas are the smoking lounges. And if you look on the far right, that would be the ticketing lobby smoking lounge that's located across from Delta, an American Airlines ticket counter. That's the only smoking lounge that's in the public area, the general public area of the terminal building. As you go through the security checkpoint, the screening checkpoint, there is a second smoking lounge located at the top of the diagram, and that would be at gate A4, Alpha 4 on the main level, on the lower level. There's a third located adjacent to the retail space on Concourse B. and the fourth smoking room is located in the executive lounge. What used to be the observation deck for the airport is now our common use executive lounge. The red line is the demarcation for the non-sterile and sterile areas of the airport, simply meaning that once you go through the security checkpoint, you're screened for all the things that TSA doesn't want you to have in the sterile area or on board commercial airliners. One of the challenges we face, particularly for smokers in public buildings, is once our customer gets through the security checkpoint, while we can say they may have an option of going back out of the sterile area and smoking their cigarette outdoors, they would have to be rescreened to come back into the concourse. When we're looking at the competitive nature of our business, we looked at our ability to provide that as a competitive advantage. Now, Northern Kentucky Greater Cincinnati Airport certainly has smoking lounges. The Louisville Airport has chosen not to have smoking lounges based on their city ordinance. So there's certainly argument on both sides. But what the airport board did was in the design of the smoking lounges, all except the smoking lounge down front was new construction. So as we designed those facilities, we designed the facilities such that the air inside the smoking room is vented to the outside. The only unique facility we have, currently each of the three or three of the main smoking areas have doors. The fourth, if you've been in the executive lounge, you notice that there is no door that they use. we use negative pressure to keep the smoke contained inside that room, and then that's vented outside. We also pay particular attention to there is no reason, there's no other reason but to smoke to go in the executive lounge, even to the point where in the smoking lounge, even to the point where in the executive lounge, we ensure that the television that's in there is on the same channel as the television that's immediately outside the room. so you're not even going in to watch a different television channel. So we've specifically designed these smoking lounges so that we keep the air separated, we keep any contaminated air separated. I'll give you a couple anecdotal examples. We just finished with the Ryder Cup. Monday was one of our busiest travel days at Bluegrass Airport for people departing the airport. We had a number of people traveling international. Our smoking lounges, smoking rooms, were probably the busiest we've seen them with the international customer. The international customer is not terribly familiar with our airport, quite possibly they haven't visited the community before, so they're not comfortable leaving the secure area. They're traveling in a foreign country, so they may not be real comfortable with what TSA requires them to do versus their home country requires them to do. So as a customer amenity, making sure that these individuals are accommodated has been very important to us. One of the other issues we have is delayed flights, canceled flights, where the airlines ask you to remain in the gate area for further information. So the airlines are asking these customers, these smokers, not to leave the gate area. TSA closes the security checkpoint, I believe it's 30 minutes after the, or just prior to the departure of the last airliner. We run into a number of situations during inclement weather, during winter operations, or mechanical anomalies with the airlines that flights are delayed or in some cases flights are canceled and they have to be reaccommodated or another aircraft has to come in after the security checkpoint is closed. So certainly, and we've had this happen to a couple of our customers, where the passenger's flight was delayed. They wanted to leave the concourse for some reason. They exited, and then they couldn't be rescreened. They couldn't get back to the aircraft, which would certainly be a situation that our customer would be faced with, with a delayed flight in the concourse where they absolutely wanted to get out and weren't aware that they could get back into the concourse. So the smoking rooms give us the flexibility to accommodate those folks without impacting the other customers. That's some of the basic information. John Sloan's here to answer any of the technical design questions. We have had a number of comments about the type of smoking room that we provide, the amenities we provide, the finishes we provide. It certainly isn't just the cube that you go into. I've seen some that have had so much smoke in them that you may not necessarily have to light your cigarette to get your fix on the cigarette. We certainly don't have that situation at Bluegrass Airport. It is important to us that we maintain the ability to offer the smoking environment for those customers. We don't make any argument, and if you view that as a concession, we don't make the argument that in the public area, across from the Delta American Airlines ticket counter, that that smoking room must remain. Those customers certainly have an option to leave the terminal building and come back into the terminal building where the customers down the concourses don't. Any questions? Mr. Sloan, did you want to add anything to that? Well, Mike mentioned that all the lounges were designed with the air inside the lounges is exhausted to the outside. The air that's provided, the supply air to all the lounges or the makeup air is also outside air, so there's no intermingling of the air sources from that perspective. And all the lounges are designed with a negative pressure so that the air pressure inside the lounge is lower than that of the air pressure outside the lounge, which also helps when the doors are open to keep the air from inside the lounge from leaking out into the public area. Okay. Any questions? Mr. Beard? Thank you, Mr. Chair. Other than the Ryder Cup, which happens, what, every how many years? It's probably the last time. Decades, maybe, for a while. How much are the lounges used otherwise? I think, you know, I think there's a tendency, obviously, if they're there and somebody's a smoker, they'll use them. I was a 30-year smoker myself, three packs a day. and I would walk through concrete blocks to get someplace to smoke if I couldn't easily. And I'm sure you have that situation. I guess one concern I might have would be a parent who had children, small children, and of course, again, if they're as addicted as I was, they would take their children into the smoking malms with them. there is no way to accommodate any other way to keep that from happening, is there? I don't believe so. I can only tell you anecdotally that I've not seen that happen. And that's one of the reasons we've located the smoking lounges where we have. If you notice the A-Concours smoking lounge, that really is designed to serve the C-Concours. So it's just down the steps, so it's relatively close to the gate hold area. They're all glassy. You can see outside. You can see inside. And, of course, the B-Concourse serving the B-Concourse area to make it convenient. One of the other situations we face is the airline customer, including me, tends to get to the hold room. They don't want to stray too far from where their aircraft is going to depart for fear that it will depart without them. We don't have the numbers on usage. I mentioned the Ryder Cup as an example. but when we look at the number of international customers that we have or strong business customers that we have, we could do a survey over a multi-day period to get the use. It's not extensive use, but when it's required, when it's asked for, it's important. Do you have situations where people are actually transferring from one plane to another? And occasionally, that's not a major portion of our business. One of the other considerations that we face over the past 10 years is we've added new destinations, and we're about to add the two to the Tampa, St. Pete area and Orlando area with a nonstop service from Allegiant. I'll get a little bit of plug in there. But as we've added these flights and you start looking at nonstop flights to Houston, You look at the nonstop flights to New York. We're talking to carriers about nonstop service to Denver. When you start factoring in the time that the airlines and TSA ask you to arrive at the airport, clear security. You've got one hour prior to departure. And then, for sake of argument, look at a Houston flight where you're looking at two-plus hours, then in transit, and then looking at the time that you spend at the other airport. There can be a considerable period of time where that individual, not arguing whether it's right or wrong, but that individual does not have access. And that's a competitive customer issue for us. I got called down by a stewardess for going into a restroom on a flight from Dallas to Houston, which is about an hour, hour and ten minute flight. And it set off an alarm. Most everybody in the plane took the crash position. and they pounded on the door and my defense was that there was still a small ashtray on a little pedestal right next to the toilet. And so I pointed to that and I said, well, you had the ashtray there, so I assumed you allowed me to smoke in here. Well, you know, there were signs all over the place that said differently, but that was my defense anyway, and it cooled her off a little bit. Otherwise, they probably would have thrown me in cuffs and dragged me off the plane as soon as we landed. So, you know, I feel for your clientele and such, but most of your flights are an hour, hour and 15 minutes, aren't they? Yes, they are. And most movies last two hours. Thank you, Mike. Dr. Blues? Thank you. Thank you for coming and making this presentation. I've got a question about competition. Sure. What is the competition? If you can't smoke in the Louisville Airport and you don't have two airports out of Lexington, Sure. How does this mount up as a competition issue? That's a great question. Our core customer is the business customer. The customer that we tend to lead to greater Louisville tends to be the leisure customer, where passengers are making the choice. And I'm not saying everyone's going to make the choice which airport they fly out of based on whether or not they can have a cigarette. But between the two airports, between CVG and Lexington, both of those airports currently