For me and you And I think to myself What a wonderful world I see skies of blue And clouds of white The bright blessed day The dogs say goodnight, and I think to myself, what a wonderful world. The colors of the rainbow, so pretty in the sky, are also on the faces of people going by. I see friends shaking hands, saying how they do. The first item on the agenda is the dog tethering ordinance that was brought forward by Council Member Beard. Council Member Beard, would you like to present this issue, please? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know, we've had several dog issues that we've dealt with or had to deal with. over the years. Dog tethering in and of itself sounds fairly benign. It's the situations that happen where either people through ignorance or just not any real caring will tether a dog out in the hot sun, 90 degree weather, no shade. Dogs have a tendency, at least mine does, to step in his water dish. He does it in the house all the time. In fact, all 104 pounds of him and fires water all over the kitchen. But anyway, their water disappears while the people are gone or at work. And so they're in the hot sun with no shade and no water. There's got to be an answer to this, and there are several ways to approach it. We have a draft ordinance that was copied from the city of Austin, Texas. There may be some other approaches to this situation. And so we have actually two groups that might like to speak. I do know the Humane Society. Whomever wishes to speak, have we taken a list? There should be a list in the back. I think we're going to allow the SOAR group who actually brought it forward to let them speak. And I think Humane Society is here if there's some questions that need to be answered. or two. That'd be fine. Whoever's going to speak for SOAR. And do we have a main spokesperson for that? I think we do. And then if somebody else would like to speak after them, then there is a list in the back. We'll probably let the SOAR group speak for 15 minutes and there's some individual comments that want to be made afterwards. Then we'll try to keep those to three minutes. So at this point, we'll let you all address the committee. Good afternoon. Hi. Thank you so much. My name is Pam Rogers. I'm the Kentucky State Director for the Humane Society of the United States. I work at the Louisville office and cover the entire state of Kentucky. For those of you who aren't familiar with us, we're the world's and the nation's largest animal protection organization, having about 10.8 million members and about 107,000 in Kentucky. And one of the things that we focus on is helping communities with any ordinances that will help the lives of animals and the community, and one of those is anti-tethering. So I have a PowerPoint today that I would like to show everyone. So we can't see it, because I made it purple. Sorry. It's called Breaking the Chain, Giving the Dogs a New Leash on Life. Today I want to cover just chaining basics, why is chaining bad, and some of the chaining ordinances that are in effect throughout the country, including Louisville. Some of the chaining basics are why do people chain their dogs, signs of a chain dogs, and where do we find them? Why do people chain their dogs? A lot of times they chain them, obviously, for guard reasons. A lot of people, especially dog fighters, want to chain them to increase aggression, and that is something I think is key to note that chaining, there's been all kinds of studies done on how chaining does increase aggression in dogs. Some people think dogs like it outside, and that's where they belong, and that sometimes dogs are chained because they exhibited behavior problems owners cannot or do not want to deal with, such as barking, chewing, improper elimination, digging, and other things like that. Some people just don't care, and they don't know any better. Here's the typical signs we see of a chained dog. There's a circle of dirt, embedded collars. I can personally spot an embedded collar from about 50 paces. Having seen so many, they're extremely painful, can cause a death, and it's a common occurrence in chained dogs. Most of the cruelty calls that animal control officers receive are related to dogs that are outside, obviously, and a lot of them are chained. They can get chain-related injuries to their body as well as their legs, paws, et cetera. Signs of a chained dog, you usually see a doghouse with a chain. You see food and water bowls nearby, but as the council member quite accurately stated, a lot of times those are turned over and a lot of times they are forgotten to be filled. We find chain dogs everywhere in the city, county, and the suburbs. Here's some of the Lexington chain dogs that I got from the SOAR group. That's one of their first rescues. That dog's a bit emaciated, but I don't think it would have probably qualified necessarily under the cruelty statutes, but it is tethered improperly there. There's another Lexington chained dog. Who changed their dogs? Criminals and dog fighters and drug dealers. I know that the Louisville Police Department was very excited when we passed our anti-tethering ordinance because of the problems they would have when they would try to serve warrants on drug dealers who had chained dogs in front of their property. Sled doggers and middle-class families who grew up with chained dogs. It's just something they learned. Low-income families often use them as a security system, and then there's others that just chain their dogs for the reasons that we mentioned earlier, which is lack of knowledge or lack of caring. This is the typical type of chained dog we see. It's obviously a Rottweiler. It's probably chained there for guard purposes. This dog is Jack Russell. This is to show that not all dogs that are chained are chained for guard purposes. They can be any type of dog. These are obviously sled dogs. That's how they chain their dogs, take care of their dogs. These are, looks like beagles, so I'm assuming they're hunting dogs. So that's often how the hunters would communicate their dogs. This is just another guard dog, and probably it's a pit bull and could be protecting drug dealers' inhabitants. We don't know for sure. What's bad about chaining? Dogs are very social creatures, and to put them out in a life of isolation 24 hours a day, seven days a week, is just inherently inhumane. It causes all kinds of psychological as well as physical problems. Some of the physical risks are hanging and strangulation. This is a sign that was left on a door. if you can read