offer that amenity. And taking that choice away from the customer simply gives them an opportunity to have a negative experience with us that may drive their business in the future. Well, I ask that question not facetiously because I can see that if we granted this kind of exemption on that grounds, that other entities would come to us and say, well, I'm put at a competitive disadvantage, and I'm not sure we want to go down that. No, and I completely agree with that. Our core argument, if you will, is that we are a unique government building with the security check, with the federal government doing security screening where there may be opportunities, there may be times when a customer simply cannot, cannot leave the sterile area of the terminal building concourse and reenter, even if they wanted to, because TSA closes that checkpoint. I understand that, and that reference to a government building leads me to a question, but it's really, I think, for Mr. Sanner. So if you could come up for just a second. And the question is, if we made an exception in the ordinance, what kind of precedent might that set with reference to government buildings? There's two ways to make an exception for the airport. One is by statute 6165.3A, where a government agency can set the smoking policy for all government buildings. So in this case, you could have a written smoking policy allowing smoking rooms for the airport, but you can't single out the airport. You'd have to allow smoking rooms in all government buildings. And the other way would be to do a specific exemption for the airport in the ordinance. There may be some legal concerns with that. I think Peggy Miller has some case law on that that I'm not familiar with this time. So we could be opening a wider door here. If you established a written policy as a council for all government buildings, you would essentially allow smoking room in all government buildings if you allowed it in the airport under the statute. You could exempt the airport specifically under the ordinance, but that might lead to some legal concerns. Let's ask Ms. Miller if she would come forward and try to answer that question, if you could, please. First, I agree with what Mr. Sander said that under 61-165, I don't believe you can carve out one building if you have a smoking policy, if the Urban County Council adopts a smoking policy. And the case that he was referring to, and I don't happen to have it in front of me, but you might recall when Louisville Metro government first enacted their ordinance, it was challenged because there was an exemption for one location, Churchill Downs. and that challenge was successful. So my concern would be the same thing here. If there's an exception for one particular entity, it might invalidate the ordinance and would be back to where we are. So there possibly could be some grounds for distinguishing an exemption for an airport as opposed to a racetrack, but I don't know. I just know that that's what happened in Louisville when they tried to create an exemption for Churchill Downs. It wasn't successful. Thank you. And, Mr. Chairman, I've got one more question. Certainly. And this would be directed to persons in the health community who might want to respond here. And it has to do with the argument that a room, a particular room, is sealed off from the rest of the building. and so that only smokers are endangered. And I'm interested in two questions, I guess, with reference to that. One, is that actually true? Can you actually do that? And then again, getting back to another precedent issue, would granting an exception in whole or in part for that reason, would that cause a problem where we don't do that for other businesses and enterprises within the province of the ordinance? So I don't know, Commissioner, if you'd want to respond to that or somebody else in the health community, I'd be glad to have that information. Sure. I'd be happy to answer that. In 2006, the Surgeon General's report, oh, I'm sorry, Ellen Hahn, I'm sorry, professor in the College of Nursing and the College of Public Health at the University of Kentucky, Ellen Hahn, the Surgeon General report in 2006 specifically said that enclosed smoking rooms don't work, and there's really no scientific evidence that you can keep secondhand smoke from leaking in enclosed smoking rooms unless you use very high technology, which I have never really seen one of those. There's apparently some health facility in Ontario, Canada, that's built a tunnel and created a room with several anterooms and doors, and someone goes in with a hazmat suit and changes the filters. The bottom line is those kinds of rooms aren't feasible, nor are they cost efficient. And so, no, bottom line is those rooms have been shown to leak. And the second issue from the health standpoint is that people still have to go in those rooms to clean them. And so workers are put at risk because they have to go in there to clean them to maintain them. So in general, really, enclosed smoking rooms are not a recommendation of the health community anywhere in the world, actually. Thank you. Thank you very much, Professor. Yes, it does. I have Mr. McCord next, but Mr. Lane, did you have something you wanted to follow up with that right there? Yeah. Okay, Mr. McCord. Mr. Chairman, can I follow up on that? Sure. Real quickly. We've contracted with two entities to come in and do air quality testing outside of the smoking lounges. One was the University of Kentucky. We don't have that report back yet. Okay. Where we don't have the data yet. and the second is OSHA came in and did testing just last week and we're awaiting that report to address specifics about if anything came out, what came out at what levels, what the exposures are. And when do you expect those reports to be? We have the draft from Ellen, the U.K. College of Nursing, and we expect the report. Could you come to the microphone, please? We do have the draft of a report from Ellen Hahn, U.K. College of Nursing, which we just received. And the testing that was just done by OSHA was just done last Thursday, and we don't expect that for a couple of weeks. Thank you. Mr. McCord? Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just a couple of things. How do we treat Keeneland in the current ordinance? Can anyone speak to that as how Keeneland is affected or isn't affected? Yes, I can answer that. I'm not an expert, but my understanding is they don't get any exceptions at all. The gentleman would like to answer that question. Could you just give your name and address, please? I'm Luke Matheson with Environmental Health of the Health Department. Keeneland actually is compliant. They are held in compliance with the ordinance. Okay, that's fine. I just wanted to make sure. I didn't hear that answer. They are in compliance? They are in compliance, yes, sir. Okay. Mike, with regard to the airport, walk us back through the last couple of years here through your all's renovation and expansion and so forth. When did you start all of that, and when was it completed? Well, we just opened the extension of the B-Con course here last year to accommodate the growth that was happening and the growth that's to come. As far as the smoking lounges, John, they were put into operation? The first smoking lounge, which is the one in the public area directly across from the Delta, an American Airlines ticket counter, that actually was built in about 1996, I believe. The Concourse A lounge was the next one that was built, and I believe that was built about five years ago. So primarily, again, Mike mentioned it serves Concourse C, but also the TSA employees tend to, since they're screened and working on the secure side of the airport, that lounge became necessary in addition to our customers in Concourse C for TSA employees once TSA was charged with security at the airport. And then the lounges in Concourse B, the Concourse B lounge was built with Concourse B edition, and it was opened in April of 2007. And the executive lounge was opened in November of 2005, I believe. Okay. And then as far as overall cost of the project here over the last couple of years, can you give me a ballpark figure of what the airport has invested in the expansion and renovation? Probably in the, I know when we built the first two, they were in the neighborhood of $15,000 at that time. I would say that's escalated. Those were not broke out separate at all for the last two, the Concourse B or the Executive Lounge. So probably in the $20,000 to $30,000 range. Okay, well, that was my next question. I was looking for overall what you've spent on the airport renovation over the last number of years. What's the ballpark? $17 million on Concourse B, probably about $22 million to date, with another $8 or so to spend in the next couple of years. And so I guess my point is that over the last number of years, you all have been planning extensively, have really been working towards making this a world-class facility, and that because of the way that the law was written, Certainly, you all have done a number of things to try and mitigate smoking to the general public, try to capture it. You're very intentional about what you did with the design, and you spent some extra money specifically with regard to these things. And so I think it's one of those kind of unfortunate situations we find ourselves in where I think you've done a phenomenal job of really trying to look out for the best interest of everyone. And yet here we sit where, you know, an ordinance can basically say, you know, the rooms that were designed for this, they really don't serve any other purpose. You know, that was something that we just, it's going to be a casualty of this and so forth. So I just, I want to point out that there was a great deal of intentionality with what you've done with regard to safety, with regard to the ordinance, with regard to your customer base and so forth. and that sometimes these things have unintended consequences or things that the public needs to know that, you know, this is how money was spent and now potentially, you know, if this moves forward, we strip that out and just start over. So I just want to bring that to light. Thank you. Mr. Lane. I just wanted to just touch back on a couple of points. You said you would close the smoking room that's in the general public area in the front of the terminal because the patrons of the airport could go outside or over to the garage and smoke. Because they have a choice, yes. Right. And then you're proposing to leave the three smoking rooms that are currently located in the security areas of the airport. Yes, and one of the groups that I left out that John mentioned is the TSA employees. If you've not seen them come to work or seen them go back into the sterile area, they're screened every time they go back in. So one of the reasons that smoking lounge was expedited to allow those employees to stay inside where neither