it from the Indiana Power, that the dog actually hung himself when they're chasing them because he was tethered improperly. So this happens quite frequently, that they will chase something and the tether's not proper and they hang themselves. they're often stolen by dog fighters looking for dogs to use as bait for puppy millers and by bunchers is everyone familiar with a buncher is somebody who collects dogs for resale for whatever purpose that often steal dogs from yards and on a chain they're vulnerable a lot of animals will attack dogs on chains. And people, I've had, I can tell you, a million gruesome cases of dogs who were tethered and terrible, horrible things were done to that animal while it was on that tether because no one was home to protect it. And when it's on a chain, it's very, you know, it's very vulnerable to anything. It cannot get away. In a disaster and the flood in Louisville in 1997, we sent out many, many notices over the newscasts and everything to say, please take your dogs off chains as the floodwaters rose, but many, many dogs were left behind and were subject to drowning. What's bad about chaining dog attacks? Chained dogs are 2.8 times more likely to bite than dogs who don't live chained. It's the fight-or-flight syndrome, as I mentioned earlier. Since a chained dog cannot escape danger, it develops a strong fight response, and it develops fear aggression. Chained dogs don't ever get to be around other dogs. They're not properly socialized. They get very territorial about their area, and many toddlers have wandered into that territory, and it's been a very tragic result. And here's one of those. Amber Jones was trying to help the neighbor's dog who routinely caught his collar on the fence, and he hadn't socialized properly, and she was killed. When there is a dog attack like that, there's negative publicity for the city and county, and residents voiced total dissatisfaction with their government for not protecting children in these kind of situations. There was another dog attack in Bruton. I forgot what city that is, sorry. But the Humane Society there noted that one thing people need to realize is anytime they tether a dog, they increase the chance of it biting someone. I've had several cases where the toddlers have wandered into the range of a chained dog, and one of them lost her scalp. She was about two years old, and there's many other cases that have happened over the last several years we can point to. Sometimes when you have a dog attack, breed bans come into place, which we think are bad legislation, because it doesn't really solve the problem by banning a certain breed. And really what's bad about chaining is the dog's out of sight, it's out of mind. Its physical and psychological needs are ignored, no shelter, and there's no shelter requirements in the state of Kentucky. So this is probably more general than for here, but throughout the state there just aren't any shelter requirements. So dogs can be tethered outside when it's, it could be a dachshund with no hair chained out when it's 20 below zero and there's no requirement for shelter. So often they're physically, suffer physically. Also, it's a very negative impact on the neighborhood satisfaction. You get excessive barking with chaining. You get odor from animal waste around the site. You get dogs lunging on chains, which frighten children as they pass. And you get unplanned breeding. You get chained unaltered females that get bred. And then that adds to your pet overpopulation issues, because people that usually chain their dogs 24-7 don't necessarily get them altered. There's a lot of different kinds of chaining ordinances. As the slide says, viva variety. They vary by community. no one size fits all. Some can be vague, they can be detailed, they can have total bands, they can have time limits, and they can set standards for shelter and things like that. In Carthage, at no time can a dog be tethered, period. Here's a time limit restriction that may, one hour every 24 hours, can be tethered or chained, and provided there is sufficient water nourishment. Here's a time restriction. It's probably hard for y'all to read, but at the very end it talks that these devices shall not be used to combine a dog on an owner's property between the hours of 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., 365 days a year, and during times of extreme weather, example hurricanes, below freezing conditions. You need to consider your climate when you're thinking about a tethering ordinance and if you're going to allow tethering at any time. What you can tolerate in Mississippi or Kentucky versus Minnesota or North Dakota is the two different issues. You need to figure out what kind of tether that you're going to allow. It can't be some of those log chains they put on the pit bulls are just totally inhumane. They can hardly hold up their heads. So you need to think about the weight or thickness, the length, the material, what they're made out and that they can swivel. What type of collar you're going to use. Most tether, most anti-chaining ordinances prohibit the pinch collar, the choke collar, and the prong collars from being used on the dog. A lot of times those don't release when the dog pulls back, even if it, and it chokes the dog and causes injury to the neck. Also, you need the chaining area needs to be kept clean, safe and sanitary food, water and shelter, and access to shade. What works for your community? You need to know what's enforceable and affordable. What are your problems and needs? What can be passed? And who's in your community that tethers? We think that a collaborative approach works the best. Get all the groups together, animal control, including the police and sheriff, the humane groups, the veterinarians, the trainers and behaviorists. And really an interesting group that worked on the Louisville Ordinance was the postal workers and meter readers from the electric and water companies because they had a lot to say about what was going on with chained dogs. They could see them, they reported them, and they were also attacked by them. So any have respected citizens on the group. These are several books that are written about fatal dog attacks and statistics behind chaining. One was by Karen DeLeese, the other is by Rick Factors, About Which dogs can bite us, and severe attacks by dogs, and what kind of settings they're in. And it talks about the direct correlation between chaining and attacks and bites. There's some other groups that can help you with your chaining