do they have a choice of whether or not they can leave their workstation. I guess they do. It just extends the period that they're away from their workstation, and they can't smoke on the airfield. You can't smoke around airplanes. There are regulations against that as well. So that serves TSA in that area as well. Okay. Could I follow up with your comment with a question for Ms. Miller regarding this issue? Yes, sir. It seems like I'm catching all of the unique situations. And coincidentally, the detention center, Fayette County Detention Center, is located in the 12th District. And that is another secured building, which once you get in, it's hard to get out. And in a few rare occasions, we've had an exception there. We currently have smoking rooms in the detention center. They're only for the employees that work in the jail. And, of course, that's a 24-hour, seven-day-a-week operation, and the breaks that the jailers receive are very short, and it's not possible for them to go outside. And it seems to me these two facilities, the jail and the airport, since they're under security issues, would be the justification that I would like to see approved to allow smoking in an enclosed room with proper ventilation. And we could even add a provision that the health department could inspect them annually or regularly to ensure that there's no secondhand smoke going outside of those areas. Now, that being said, and since you're the guru in the smoking ordinance, Do you not feel this would be proper justification for making an exception for these two buildings only because of the security issue? I'm not sure on the Fayette County Detention Center, but I know that at the state level there is a statute that allows the commissioner of corrections to permit or prohibit smoking by inmates. I assume that there may be some provision at the state level for allowing that. I don't know whether there's a statute that allows that to be done at the local level. But I understand your justification, your points, Mr. Lane, but the problem goes back to 61.165 doesn't allow a legislative body to pick and choose. you either can allow a designated smoking area or not in buildings, and it doesn't allow you to pick and choose among those buildings, and that seems to be the problem here. All right. Would you restate that? I'm sorry. I'm not an attorney. I didn't get that precisely. Okay. KRS 61.165 provides that certain legislative bodies, such as an urban county government can adopt smoking policies. And if you adopt the policy, it's either A or B. B being prohibit indoor smoking, and A being requiring the government authority to provide accessible indoor smoking areas in any buildings where smoking is otherwise restricted. It doesn't say that you can allow it in some buildings and not others. There would be a policy that the council would adopt that would allow smoking in accessible indoor areas, but there's no provision that says you can allow it in some buildings and not others that are owned or operated or under the jurisdiction of the government. Okay, so then what you're saying is the council, in its wisdom, could vote to allow smoking at the airport and the jail, and that would be permissible? No, sir. What I'm saying is that my reading of KRS 61.165 is it's all or nothing. The council could vote to have a policy that would allow accessible indoor smoking areas in any buildings where smoking is otherwise restricted. I don't think that you can interpret that, but maybe Mike Sanner has a different interpretation. to allow that policy to apply only to specific buildings. In other words, I don't think it will allow you to permit it only in specific buildings owned, operated, or under the jurisdiction. Okay, now is there a case law to back up your opinion, or is that just your opinion? It's the language of the statute. It's my interpretation of the language of the statute. Okay. Okay. All right. That's – those ends my questions. If somebody from the airport would like to address that point, I'd like to hear what you have to say. All right, thank you. Hi, Bernie Lovely, Chairman of the Airport Board. I will address Councilman Lane's question in just a minute. I want to emphasize a couple of things. As was made clear in Mike's TSA example, Councilman Beard commented that the flights are only an hour, but I think each of us has been delayed at this airport and any airport throughout the country for two to three hours because of maintenance problems and they can't go back. Finally, to get to your point, I believe, and we would have to see, that you could fashion an exception related to secure areas. I don't know why you couldn't. I mean, Ms. Miller just said that if you do that, you would open it to everywhere, but that's not true. You have exceptions in this ordinance where you're allowing smoking in certain places, and I don't know why there can't be an exception for security. The Churchill Downs case, as I understand it and as I understand how she explained it, is a public place that has no secure area. People can come and go as they want. Councilman Beard again mentioned the theater in the last two hours. If you want to smoke, you can get up and miss two minutes, five minutes of the movie. You can go outside. Every place where smoking is prohibited, there are no restrictions on the movement of the people. The airport and the customers there are restricted on what they can do. And that would be an exception that I believe would withstand the law and doesn't allow my restaurant, for example, to smoke. I can't set up a secure area and do that. So I think that you could do that, and it would be very helpful to the airport and more particularly to the users of our airport. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Dr. Stevens? As I'm sure everybody here knows, I've been on the airport board for over six years now, and I am a great admirer of the management of our airport because I think they've done an excellent job. While other airports around us are losing seats and passengers, ours has been able to maintain it. However, I think that I'm opposed to allowing an exemption for this airport and this building in our urban county government because I think it sets a bad precedent for other buildings. Secondly, I think the legal situation that Ms. Miller brought up may be a problem, but I think it's, to me, it's more of a political thing. It's where we let certain places be exempted and not others under our government. I think that you have in front of you the airports in the United States who have smoke-free airports. There are 133 on this list. and they're being added to each day. So it's not unusual for airports with the same kind of security restrictions to have no smoking. I think our airport's a little different, too, than, say, Atlanta. I've been stuck in it. I don't smoke anymore. But I've been stuck in Atlanta for six or seven hours between flights in a secured area. I don't believe our customers at the Bluegrass Field are under that same time constraints. I don't know, as you know, probably, when the state legislature had a law that required all government buildings, local government buildings, state buildings, to have a smoking room. And that law was repealed, and the plans for our airport were constructed and planned during that time before the repeal of that law. So, and that was just done a couple years ago, as you recall. So I'm for not including any exemptions. Thanks. Thank you. Dr. Blues? Oh, I'm sorry. No, actually, I had Blevins, and I were selling blues. I'm sorry. This is you, Mr. Blevins. Thank you, Chair. I want to come back to this issue as well. Ms. Hahn, do you have the latest statistics for actual smokers in the bluegrass region, percentage-wise? I know it's on the decline. My memory is, like, below 20 percent adult smokers in the bluegrass region. I don't have it off the top. The whole region is probably, my guess is it's about 23 to 24 percent. What do you have off the top of your head? Fayette County? Fayette County, yeah, Fayette County is about 18 percent. About 18 percent. Thank you. That's what I needed. I want to remind us that we're zooming in on one small particular problem area for the ordinance, but let's zoom back out. Remember, this is a public health and safety issue we're talking about, and we're trying to be fair across the board. It would be very difficult politically for us to implement a new policy, a new ordinance here, where we're going to actually exempt businesses as well and yet not follow our own law by exempting ourselves. I want to tackle the problem of competitiveness of our airport and point out a few things. Dr. Stevens already mentioned this 133 other airports list of non-smoking airports. Here's a couple that might be of interest to you. The first two I would point out are Tampa and Orlando, the two destinations that you just mentioned a few minutes ago for your new nonstop routes. Here's a few just to lay out the land there. Los Angeles, San Francisco, LaGuardia, JFK, Orlando, all international airports, all huge airports several times the size of us. I'm sure there are ways to logistically handle both employees and flight delays because I know for a fact those airports deal with them much more often than we do. As a former business travel with more frequent flyer miles than I care to admit, I can tell you that choice from your business customer comes first on costs, and all costs being equal, then it becomes convenience on the flight time and the destination arrival time. So I really don't see the argument that this is a competitive issue. When you add in the legal problems, yeah, maybe we could wiggle around it with some sort of security thing, but we wouldn't know until it was challenged in the courts to find out one way or another. It just comes back to me that exemptions lead not where we want to go. Where we want to lead with this issue is to restrict smoking, not expand it or allow it. We want to restrict it. So I'm going to be in favor of keeping this in. Thanks. Mr. Beard, and then I think Mr. Meyer is going to bring a motion forward. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just on the basis of security anyway, there are two other buildings right downtown here that have heavy security. the district court building and the circuit court building. And so I guess we would have to exempt them too. This thing is kind of snowballing on us, it seems to me. For that matter, at some point, we may have security here in this building. And I'm sure the employers will be clamoring for an exemption for us also. So I, again, would support that we hold our ground here and have no exemptions. Thank you. Mr. DeCamp. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I feel a little bit differently about this. I feel that, you know, the airport, because the restricted area is so restrictive, I mean, we talk about other places where you have to walk through, you know, one thing. you have to go through or jump through a lot of hoops, and once you're up there, you don't want to do it again. We do entertain a number of especially foreign dignitaries and other people who come here for the horse industry, which is our major, certainly significant industry within our area, which appeals to many foreign business people. So I think in view of that, you know, that an exception could be made and would not raise any red flags, I don't think, to any other businesses because of the restrictive covenants which go around an airport to get in and out of the sterile area. So I would be in favor of exempting the airport from this ordinance. Thank you. Mr. McCord. Thank you, Mr. Chair. One question I had come in just a hair late, and I know I believe Dr. Stevens had addressed it, and it's not about the airport. I wanted to let that line of questioning go. As far as speaking with booster clubs, I know I saw the email that was sent and so forth. Would you mind just speaking for the mic? Have you all talked to anybody specifically or talked to them live and in person? Carol Riker from the College of Nursing. No, we have not. Nobody has requested that. I sent that email out through several routes, as you saw, to hopefully cover all the athletic and other types of booster clubs. Gave them my information on how the pull tabs can be sold outside. Okay. And we haven't had any requests to speak. I've had a couple because one of the problems, I think, with the email was when it went to Coach Adkins was they usually have a meeting in the spring, and he kind of saw it as, well, we don't really meet until the spring. And so a number of individual clubs had kind of contacted me. But I believe Mr. Myers is going to bring forward a motion that I'm going to support to bring it forward because I believe there will be some public discussion or ask for some public discussion, I think that would give them the opportunity to speak to this rather than trying to get people together beforehand and so forth. So I just wanted to ask to make sure I didn't miss that when I came in. Thank you all. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. At this point, I'm going to have Mr. Myers. He's going to bring a motion for it. I think he's going to bring the full package. And if there's some issues or something that needs to be amended, then we'll probably address those as we go. But let's, I think, go ahead and have the full motion, and then we might look at there's potential conditions or amendments on that. Mr. Myers. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move that we adopt the ordinance as amended and presented today. And as a part of that motion, I also want to establish a public hearing on September 23rd at 6 o'clock p.m. So moved. Second. Second. We have a motion and a second. Could you repeat the date then that we would be having the public hearing, please? October 23rd. It would be a hearing or meeting, Law? This is not a zoning question, so it could be a hearing or a meeting. The meeting, you take comment from the public. The hearing is more of a formal proceeding where you take evidence and swear in witnesses. Now, a public meeting requires a quorum of the council. The public hearing does not require a quorum. Okay. Then I would move to have a public meeting. And the date and time that we have would be 6 o'clock, which would be before council meeting. So we shouldn't have any problems getting quorum. We could do it at 8. We know that we're going to have a meeting. What would be the preference of the committee? 8 o'clock. All those in favor of 6 o'clock, raise your hand. All those in favor of 8 o'clock. All right, let's make it at 8 o'clock. Okay. So then can I restate the motion? Certainly. Please restate your motion. So I move to adopt the ordinance as presented today, and as a part of that motion, schedule a public meeting. October 23rd, 8 o'clock p.m., so moved. Could I ask a question? I think, Mr. Beard, are you going to second that? Yes, I'll second that. Okay. And now discussion. Yeah. Mr. McCamp. Would this public hearing preclude bringing this forth before the council public meeting? I think the process that we would have now, I would report this out if this passes next Tuesday. We'd have a first reading on the 23rd, and then we would also be having a public meeting, so they would have an opportunity before we had a second reading that would happen on the 6th of November. So they would be able to have comment on this if we need to change anything, but we take a final vote. Is that okay? Any questions, any discussions on this motion? Ms. Crosby. Yes, going back to Section 3, the wording temporarily. I know you said that this is already in here, permanent or temporary, from the original ordinance law, perhaps. And I was just wondering if, or, I know it's in there, I have the current ordinance in my hand. But, George, I was wondering if maybe you might consider taking out or temporarily the addition, just because that is a material change to the new ordinance, because it's redundant. In the old ordinance, it says, let me find it. Hold on. What does it say? It has down whether permanent or temporary under Section 3A, where you have that under whether permanent or temporary under building Section 1. And then you're adding in temporary here. So you're making a material change to the ordinance by adding in closed walls. So I guess my point is, if somebody's going to put down an enclosing, then it would be considered inside anyway. Does that make sense? So they would be smoking inside. I would not be willing to make that motion if you would like to make that motion to amend that. I'd like to make a motion that we take out the word temporarily. We have a motion and a second. Any discussion on that? All those in favor, say aye. Aye. All those opposed, say nay. No, nay. Let's do a hand vote. All those in favor, say raise your hand, right hand. All those opposed, that fails. Are there any other discussion? Mr. Beard? Thank you again, Chair. This question of all or nothing bothers me somewhat, and we're going down a path where there still seems to be some difference of opinion amongst the council people as to what the interpretation is. Is there another authority, no reflection on this Miller, but is there another authority who we might be able to go to to get between now and the 23rd to maybe make all this a moot point? What do you mean make a moot point? Well, if in fact it's all or nothing, if we exempt them, we're going to have to exempt every government building. And if that is the case, that could change everybody's vote. Well, I think that's the law department needs to. What's case law on that? I don't believe there is any case law. The statute's fairly new, a year or two old, so it's not been through the courts yet. What does the statute say? I don't have the statute in front of me, but I reviewed it, and my interpretation of the statute is the council can create a policy on smoking for government buildings, and it would apply to all government buildings. You can't pick and choose. That's just the wording of the statute as I read it. Ms. Miller, do you have anything to add to that? I have the same problem. Would you come forward, please? Yeah, could you just reiterate what he said or could you give us a statute of what it says, please? Yes, the statute provides that any policy relating to smoking in governmental office buildings or workplaces of counties, municipalities, special districts, urban county governments, etc., shall be adopted in writing by the legislative body of the government and shall, A, require the government authority to provide accessible indoor smoking areas in any buildings where smoking is otherwise restricted, and favor allowing smoking in open public areas where ventilation and air exchange are adequate, and there are no restrictions otherwise placed on the area by the state fire marshal or other similar authority. that's one provision, or B, prohibit indoor smoking. So it's an and or. Are there any further questions on that? Ms. Crosby? I was just going to ask Mr. Sanders maybe if you could get us a copy of the statute prior to our public hearing, please. I can email one to all of you for your out of work session. Thank you. I think Ms. Henson had a question. I had a question for the airport. If you could get some information to show that maybe the air quality in that room would be sufficient, somehow get the measurements? Certainly. We'll have them for the air. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Myers, you had a question, I believe. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I don't have a question. I have another motion. Okay, before we get to that, let's finish this one. Mr. Lane? Yeah, I wanted Mr. Sander maybe to come back. Maybe I'm misinterpreting what the ordinance reads here when talking about in Section 3, which we just voted to take, to leave in the word temporarily. But maybe I'm misinterpreting what this means. My concern was that somebody could have a space that has 60% of exterior walls open, and they would use it for spring, summer, and fall, and they would be permitted to smoke in there. Then when the winter came, they could enclose that area and have no smoking in there. It could be heated or whatever, and they could use it because there are restaurants that do that all over. So the question I have is the word temporarily enclosed, does that mean only when it's temporarily enclosed, or does it mean if it can be temporarily enclosed? My interpretation, which may have been wrong, was that if its perimeter is either permanently or temporarily enclosed, you can't smoke there at all, and that is my question. So can you answer that? I think the way I would interpret the statute is in the spring and summer and fall, when the tent flaps aren't down and 60% of it's open, you can smoke. But in the wintertime, the tent flaps are rolled down, you cannot smoke. If you took temporarily out and the tent flaps are rolled down, you could smoke in there because those tent flaps are not a permanent wall. Let's turn that around to the reverse. is that if you had a tent and you never put a temporary flap on it, then you could smoke there all year round? Is that what you're saying? If you had a tent? I'm not quite sure. If you have a tent with no temporary walls ever, then you could smoke there all year round. If you took out temporary, because a tent can come up and down, it's not permanent. Okay, so what you're saying that you're trying to exclude, this says closed by permanently or temporarily closed by walls. That's something about a tent. This is talking about the walls. You're talking about tent walls. Yes, sir. Like these patios have a permanent roof above them. Right. We can roll down tent flaps. That's what we're talking about, the patio bar, I believe. That's correct. Okay. So will you answer the question on that? Because I still don't understand