ordinances and some of the issues you need to look at. We also have a whole website, I mean a whole section on our website on chaining. Just enter chaining in the search box and you'll get all kinds of sample ordinances and issues about chaining. The USDA even says that tethering a dog significantly reduces the dog's movement and can become tangled around the structure of other objects and causing injury. They don't think it's a humane way to call the dog. We can have laws, state laws, local ordinances and community housing regulations are ways you can control chaining. Guard dog Dog laws also help, standards of care on guard dogs, microchipping, registration. Chaining is really a people issue as well as a dog issue. It's about safety, it's about community. It's just chaining is bad for animals and people. Chaining versus penning. Are pen dogs better off than chain dogs? It depends on the pen. That right there is, I would say, an inhumane crate. And the City of Albuquerque addressed that. the use of a crate is prohibited as a means of outdoor confinement to circumvent the secure fence requirement. So we don't want to put them from one bad situation to another. You need to know, if you're defining enclosure, should it be a flat size? Should it relate to the dog size? It needs to relate to the shelter. It needs to have shade, protection from harsh weather. Some of the people that oppose anti-chainings will say current laws already cover animal cruelty. And more enforcement, but we don't have any enforcement for chaining unless the animal's starving or there's an embedded collar. If I can't chain my dog, he'll be running loose to the neighborhood. That's one of the arguments. My dog is my property and the government can't tell me how to care for it. Anti-chaining laws are unfair to low-income families. But the best argument for anti-chaining laws is that they work. The Louisville experience, since it's closer and more recent, I thought I would talk about it. We upgraded our anti-tethering law in 2007. We formed a task force in early 2006 as a result of a pit bull attack that killed several people, and we had to totally redo the entire ordinance, do the sunset provision of the new merged government, and so we convened a cast course. The previous ordinance, which was pretty good, had a fixed-point tethering allowed for only one hour per day. On the task force, the postal workers and meter readers, veterinarians, and humane groups strongly supported a strong anti-tethering law. The result was there was no fixed-point chaining between 8 a.m. and 6 p.m. in Louisville. This was really pushed by the meter readers and the postal workers and anybody who made deliveries to houses that had chained dogs, as well as the police department. No fixed-point chaining only allowed one hour and every eight hour outside that time. Trolley systems were still allowed, but they're subject to enclosure requirements of the department and inspection by the Metro Animal Services Department. So they really want to phase out trolleys, and they don't allow large, strong breeds to be trollied because they don't think they can keep them on there. They go out there and make sure it's humane, and they actually try to talk the person out of doing that. They try to figure out what the problem is and if they can bring the dog in the house or if they can help them with a pen or whatever. So the plans are to phase the trolley system out in Louisville. enforcement can be easy Louisville automatically impounds a dog on a chain during prohibited time it's really easy, they go out there in their truck if it's between 8am and 6pm and there's a dog on a chain it's impounded it's a civil penalty so it doesn't go to court to get the dog back they've got to pay the impoundment fee and if they catch him again it's a higher impoundment fee I talked to Dr. Gilles Maloch who's a veterinarian and the actual head of Metro Animal Services to see how he felt about when he put this in place if it took him more resources for enforcement. He said no. He said, in fact, it's reduced complaints about barking and other nuisance calls. And now when he drives down the street, he doesn't see a zillion pit bulls chained out or any other kind of dogs chained out. And the neighbors are calling to say thank you. They're all happier. So he thinks it really has decreased this workforce. Initially, it was probably even Steven, but now it's a reduction for him. and he said he's happy to come and address this body if you need additional information. If you don't have chaining options, what do you do? You can keep the dog inside, walk on the leash. You can build an appropriate humane fencing or enclosure with assistance like groups from SOAR and other groups. And you can also address the behavioral issues that probably cause the dog to be put outside to begin with, with Lexington Humane and other groups that provide training and behavioral modification resources. Final thoughts, the anti-chining laws create humane communities, and I urge you to be proactive before disaster occurs. Humane communities are safer and have increased neighborhood satisfaction. You need to work collaboratively to develop an anti-chining law that works for your community and implement upgrades, if needed, to current local ordinances to ensure implementation is successful, like shelter requirements and how your impounding process works and how you give out citations and all those things that all link together to make anti-tethering work the best and most efficient way for you and at the least cost. If you need more information, there's my contact information, and we have a whole staff that does nothing but look at anti-chaining laws throughout the country, and we can provide you any information that you might need. Thank you very much. I talk fast. I hope you can hear me, but I try to be quick. Oh, that was good. That was very informative. Are there council members who would like to ask Ms. Rogers any questions, or would we want to continue to hear from some other people? Why don't we go ahead, and is there some other people who would like to speak on this issue? Certainly. Just give your name and your address, please. And try to keep your comments to three minutes, if you could. If you need more, we'll... I actually need five. Okay, that's fine. Go right ahead. Okay, thank you. My name is Marianne Fugate. I live at 1773 Yorktown Road in Lexington. I'm the secretary for the group called Speak Out and Rescue, also called SOAR. SOAR has brought this proposed ordinance before the Council because Lexington currently has no standards for the safe and humane confinement and shelter of dogs on outdoor private property. This lack of standards allows people to put dogs in living conditions that create a severe public safety risk as well as a severe threat to the welfare of the dogs themselves. We have refined our proposed ordinance a little bit to include some details about enforcement and about shelter, and I've submitted copies of that revised document to the committee. I'm happy to answer any questions about it. SOAR is asking the Council to pass a complete ban on unaccompanied chaining. Some people may feel this places a hardship on dog owners who do not have a fenced yard, but providing a safe place for a dog to live and exercise is part of being a responsible dog owner. And a fenced yard is certainly not necessary to fulfill this responsibility. A dog can be brought inside to live inside the home and exercise with walks and trips to Lexington's many dog parks. Many apartment dwellers take great care of their dogs this way. Part of SOAR's mission is to help those people who want to bring their dogs inside. We provide help with house training, crate training, and other advice. We also go door-to-door educating the public on the dangers of chaining and humane alternatives to chaining. And we always offer to take the dog into our care if an owner no longer wants the animal. In the event that an owner would like to provide a fenced area for their dog but can't afford to, SOAR can provide help through our fencing program for low-income owners. This program relies on volunteers and donations from the public, and SOAR has already begun helping low-income owners with fencing. We are aware that some people may claim that they need to leave their dog tied up outside for an hour or so each day to go to the bathroom. Unfortunately, it only takes a moment for a small child or even an unaware adult to wander into the territory of an unsupervised tethered dog. Tethers do not stop a young child from approaching an unfamiliar dog. Secure fences do. And it only takes a moment for tragedy to occur. Some people may want to allow chaining for a certain amount of time each day, but as a practical matter, allowable time limits for chaining are not very enforceable. In order to prove a violation, either you would have to present continuous videotaped evidence, or an animal control officer would have to visually observe the entire chaining session. Of all the conceivable options, a complete ban on unaccompanied chaining would be the most easily enforceable. An officer would simply need to see an unaccompanied chained dog in order to give a violation notice to the owner. Such enforcement would be complaint-driven. SOAR has reviewed testimony from animal control departments around the country, which shows that these laws really do work. We are confident that Lexington can be as successful as other communities in enforcing a tethering ordinance, especially now that Lexington's Animal Care and Control has received funding to double its officer staffing. A chaining ban will also help decrease barking nuisance complaints, which is a major problem in Lexington. And we've heard this from a number of council members, that their constituents are pretty frustrated with the barking problem. Simply put, chain dogs are more likely to be bored, anxious, and fearful. And bored, anxious, and fearful dogs tend to bark incessantly. The proposed ordinance also contains a space requirement for outdoor enclosures of 150 square feet per dog. This is a standard amount used by many communities. This space requirement would prevent owners from taking their dogs off chains and just putting them into small outdoor cages or kennels. It is critical to have a reasonable and humane minimum space requirement in the ordinance for outdoor enclosures. It makes no sense for currently chained or tethered dogs to end up in equally or even more inhumane situations. A space requirement would also help those dogs who are currently kept in tiny outdoor cages. And here I just wanted to show you a picture of one dog in Lexington in District 11 who's kept in a camper top. If you could show that. And he's padlocked in there with his waist, and he gets out once a day to eat. And you can't even see the dog, but that little square structure that's supposed to go on top of a truck is where this dog is being kept. So the space requirement would address that kind of situation. We know of dogs in Lexington who are kept permanently in rabbit hutches, camper tops, and small kennels. And conditions such as these are inhumane and unacceptable. Finally, some people may object that owners should be allowed to keep their dogs on trolley or zipline systems. But trolling a dog is still chaining. The only difference is that the dog moves back and forth instead of in a circle. A trolley dog is still isolated and deprived of social contact. A trolley dog may still become entangled, limiting exercise and access to water. A trolley dog may still accidentally hang himself on such a system. A trolley dog is still more likely to bite and more likely to bark incessantly. A trolley dog is still subject to attack from another animal and is vulnerable to abuse from any person with cruel or criminal intentions. So we thank the committee for reviewing our proposed ordinance, and we hope you will take this opportunity to make our city safer for people and more humane for dogs. Thank you. Thank you. Is there any questions for the council? Ms. Gordon? This is a question for you, Mr. Chair. Okay. I just wanted to clarify, the ordinance proposed in the packet, what is that? Because that's very different from what we were just giving. I think Mr. Schoeniger can answer that, but it was also something that SOAR had given to us that we'd asked our law department to draft up. And I think, Mr. Schoeniger, if you want to answer that. As I understand, SOAR representatives met with some council members, maybe all council members. Once it was put into committee, I was given a packet of information that SOAR had provided to at least one council member. And from that, we asked the law department to draft an ordinance. But you're right, it's different. I don't know about very different, but different than the ordinance that proposed. they're submitting today. As I understand, the spacing wasn't included, and it seemed like there was at least one other element of what SOAR has proposed today that didn't make it in the ordinance that law drafted. But