what your answer is. This is talking about permanently or temporarily enclosed by walls, windows, doors. Does that mean if you ever put a temporary closure on that space, you can never smoke in there only at the time when it's temporarily enclosed? If you leave temper in there, you could not smoke in those patio bars when the flaps are down. At any time. So you'd have to take all the flaps off. You'd have to roll the flaps up to be able to smoke. But that's not the question I asked. If the flap is up, you can smoke in there, and if the flap is down, you can't smoke in there? Right. So that means then, let me restate the question again. And if you have an outside area and you have 60 percent of the walls are open and you have temporary flaps, if the flaps are all up and 60 percent is open, then you can smoke there. If the flaps are down, any portion of them, so you don't have 60 percent open, you can't smoke there. Is that what you're saying now? Okay. Well, then in that case, I have no problem with this provision. But it might be appropriate, if we're going to put that language in there, that we make the interpretation of this very clear. I may be adding another sentence that says that specifically so that people that are enforcing it and people that are trying to comply with the ordinance know what it means because I voted against it because I misinterpreted what that meant. Okay. Can you address putting a modification that we could review and approve to clarify that issue? I don't know. Councilman Myers has the motion on the floor as written, so I guess he would have to accept an amendment for that. Mr. Myers? Thank you, Mr. Chair. What would be your recommendation? Do you feel like there's a need for clarification? Personally, I don't, but we can put it in there. We can put something in there to say that if the temporary walls are down, you can smoke. If the temporary walls are removed, I have to put that backwards again. If the temporary walls are down, you cannot smoke. If the temporary walls are up, you can smoke. We could add a little clarification in there like that. Can I ask a question of the health department? Mr. Myers, do you have any further? I think that it's fine the way it is, and I'm not going to suggest or recommend that you make any changes. Okay. Ms. Crosby? I thought it was completely – I guess our thought process was a little different. I thought if you put down a temporary wallet, it would be considered enclosed anyway. I guess my thought process was a little different than Council Member's Lane. So I guess my question might be to the health department. When you are enforcing this currently with our businesses, is that a problem with our current establishments where they have these temporary walls that come down and people are smoking inside? I'm not aware that Luke Mathis Health Department. I'm not aware that it's ever been a problem in the past. Like has been said, if 60% of the parameter is open, then they're exempted. If less than 60% is open, then we'd issue citation. I guess my point was originally it just seems to me like that was redundant, having temporary. If you close something, it becomes an enclosed structure. It's indoors versus I just thought the word was redundant. And then my point, throwing it back at you, was if people are enclosing it, then it becomes an enclosed area, and so they're not smoking in there anyway. Correct? Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Myers? Thank you, Mr. Chair. It's been brought to my attention that in 2005 the council voted to amend the council rules and procedures, and we actually have under Section 4.108, number 2, a public forum, a provision for public forum, And it might be better to have a public forum rather than a public meeting, and then we don't have to give all the legal notices and those things, and we're also not susceptible to a lack of quorum. So if I could move to amend my motion to change it from a public meeting to a public forum. Motion and second. Any discussion? All those in favor, say aye. Aye. All those opposed? And now do you want to keep this 8 o'clock time as the same time? Because we don't have to worry about quorum then, do we? We don't, but I think the majority voted for 8 o'clock. Okay. Are there any other amendments to the motion on the floor? Mr. Lane? On Section 4, Paragraph 1A, where it says any dwelling, This exception also extends to a business located in the dwelling and owned by the occupant. I'd like to add owned or leased by the occupant because maybe 40% of the dwellings are leased. Could you get that citation where that is again? What page? Well, there's no page. It's page 4. It's section 4, paragraph 1A. 1A. And you want to add? After the word owned or leased in there. We have a motion on the floor. Second. We have a second. Any discussion? Dr. Stevens? I think that does clarify it. I believe the phrase located in the dwelling refers to the business, and this would allow a person who is leasing a business to allow smoking in his dwelling when somebody comes to see him, so I don't think it's a material change, but a good clarification. Okay. Anybody else? All those in favor, say aye. Aye. I was opposed. That passes. Are there any other amendments to the motion? One thing we haven't discussed is about public transportation, and I think before we vote on this, we probably should, Mr. Lane, discuss that issue. We'll stand on that. Okay, that's in pull a paragraph number up on that. Just a second, please. Yeah, Section 4, Paragraph 1. And I'm the person who made the motion on that. I did review the language on this, and I did agree with that language. And I like to say, even though I'm an advocate for maybe smoking in certain areas in the airport and in the jail, I'm basically opposed to smoking. I think it is bad for your health. But I think we have, when we do these ordinances, we have to be concerned about being fair to all the people that live in our community and to try to serve all of our constituents. But I strongly felt that smoking in a cab or a bus was bad because if the driver was smoking, that might not be fair to the rider. If the rider was smoking, it might not be fair to the driver. So I think that amending our ordinance to preclude smoking in vehicles like that is appropriate. Any other discussion on the motion on the floor? Ms. Henson? I am a little concerned where it says within a ticket boarding or waiting area of public transportation facility. I was thinking of all the Lex Tran bus stops, would those be included? Can we have the law department clarify that please? I would interpret that to include any, like it says, any ticket boarding or waiting area. So if you're waiting at a bus stop, I would interpret that to mean a bus stop. Ms. Henson, any further? Ms. Crosby? I know that there is a CAO policy about, since we've talked about government buildings and things, but what about, I know there's a CAO policy about government vehicles, that they're not supposed to be smoking in government vehicles, but what about, if this goes into effect, what about government cars? Will that also be in effect for government cars beyond our will? I would say it would not include government cars because our cars are generally not public transportation, and that's what this change speaks to is public transportation. Of course, the LexTran buses are public transportation, so we'd include those. Thank you. Mr. DeCamp. Yeah, I'd just like a clarification when we talked about waiting areas. Is there a difference between a waiting area and certainly at a bus stop? A lot of them aren't sheltered. it's an open air, and are we saying that I'm waiting at a bus stop with no shelter, you mean I can't smoke then? Even though we're... Mr. Sander, I think we need to get some clarification. Even though we're outside and... This is an ordinance where you're on indoor smoking, so if there's no bus shelter, if it's just an open air line waiting at the bus stop, like out on a sidewalk, I would say you could smoke because this relates to indoor smoking. Mr. Blevins? I just want to add, I want to make sure we get this one right. The clarification, I think the problem here is that we're talking about the waiting area of public transportation facilities where everywhere else in the audience we've used the word building or dwelling. Is it perhaps that's what we need to do here? to make it clear that what we're talking about is a 60% enclosed, or is it 40%? 40% enclosed area. That's really what we're talking about. Councilman Lane, does that agree? Yeah, I think that's a good idea. I agree with that. Would you like to make a motion, Mr. Lemons? Well, I'd like to give him 30 seconds to collect his thoughts and give me the proper language before I do it, but I'd be glad to do that. Let's give Mr. Sander a moment to glance it over and let's tweak the language. If we just take out the word facilities and replace it with building, I think we'd be fine. And that's the intent of your change, I believe, Councilman Lane, isn't it? All right. I'll make the motion that we change in the bottom of page four. Let's see, Section 4, Subsection 1, change the word facilities to buildings. So moved. Do you have a motion second? Any discussion? Yes. Mr. Myers? Just a point of clarification so I understand, would that then include a bus shelter? If it's 40% enclosed. Well, I would like to have the bus shelters included. That's why I'm asking. As long as the bus shelter is more than 40% enclosed. Okay. Thank you. Any other discussion? All those in favor of this amendment, say aye. Aye. I'll oppose. Any now discussion on the main motion on the floor? Mr. Lane. Obviously, I've been studying this carefully. I would like you to look at paragraph E on page 6. Now, this gets to be an interesting point. Since we're supposed to prohibit smoking in government-controlled and owned buildings, and most of the theatrical productions that are conducted in Fayette County are in buildings that are owned by the government. So if we can't smoke at the airport, then I don't think we should be smoking in theaters either. So I would like to make a motion to delete paragraph E. So moved. It's on page 6, the top of the page, number E. And could you read what you're trying to delete, please? Sir. I think that's in the iteration I passed out today. That's already deleted. It says a theatrical production by a performer as part of the performance, so long as adequate notice is provided patrons before the performance and by specific signage at the theater. This is an exception that would allow a performer to smoke during the performance of their act. And as I said, you know, it cuts both ways. the Opera House, Rupp Arena, Singletary Theater, a lot of these places are government-owned buildings. If we have, you know, restrictions against smoking in government buildings, I think we ought to restrict this also. We have a motion to delete number E. Do I have a