that's where it came from. The ordinance that's in the packet, that's where it came from. Okay, so both are on the table. And I think, well, what I think is going to probably happen from this is I've talked to Mr. Beard, who brought this issue up. we'll probably form a task force from the committee, and we can meet with different representatives that were just like what happened in Louisville and come up with an ordinance that we all can agree with and work with here. So I think that's probably, these are examples of ordinances that we can work with, and I think by the task force we can come up with one that can bring back to the full committee. Thank you. Are there some other people who would like to speak? Is the list in the back? Did you sign up on the list? Can somebody bring the list to us, please? And if you would, you could, as we're doing that, just go ahead and come up to the podium and just give your name and your address and just keep it to three minutes if you could. Go ahead, Janet. Why don't you start? My name's Janet Cowan. I live at 612 Columbia Avenue, and I'm here today as president of Friends of the Dog Park. Friends of the Dog Park agrees that dogs should not live their life on a chain. That's the reason that we've worked so hard to establish off-leash areas. We realize that a chain dog is a board dog, and all of those things that the Humane Society said are true. We've seen that. We applaud SOAR's efforts and really appreciate all the hard work that they've already done. However, our group believes that there are times when a chain or a tether can be used humanely, not for long periods of time, not 24-7, 365. We believe that an ordinance that totally prohibits tethering is a grand goal, but until everyone has a yard that can be fenced and people are educated about the chaining issue, This will be an ordinance that will cause many problems or be totally unenforceable. The proposed ordinance in this packet that I got from one of your offices is vague, and I feel unenforceable. My husband and I both couldn't even agree with what it said, in that the part in here, the prohibition, also does not apply when required to protect the welfare or the safety of a person or the dog. That's the tethering. If the person remains with the dog throughout the period of restraint, and my question, I even looked it up in Webster's, what does remains mean? Does it mean that I can remain in my house as long as I can see it, or do I have to be at the end of the tether? What the friends of the dog park ask is that you do set up a task force and let us come to the table with it. I served on the Barking Dog Task Force with Mr. Councilman Stennett. It was effective. We had everybody that worked together, and we would like to see that. We would also, part of our mission is to educate, and I believe before any anti-chaining ordinance goes into effect, that there needs to be a long period of time where a mass education to people is done either through the media, you know, through handouts, through mailings, something like that, so they have time to prepare. Again, Friends of the Dog Park supports SOAR's efforts and hope that we can work with you to make life better for all of our dogs. Thank you. Kim Stewart. Good afternoon. My name is Kim Stewart, and I live at 3581 King Arthur Drive here in town. That's District 4. And I would like to talk a little bit about eastern Kentucky. I have been a resident in Lexington for over 20 years. I grew up in eastern Kentucky. I am familiar with all the stereotypes and bad publicity that we see every night on the news about eastern Kentucky. And what I would like to talk to you about is the fact that when I moved here over 20 years ago, I thought Lexington was going to be a city that was different, that we were not going to be a city that would not speak up and make major changes for those who cannot speak for themselves. And what I see in Lexington is a need for people to be advocates for dogs who the owners are not just people that we think of and see on TV, the people that we stereotype. I know of dogs that are in rabbit run subdivision. I know of dogs on Wilson Downing. I know of dogs all over Lexington that are chained. And what I would urge you to do is to not hold this up. I would urge you to be a counsel that would be a role model for other states. And when I say that, I mean that you would be a role model that you would say, this is not what Kentucky is about. Kentucky is a state that will not allow people to chain dogs or mistreat dogs. One of the last things I'd like to say is I think everyone that spoke has given a wonderful representation of why we should not chain dogs. One of the things that comes to mind for me is I'm a very petite, small person. I'm 5'2", and if I lay down on the floor, that's a very small space. and one of the things that I see a lot is a lot of the dogs that are chained are less on a chain less than five feet. And I think that's a really good visual. If you are a six-foot man, a dog cannot move but six feet if it's on a six-foot chain. And I think we just need to remember that. And again, I just urge you to be an advocate and to be different and to step out of the box and say Kentucky is not going to stand for this. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Stewart. Pat Harris. Hello. I'm Pat Harris. I live at 408, sorry, 408 Bainbridge Court. That's in Councilmember Crossfeast District. And I am just here to urge all of you to support an anti-chain ordinance, particularly Council Member Crosby since she is my representative. I have had questions about the time limitations on the ordinance. And I believe that SOAR's position is correct. I don't know how you can time how long a dog is tied out. Somebody reports a dog that's chained. You go out, and the owner says, well, I've only had him out there 15, 20 minutes. How are you going to know how long the dog's been out? On the other hand, if there's a complete ban, a dog's chained, you go out, he's chained, you know he's chained, there's no question about it. And if you're concerned about prohibiting any kind of chaining, there's going to be occasional chaining when people are going to need to chain their dog out for five minutes. I know the other day I walked my dog, and I took her out, and I realized I left her water bottle inside the house. I wrapped her leash around a tree, ran in, and got the water bottle. Now, I suppose if there were a total ban on chaining, I would have broken the law because I left my dog tethered for five minutes while I ran