second? If I could second that, I would. You can't second it? I second it. Okay, we do have a second by Ms. Crosby. Any discussion? Mr. DeCamp. Yeah, I'll vote against this. I think we're getting a little nitpicky here because, you know, there are certain theatrical productions that, you know, really call. And then they have done it in the past and they have notified the audience. You know, I go to all the Actors Guild. And if there is going to be any smoking by a performer because that's part of the play, they have notified us. And I think, as from an artistic point of view, it's so minor that I would vote against this. It happens so rarely that I think we should have some be able to expand our thinking a little bit when it comes to the arts, and I would vote against taking this out. Any other discussion? All those in favor of the motion to take out number E, say aye. Aye. All those opposed? No. Let's do a hand vote. All those for deleting E, raise your hand. Two, three. All those opposed? That fails. Now back to the original motion. Mr. Myers? Thank you, Mr. Chair. I also have another amendment that I'd like to make. If you go to page three under section three, establishment, it says establishment, any business or other entity operating or otherwise located in a building or portion thereof and open to the public. I'd like to put a comma there, including banks, laundromats, retail stores, professional offices, restaurants, bars, gaming facilities such as bingo halls, pool halls, bowling alleys, child care facilities, and adult day care facilities, period. So moved. Can you – There actually – we passed that out. This is it right here. There should be something with that. The third paragraph on that email is basically what I read into the record. Is there a second? Hold on. Could you read back again what that would include? including banks, laundromats, retail stores, professional offices, restaurants, bars, gaming facilities such as bingo halls, pool halls, bowling alleys, child daycare facilities, and adult daycare facilities, among others. We have a motion. Can we discuss that a little bit more, please? Well, we have to have a second. If I have a second, then. Okay. We dives for a second. Now back to the... Did you second it? Okay, I'm sorry. We have a second by Mr. Beard. Now discussion. I think Ms. Miller, I think you sent this to us with this... Could you explain to us what the additions would include? You can, sure. You can use it. I'd rather you do that. I can't move very well. This was based primarily on suggestions from a model ordinance that we've been using in making some of these changes. We didn't start with a clean slate here, and we're amending this ordinance. The model ordinance has a list of what is considered establishments, what would be considered an establishment. So I included in our definition of establishment some of those establishments that are listed in the model ordinance, just for clarification on what type of building an establishment would be, what type of business would be considered an establishment. Because the health department, the citation officers could tell you that they've run into trouble and they are concerns and they can address it much better than I could about whether or not a building is open to the public, whether a particular establishment is open to the public or not. And sometimes that comes up in the areas of professional offices, for example. And so this list was included to clarify what is meant by an establishment that is open to the public. Thank you. Mr. Blevins, I think, had a question. I just want to make sure that we're not going to open a can of worms here. There's a legal term that escapes me right now where if you delineate a list, you run the risk of subjecting yourself to just that list. Are we running that risk here? Because some things that aren't mentioned in your list that I would be very concerned about. For example, factories. We have factory floors right now. One of the prime reasons we're doing this is that there are several factories who don't have a no-smoking policy, and the workers have been contacting many of us regularly, and that's not mentioned here. Mr. Clinton. So I worry that we're creating a loophole. I would suggest adding, including comma, but not limited to comma, and I believe that would take care of your concern. So right at the beginning of Mr. Meyer's motion where he says comma, including banks, We would say including but not limited to. Yes, sir. I would offer that as a motion to amend the motion. And I would accept that. And if you want to add factories in there, I would accept that as well. I don't care to add them or not. I think it's just for clarification here is the purpose we're here for. I am concerned a little bit, even with adding that language, that we're running a risk. And if we add factories, we'll miss something else. But I'll worry about that later. We have a motion and a second on the amendment. Any discussion? on the amendment? Mr. Blevins? All those in favor, say aye. All those opposed? Back to the amendment from Mr. Myers and Mr. Beard. I have some of the same problems, I guess, that Council Member Blevins had. You know, he's saying glad bingo halls. We may in a few years have casinos here in Lexington. and, you know, gaming facilities. Where does it say gaming facilities? That's why we included gaming facilities. We're looking forward. I mean, all seems to cover everything. Sir? All buildings seem to cover everything. All is all. I'm looking, I'm representing the health department and the citations officers are from the health department. And this language was included based upon their suggestions because, and they are here, if they could address this, but they run into the situation whether or not a business is an establishment or an establishment is open to the public, or if it is a business that is open to the public. And, again, that is why these were included as examples. A retail store is confusing to someone. I mean, it makes absolutely no sense to me at all. I'm sorry. I'll vote for it, but, again, I think when you start delineating, you leave yourself wide open to someone saying that the intention was just those entities and not all entities. But I think you had that part not limited to, so that should keep it more broad. Is there any other questions on this motion? Ms. Henson? I do have a legal question as far as workplaces. I mean, because it says I was looking for some place that in the ordinance that mentions a workplace, but it says open to the public, and many businesses are really not open to the public. Well, it's on page 4 under paragraph 7, workplaces defined. Okay, workplace, any building or portion there. Thank you. Any other discussion? All those in favor, say aye. All those opposed, say nay. that passes now back to the original motion with the amendments included any further discussion all those in favors raise your right hand and pressure do we have the computer on no I'll raise your right hand for in favor all those opposed that passes and listen the second item on the agenda and I will present that to the full council next Tuesday. The next item on agenda, and if you wouldn't, I would like to relinquish the chair, Mr. Meyer, so I could address this issue. I'll take over the chair and then give the floor back to you. Thank you. The next item is traffic, is a Transylvania Park on-street parking. I saw Mr. Harden here, and he's... And do we have Mr. Mays here? Mr. Means. How many Means? I'm sorry. Yeah, and we also have Jimmy Emmons from Planning. I'm sorry? We also have Jimmy Evans from Planning. I think he was here. I think Mr. Means, if you could come forward. We'd ask you to give us some recommendations. Thank you. Could you go through? I'm here with Parking Authority and appreciate the honor of making a recommendation. I kind of went back and looked at this ordinance in 1997. All of the addresses on Transylvania Park were included And then in 2006, several of them that are listed there were excluded from being able to participate in the permit parking program. After talking with several of the neighborhood folks, both by email and phone, meeting with Mr. Harden, visiting the site a couple of times, and meeting with various LFUCG representatives, I've come up with these two recommendations, and I would lean towards number one. And to give you a little bit of background, those other addresses besides 315 that's in question now have very adequate off-street parking in their back areas. Some are paved, some are not paved. That's a whole other discussion. But with 315 being a duplex, the amount of parking that's in the back I didn't feel was enough to accomplish what they need to do at that facility. So rather than overturning the 2006 ordinance, I feel like we should make an amendment or allow for an expansion of the parking in the back, which would give them about two more spaces. They have three legitimate parking spaces back there. That would bring it up to five in the back and then sell two permits to this facility. That gains a total of four new parking spaces for the dwelling. And the reason why I went with the two is that would be able to be on the frontage of this property and wouldn't encroach on any other neighborhood area. So that's the recommendation that I would lean most toward. If that doesn't work for folks and there is a historic overlay issue with my recommendation of expanding the back for two, then the second recommendation would just be put them back like they were. But what would be a caveat to that is there are two addresses, one and two of this. They both would get two permits and two visitors. So that would, you know, total eight total permits that now would be added. And I think the neighborhood would have issue with that. So that's why I still lean towards my first recommendation. Thank you for your help. Mr. Harden, could you address this, please, what your preference would be? Certainly. I'm Craig Hardin, 228 Lexington Avenue. If it's okay, I'll read something I prepared. Certainly. Is that okay? When I was here last, there was a concern, I believe specifically by Council Member Blevins and Council Member Henson, that taking action to eliminate our property from the Amendment 610-2006 would set a bad precedent. and this body chose to defer the issue for further study, which I can appreciate that they did that. I would submit to you today that Council Member Lane was correct when he suggested in that same meeting that the precedent had already been set when Amendment 610-2006 took place and it took away the property rights of certain residents. That amendment to the original resolution, which established a residential parking permit program for the 300 block of Transylvania Park, differentiated for the first time between a resident that owns a property and the resident that rents the property and the right to park on the public street in front of their home. It seems ironic to us that the very residential permit program that was designed to protect residents' ability to park has now been used to prevent certain residents the ability to park in front of their home. Having said that, since Mr. Means of the Parking Authority has now had the time to study the issue, and since our property seems to be the only property that was really affected by the Amendment 610-2006, my wife and I concur with his findings and recommendations, especially the second recommendation. If I may pass out something I had, is that appropriate? Just give me a minute. We'll pass it. No sense. The first page there was just a letter by one of the residents and how she felt having her parking rights taken away just because she rented the property. what i prepared on the second page give you a moment what i prepared on the second page was just some simple language that i thought would make it clearer as to what I hope the law department would prepare for passage listed as section one. Additionally, I prepared some statements section two and below that don't really affect this situation directly, but I thought would, I'd like to submit to the council as mere suggestions that I believe would help the parking situation in that area, especially trying to accomplish what the residents there desire, because I essentially desire the same thing. We have people that are parking there, going to class at the university that don't really belong there or need to be there during the day. We had a situation, I believe, it came to my attention, where multi-property owners, multi-unit property owners were, in fact, taking the permits and selling or transferring those to other people, and I certainly believe that's inappropriate. So if there's some language to that, I was just trying to suggest some language there that might be considered in the future. We're just trying to obtain our rights back for this particular property because we do not have enough parking at the site, and that was actually prevented by the Board of Architectural Review at that time. And then this amendment, the 2006 amendment, was then put into place without notification to the property owners, or I would have, certainly out of respect for this camp body, I would have come and objected at that time. But there was no notification to us. Thank you. So you would prefer number two? I would prefer number two, and then I would also prefer to see the council further restrict to accomplish what the residents wish to have. The parking permits have the ability to be transferred or sold. and then if they wanted to further restrict visitor parking permits, there were some times suggested there perhaps between 9 and 5 during the day that visitor parking permits could be restricted, and these things perhaps could be turned over to the parking authority. Mr. Means, had you looked at those two issues by chance, or had you just looked at this? Mr. Harden gave this to me right before the meeting started, and I have no problem with all the language except for B. The intent of visitor parking in some situations are, let's say, a repair person comes and that type of business is done during business hours, so I don't think B would be appropriate use of the visitor permit. I understand what Mr. Harden is trying to get at. And I think the history is you've got some multi-unit, say 15, 16 units, where if they used to be in the residential permit, there may be 16 permits, then they could park in the back, sell those permits, and that was really the reason why this happened. So I think if you just left things alone and went with either one of my recommendations, it would be a lot cleaner than – I appreciate his intent here, though, but B wouldn't work, I think, under the intent of visitor permits. I guess the one question I have, and I'm going to make a motion, is with your recommendation number one, is it my understanding that the BOR had allowed them only one parking, And is that going to be an issue that they won't be allowed to do if we, because I thought that. Restate the one parking. Or number one, because you said allow two additional parking spots in the back. The three there now. And you want to add two more. And I think that they had only had granted them one, didn't they? So that number one could be done? I have checked with the BOAR, and you would have to go before the BOAR and make a request to put in two additional parking places because it is in an H-1 district. My understanding is that, and I can't predict exactly, but I think they are aware, at least staff is aware, that by doing this we would avoid having a total of eight parking permits put on the block for one duplex, which that is what they would have the right to have. Each side would be able to have two and two guests, and this is what we're trying to avoid in this neighborhood, is to have it all be taken up by student parking or whoever rents it. So it would, by adding two, and that would have to be taken before the Board of Architecture review and request two more places behind 315 Transylvania Park. and I would hope that they would grant this to, and then, of course, they could then, as is spelled out on number one, that they would be able to purchase two residential permits, which would allow them seven parking places for a duplex, and, of course, that would be four spaces over what is normally given to a duplex. So it would be my recommendation, and I'll put this in the form of a motion, that of the recommendations brought forth by the parking authority that we accept number one and if for some reason they are not allowed the two spaces by the BOAR that we would reconsider this for the resident at 315 Transylvania Park. I'll second that. Mr. Myers? You're chairing this. We have a motion to second. I'm sorry. Any discussion? Well, I see where you're going with on number one. And I would prefer number two, but if we're not going to be able to get the votes for number two, I think number one does help alleviate. I think Mr. Emmons here would like to ask a comment. I just wanted to say I believe that in order for Mr. Harden to expand his parking lot, procedurally there would be two boards that they would have to go in front of. I believe, not just the Board of Architectural Review because it's in an H-1, but also to the Board of Adjustment because there is a maximum allowable parking in this area. The Board of Adjustment has the authority to grant additional parking over the maximum allowable parking, but if that is the case, he would possibly have to go in front of both boards. those mechanisms are in place in the ordinances. We did write those release valves in whenever we put the maximum parking restrictions in there. Of course, it would be the applicant's responsibility to justify their request. And being independent boards, both the BOAR and the BOA, I have no guarantee of what they would do. It would be based on the facts and evidence that brought to them during their hearings. I just wanted to make that clarification. Well, thank you. And it looks like this is going to be a process that's going to continue and continue. I'd like to get some resolve if we could. Mr. Harden, did you want to make a comment on that? This just seems like a huge burden to bear to get our rights back to park, have our residents be able to park on the street in a residential parking area. Correct me if I'm wrong, Mr. Amens, but if we had just one space that was additional since there are three existing and we went to a fourth, would that require going to that additional board? Ultimately, it's building inspections call on how many are allowed there, but the property is currently zoned R1E for single-family residential. It's my understanding there's a nonconforming duplex on there, but the R1E zone has a minimum requirement of one space per unit, and so that would leave you with two. and that with the maximum, if you're only allowed two, your maximum that you would be allowed is three. So I do understand building it. I haven't been able – I tried tracking down Mr. Carpenter with building inspection, but all of this came up so quickly he and I were not able to speak. But that's what I've heard is their recommendation on the three, and I do understand their reasoning behind that. Like I said, if there is a maximum of three allowable, there is a release found through the Board of Adjustment, at least that they could ask for additional parking on their property. And I believe they have said before that you could do an extra one to have three in the back. Is that right, Mr. Harden? It was suggested, although I have not applied through the Board of Architecture Review, this is my first understanding that it would require any involvement with the Board of Adjustment as well. But it was suggested that I, and I have, I believe, yeah, I think I spoke with Betty Kerr, that one more space wouldn't be too hard to do. I think that's the way it was termed to me. Well, in that case, I would amend this motion and do one. But then we would need three spaces on the street. And I was going to say just to have one permanent in the back and do three residential permits then, and that would still get you four. So you'd have one in the back and then three residential permits. So that would be four new total ones, correct? I'm sorry, I lost track. Well, instead of doing two additional parking spots in the back, we do one parking spot, which I think the BOR has already discussed you with Betty Kerr, and then instead of doing two residential permits, we'd give you three residential permits. So that would mean you'd be able to have additionally four parking spots. Correct, correct. I'll make that as a motion. Second. All right. Amendment to the motion. Can we have an amendment? We have a motion and a second. Any discussion on that? I just want to clarify that all we can do as a council today is add parking permits. We can't recommend or anything as far as I can. So the second part of your statement, I hear the intent, but it's not part of the motion with respect to adding a parking space behind its structure. That needs to go through the BOAR and the BOA and all that stuff. That gives him an opportunity. They don't guarantee he's going to get that spot, but he can go through the process and get one of those. So all we're talking about with the motion on the floor to amend is three additional permits. Did you want to address that, Mr. Harden? I'd just like to, I just want to, again, appeal one further time. Going through all these additional boards just to get our parking permit for our residents back is a very large burden to bear. This has gotten expensive to come here, and we seem to have been the only property affected here. I would be in, if there's any way that this council could find it to grant the suggestion number two, give us the parking rights back, we would gladly waive any visitor parking permits and go that route. That