inside. But realistically, who is going to call and report that? And even if they reported it, by the time somebody got out there, it wouldn't have occurred. So even if there is a total ban on chaining, limited chaining is going to be allowed just for practical purposes. Nobody's going to report it. Nobody's going to notice if it's just a few minutes. And nobody's going to report it if it's a reasonable amount of time. And if a control officer does see an animal chained, there won't be any question about whether the ordinance has been broken. There won't need to be an investigation. There won't need to be talking to neighbors or doing whatever those people do. they'll know the ordinance has been broken because they've seen the animal chained. And I think that will simplify the process, and I think it will cut down on the amount of funds necessary to enforce the ordinance. So, you know, just please consider the practicalities of what's being presented, along with the wording of the ordinance. And I thank you very much for your time. Thank you, Ms. Harris. Nancy Carey? I live at 3880 Grassy Creek. I've been against chaining all my life, and I've had dogs all my life. I think we're so compassionate and try to enforce the laws against child abuse. And animals are really a part of our family, or they should be. And if they're not, then it's abuse. It really is abuse. and also there was something said about dogs who are chained could be walked and taken to dog parks. Normally people who chain their dogs are not going to walk them or take them to dog parks. I just don't believe that's the case. And that's really all I had to say. I just hope and pray that this will pass. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Carey. Is there anybody else that's not on the list that'd like to speak? If you would, just come up and give your name and your address, please. Thank you so much. Hi, my name is Diane Surface, and I live at 29 Westchester Drive in Winchester. Obviously, I don't live in Fayette County, but I do work here, and I am a city letter carrier. And I'm here on behalf of all of us, and I have been a carrier for 22 years, and I have been on routes all over this city. And I have to tell you, this is a serious problem. for the three quarters of us carriers who absolutely love dogs it's a heartache for us to go out there day after day to see these poor dogs chained up like this nobody caring for them and just the sheer fear by the time you get to the door and get out hoping and praying that that dog's not going to break free because they want to get at you you know imagine you all being chained on your back deck 24-7, 365, and maybe once in a while your family throws you something to eat and drink once in a while. Imagine that day after day after day and nobody coming to talk to you. You know, your dogs, I mean, you get to come to work. You get to talk with other people and socialize, even with people you don't want to talk to. At least you get to talk to somebody. These poor dogs have no one. their owners are all that they have so i just i just really support what these people are doing and it's just time that this stops you know this is so barbaric and so back in the old days you know the the generation that chain i mean when i grew up we did it and i didn't understand it but i i realize now that these kids they see this happening so they think that they have to do it even though I don't think they even want a dog. It's just something I guess they think they have to do because their parents did it. You know, I think it's time this stops, and I agree with the lady who said, I don't want to live in a state that people think of as a bunch of hillbillies that just chain our dogs up. I mean, I just think it's time it stops. So I thank you so much for giving me a chance. Thank you. Thank you for coming and giving us your input. Is there anybody else who would like to speak? Yes. Like I said, if you would just give your name and your address, please, for the committee. And keep it to three minutes if you can. My name is Shirley Powell, and I live here at 3351 Cove Lake Drive in Lexington. And I would like to point out, I think it may have been Gandhi who said you can judge a country's, a nation's moral character by the way it treats the animals. My point being, yes, it is dangerous to people, but these animals, very much like children, cannot speak for themselves. They cannot say, I'm cold, I'm hot, I'm having a heat stroke, I'm hungry, my collar is digging into my neck and making me bleed. So please consider speaking for those who cannot say anything for themselves. Thank you. Thank you. Is there anybody else who'd like to speak? Susan, would you like to speak? Hello, I'm Susan Malcolm, president of the Lexington Humane Society. I just wanted to hopefully conclude the conversation by saying that the suggestion to have a task force or a subcommittee. As you've heard today, there is a lot of diversity and a lot of variations to this complex issue. And I think to really come up with a solution that is best for the animals, best for the community, I think dialogue and discussion between all of the participants here today would be vital to coming up with the correct solution to this very complex situation an issue. Thank you. Is there any committee members like to speak? Mr. DeCamp? No, I think in view of what we've heard and I think it's correct and I would recommend, I don't think we need a vote, that the chair appoint a task force to study this including the Friends of the Dog Park and other people that are interested because it obviously is a very complex thing and I mean there may be cases where proper kind of tethering is appropriate and I think we need to know all these things and to come back to this committee and come back with much more input. And I think we can come up with an ordinance which would be appropriate and send on to the council. I think Ms. Crosby was actually going to make that motion right now to do that. Okay. Well, the only thing that I would say is we looked at a task force or a subcommittee, and I think a subcommittee actually would probably move things quicker than a task force, and that way the committee can keep it in the committee and have everybody come to the meetings. And at that point, I think Ms. Crosby is going to make a motion. I'd rather have the motion out there and bring it back. We are going on break here over the holiday, so it's probably not moved as quick as everybody would like it to, but she was going to make a motion, I think, for 60 days. That way we could come back in 60 days and try to move it along. But if you'd like to make that motion, I'd be willing to accept it here. I'll make a motion that we set up a subcommittee to look at an ordinance regarding tethering and pinning and that we report back to this committee within the next 60 days. So moved. We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed? We'll be looking forward. I'll be making a subcommittee up, and I've asked Council Member Beer to be the chair of that since he brought this forward, and we'll have council members and we'll get all those people who would like to be involved. Actually, why don't we put a list back there in the back if you'd like to be involved and know when we're going to be meeting and be on the e-mails and then come to the meetings, and that way everybody can be involved. And just for the committee's standpoint, all the people who are here on this issue, would you please stand up so we know who all is here? Thank you. I appreciate you all taking the time to come down here for this important issue. And if you would, we'll put a list back there that will make sure everybody's invited to the subcommittee meetings, and we're on your email. And thank you all again. And if you could put a list back there. The next issue on the agenda will be the solid waste fee structure, and this was Mr. DeCamp brought this forward. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think all of us are aware over the years there has been a number of people in this community who have come to council people and said we don't think there's a fair fee structure for the collection of solid waste. It's a complicated situation. I understand that. But I think it's time, and I think that there have been recommendations made in the report that was done in November 2006 that some information concerning flat fees. I think that people out there that don't know how they are charged to get their trash collected is it's done through an ad valorem tax. And the higher the estimate the PVA has on your property as far as residential collection goes, the more you pay for your trash collection because it's a certain percentage of the ad valorem tax, which I think if you look at it objectively, if I owned a $300,000 house, which I do not, and somebody next door to me owns a $100,000 house, which is at the PVA Office, the Property Evaluation Office, that way I am paying a lot more to collect my trash, and I don't have any more trash than my next-door neighbor. That's what it boils down to in an oversimplification. I'm not getting into the business and commercial end of it because that is another picture, but I'm really looking at it from a residential point of view. So over the years, I have heard a number of people just say, isn't there some way that we can level the playing field, that we can have a fair approach to the collection of solid waste within our city? So that's the reason I brought it to the Services Committee. I, for one, have absolutely no complaint about how we pick up our trash. And I think, I mean, I've lived here 40-some years, almost 50 years in Lexington, and I think we do a wonderful job in the Department of Solid Waste. It's just a matter of how people would be charged. So I just brought it up as an issue to see if there might be some way that we could look into this a little further to see if there might be a way that there might be a fair way to charge people for the collection of trash. as I say it's not we talk about a residential user fee and I'd like to just turn this over to Paul Schoeninger who did some research on this for this committee and to see if we want to take this any further to get further information that might be helpful in making some sort of decision to see if this is something to do. And I see Commissioner Taylor is here too if we need to ask her some questions. Thank you, Council Member. According to a trade association called the National Solid Waste Management Association, approximately 60% of the communities with solid waste programs use user fees in one fashion or another, rather than the property tax method of raising revenue. This includes Lexington, so we have a landfill user fee. so the 60% does include Lexington but communities are large and small didn't seem to be any geographic bias built in but they included Baton Rouge, Louisiana Toronto, Ontario Chapel Hill, North Carolina Tallahassee, Florida Vancouver, British Columbia and Evanston, Illinois all used to some fashion user fees to support their solid waste functions in addition to the fairness issue that you raised from information I got from a few of the communities they also felt that the user fee enabled them to decrease waste stream and increase recycling particularly if there was a connection between how much you were being charged for solid waste and how much you were using the solid waste system that's really all I had Councilmember Mr. Is anybody out in the audience would like to speak? Anybody connected with solid waste? I mean, I'm sure it's an issue that has been brought to your attention on many occasions, and whether you think there is an interest in pursuing this. I'll try to answer any questions you have. Now, I was introduced to this study. It was actually done in November of 2006, so it's over two years old at this point. I think the timing of the study when it came out and transition and different issues probably delayed some of the things being implemented. But since I became aware of this study earlier this year and since Steve became the director, we've spent a lot of time looking at these recommendations and trying to decide what first, the chicken or the egg. There are a lot of things in this study. It's pretty short, really, if you've looked at it. But, for example, the issue that you mentioned about a flat rate fee, more or less, or a pay-as-you-toss kind of fee, gets addressed in what's called Option 6. They actually give you seven options of alternative ways to do business. Some of them are fee-based. Some of them are equipment-based. Some of them are labor-based. One suggests privatization. So there's a lot of different options here. They don't have a lot of data on how you would implement that, but they give you good ideas. So what we've focused on, though, in this first year since I've been here, is some of the more fundamental systems that would need to be in place for you to be successful no matter what option you choose. One of the things they mention in here certainly is the age of our fleet. We