seems that it would be – certainly would take a burden off of me to have to go before all these boards. I'd be glad for any restriction there on visitor parking permits just to allow our tenants. So you would accept number two would just – so it would be four residential permits and no visitor? That would be acceptable. We're just looking to get the – and then if we can, in the future, go through and be successful through the Board of Architecture Review and add a fourth that would still be available? Mr. Myers, Mr. Chair. I would like to hold to the three that has been suggested by Mr. Ellinger. That doubles the amount that is normally allowed for a duplex, which is three. Now we're up to six. and with the opportunity of Mr. Harden, if he so chooses, to see if he can get a seventh. So on behalf of the neighborhood, I would think we would be wiser to stick to the three. That is six. It gives him also an opportunity to apply for a fourth. Any more discussion? Ms. Henson? I'm not sure who can answer. I was curious how the visitor permits work. The visitor permits wouldn't be allowed to be used by the residents. They're supposed to give their license plates when they purchase the permits. Visitor permits have a time limit, and it's easier to monitor that. And I like the most recent arrangement or amendment that's been proposed. We could turn this around and make three available even as soon as tomorrow and then allow him to take a look at getting that extra one in the back. But the visitor, to answer your question, the visitor permits are, the intent is for true visitors, not residents of dwelling. And there are spaces that are allowed for that? Or say if there's a residential parking space empty or vacant at a period of time, the visitor can use that space? It's basically a first-come, first-serve on the curb line in any residential area. And by adding these three, the potential where I'd said two in the beginning, two will fit on their property line. The third one would probably then just migrate down to the next property, which is a multi-unit, and they have plenty of space in the back. So it still really wouldn't get, I think, impact owner-occupied or other residences to give them the third one on the street. So I don't personally have a problem with that idea. And you think three would be sufficient for Mr. Harden? Well, I'd let him answer that question, but I feel like that plus the potential fourth gets him to a place that I think is comfortable with how many folks live there. I appreciate your work on this, Gary. Thank you. In doing this, I've come to respect things that you all deal with and all the other LFUCG folks who get involved with zoning and code enforcement and those kind of things. I never thought I'd be traipsing around in people's backyards, counting parking spaces, but, you know, I like to be a problem solver, so I was glad to help. Is there any more? Mr. Scamp, is there any more discussion? I have one comment. I understand where Mr. Harden is coming from. I think we have to weigh both the neighbors and the landlord there, and I think this, although maybe not the best for Mr. Harden, but I think it is a good balance between the two. And I think, Mr. Means, I appreciate you going through and taking this because he was taking away his property rights by not having this. And I think we're giving something back. I would encourage you to go back to BOR and get that additional space. And in the future, if this is not going to be acceptable, maybe we can look at an additional one down the road. But I think I will agree with this at this point and see how this works. And I think that gives you potential for four. And it's better than what we had started with. Councilman Aylner, can I have you restate your motion? I will try. We would allow, it would be under recognition number one, we would allow three additional parking spots and give him one opportunity to go to the BOR to have a permanent spot put in the back. All those in favor? Say aye. Aye. Those opposed? No. That passes. Thank you, and I will bring, I give the chair back to Mr. Ellinger. Thank you. We have 15 minutes, it looks like, and we have, is Mr. Frazier here? Do we have anybody that is from Traffic Engineering? I can speak to this. And we have Dr. Stevens, if you would. I didn't realize this was going to be on the docket today until I got the thing over the weekend, and I talked to Mr. Jeff Duncan, who's the president of the Chevy Chase Neighborhood Association, and they have not had a chance to review this. They're meeting on October the 20th, and this is a very well done but complicated traffic study. It is very complicated. Which involves many streets, many intersections, and I would recommend that it be tabled until your next service committee meeting. Second. We got a motion and a second to table at the next meeting. All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed? Oh, I'm sorry. He can't make a motion. Would somebody like to make that motion? I'm going to move. Second. We have a motion seconded by Mr. Levin, seconded by Mr. Myers. All those in favor, say aye. Aye. All those opposed, we'll put that on for next time. And do we have anybody here to talk about the virtual speed humps? I'm Ashley Salis from Traffic Engineering. Brad Frazier had another commitment at the same time, so I'm here to talk about it. Is my understanding that you're going to bring some materials to us for talking about it? We, no, I didn't know that. The only thing I just had, we have pulled information off the Internet from Phoenix and Philadelphia that we came to learn more about virtual speed humps, virtual markings. What we came to know from Phoenix was that initially they had a high percentage of people obeying. You know, the speed limit, you know, it really worked. But then the effect wore off in a few months. And then Philadelphia, they kind of looked back on Phoenix and saw the results. and they are campaigning it also with selective enforcement. So they have the virtual markings, and then they're also backing up with selective enforcement. So what's your recommendation then? This is something we should pursue as an option? We're not going to leave it alone. We're not going to abandon the idea. We're just going to look further into it. Okay. So you can come back with us in the future and give us some more update on the success or failure of it? Correct. Okay, we'll keep that in the committee then. Are there any items in the committee that we want to be brought up next committee or that you would like to have? Mr. DeCamp. Yes, if possible, I would like to have the Refuge Collection Ordinance talked about. Of course, that applies to the fairness of rates. As you know, a lot of people pay a lot more for this just because they live in a bigger house but have the same amount of trash. And I think it's time that we bring that up, put it on the table, and have some discussion about it. So I'd like to see it. Put that in the next meeting. All right. And the other one I would like to, it's on the list, the News Rack ordinance. I would like to leave this on the list. Which one? The News Rack ordinance. because we're going to try some self-policing of this by the papers, but I'd like to table it until such time as we determine that that has been successful. Okay. You making a motion then? I think you made that motion last time, didn't you? Yeah, I think you did. Just continue. Just continue to leave it on. Dr. Blues? Thank you. This is just for clarification. on the alcohol sales impact on local government, that's been in committee for a year. Is there movement on that? That I'll have to check, but I've asked the vice mayor to former committee, and I'm not sure if that has been. We will prod him along to get that addressed. So we do intend to go forward. We do. With this. And the other question would be with reference to a former council member Maloney's item on vicious dogs. Are we there? or do we? I know I had a couple constituents that still had a couple questions. I would leave it in at this point and see if we can contact them and see if there's some issues that still need to be addressed otherwise. I think maybe next time we can take it out if it hasn't been addressed or if it has. Any other? Yeah, I think one that is not listed there. Yeah, we had put the sign ordinance in there at the request of the EDC because of the changes that are happening downtown, and we need to review the sign-ups. We'll put that on for next meeting also. Okay, that'd be fine. Thank you. Ms. Henson. I wanted to say on the Cambridge Drive parking, they have painted yellow curbs along Cambridge Drive that restricts parking in certain areas, so I'm not sure that we need to leave that in there. We have a motion to delete then? I'll make a motion to remove it. We have a motion and a second. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Opposed? I think I saw Dr. Blues. Then there is the private swimming pool safety regulations. That's been in committee for three years. I didn't hear that. The private swimming pool safety regulations item, we've had that in for three years. Would you like to remove that? If there's no movement forward on it, I think it should be. We have a motion. Second. And a second. Discussion. Discussion. Mr. Beard. You know, taking this off at this point and letting something happen out there as far as a swimming pool is to leave us somewhat exposed, I might think. Well, what I would suggest is we take it out, and if you want to bring it back next time, then you could be in charge of it. Okay, that's fine. If he's not here, you can bring that up and we'll put it back in, and you can be the lead on that. I just want to be sure. I don't know what we have in place right now, but I'd like to be sure that we do something. Right. We have a motion and a second. All those in favor of removing the private swimming pool safety regulations, say aye. Aye. All those opposed? Are there any other items in front of the committee? One other question involves Par 3 golf course, and we have all members of the Meadowbrook Golf Course Task Force or subcommittee present, but Dr. Stevens isn't. I'm not sure what his intention was when he put this on. Well, here he is. Dr. Stevens, you had put in August of 07 the Power 3 golf course in the Services Committee. And, you know, there has been a task force or a subcommittee that's been struggling with this for some time, and I didn't know what your intention was. August of 07? Mm-hmm. I can't remember, but I don't think it needs to be on any longer as long as you're taking care of it. Well, you know, it's somewhat out of our hands. The school board is driving the bus at this point, so I think we can take it. Go ahead and move it. There will be a motion and second. Any discussion? All those in favor, say aye. All those opposed. Any other items in agenda? Do we have a motion to adjourn? Second. All those opposed? We are adjourned.