have significantly older trucks than most cities our size. We're interested in updating some of those, but one of the things that has held us up in doing that is making some decisions about whether as a city we want to go to a single stream recycling program or not. So we have different types of equipment that we would need to purchase. We also have a recycling center that is badly undersized. Currently, it processes from about 5.30 in the morning, as I know Councilman Blues knows, from 5.30 in the morning, and we wrap up operation between 6 and 6.30 in the evening. We don't run weekends, and we don't run at night right now, but we do have the opportunity to expand those hours if we wanted to add some capacity. But if you haven't been to the recycling center, I think you can walk in, and anybody that's got any background in manufacturing or business would see that we have badly undersized the recycling center based on the amount of interest that we have in our community. So we're interested in doing some of those fundamental things around recycling, preparing ourselves, trucks. A number of the options that were mentioned here include improving the way we route and the way we balance our routes and waste. Right now that's primarily done by hand on paper. We have about 180,000 service points a week in Lexington, and it's done by hand on paper. We're working very hard right now. That's one of the reasons ROMA's here, to try to automate our system so that we're using GIS and GPS mapping. We can hopefully make our routes more efficient. We can use less labor. We can automate. Those are the foundation items that we've really focused on this year. I think, you know, could I just interrupt here? Sure. I think that is wonderful, and I think we are making progress in this. But my question is just one. Are you interested, are the staff interested in looking at a user fee from the point of view of a fairness issue? That's all I'm, I mean, I have no, you know, I don't think this is the time to talk about the quality of the service or the equipment. I mean, because I know you all are doing a great job. I have no question about that. I'm just talking from the point of view of constituents out there that have constantly brought this up over the 12 years that I've been on council, that it was just a fairness issue, and should we be looking into this? I feel like we should be looking into it, and I'm looking for the best way in which it could be looked at so that we could collect fees more fairly than I think that we're collecting now. That's the only issue that's on the table now. And I guess what I'd like to know is whether eventually, and I don't know whether, because I know there's a lot on your plate, and I know you're looking at the study that was done and trying to implement many of the things that were brought up, but is the fairness issue of collecting fees as opposed to the ad valorem, having a user fee is something that you will be looking at and will be in a position to come back to this committee at a time and say, yes, these are the things we've looked at. This is the residential part of it. This is the commercial part of it. So I think the general public can have a better understanding of why we're doing what we're doing. That's all I... Well, I think, honestly, we could look at any option that the council wants us to look at. I mean, there are a range of options. That's certainly one of them. And then even within that, there are a number of options. If you look at option six, it recommends taking a look at converting to residential user fees that are basically flat for all homeowners, similar to the ERU concept with stormwater fee. That's an option. It also says it sets the stage for you to go to a pay-as-you-throw system, which is a different option, but it's sort of an evolution of that. But any option that you would like us to take a look at, we can research. Well, I think, Mr. Chair, I would just like to make a recommendation that we keep this issue on the table unless anybody has another idea and that they come back to us at an appropriate time with possibly some options that would look at the fairness issue of collecting fees for picking up trash. That's all. Okay. I think we have some council members who would like to ask some questions. Mr. Stinnett. Thank you, Chair, and I appreciate being recognized as not a member of the committee, but I was glad to be here for this. I've been looking at this issue for the last three months, as Commissioner Taylor knows, and I actually plan on waiting until next Tuesday because I think we'll get an update on our financial situation amongst all of government and put this issue actually in the budget and finance because there is an opportunity to assist them with our current surplus that's mounted up over the years and allow them some opportunities to expand. one of the biggest moneymaker items we have in government, that's a recycling center. And there's an opportunity to do that and look at the fee at the same time. And eventually my idea would be to present the council to look at not just going to a fee, but later on down the road, look at a pay-as-you-toss system. So we do encourage more and more recycling. And, again, it is a revenue stream for government. And I think the budget and finance committee may be a better place to have this. And I know Councilman Lane, too, has been working on the numbers as well, and Commissioner Taylor is well aware of everything behind the scenes in terms of the numbers and what we possibly could do. This study that came out two years ago, I agree with Council Member DeCamp, we're not talking about the service and the quality of the service, but again, so many people in this community that want to see that property tax go to a fee and utilize the property tax for what it's really meant to be utilized for in our city. And, you know, it's not saying there's anything wrong with the service at all right now because it's excellent. You know, actually, the number of calls over the last 12 months have dropped dramatically in my office, and that's a credit to the guys that work in our solid waste department, what they do every day. It's been a great improvement in the service the last 12 months to 24 months since the study came out. But I do think I'd rather see this item in budget and finance because we're going to have to take a look at our overall financial picture, and this is going to play a critical role in whatever decision we make long term on those efforts. So I don't want to take it out. No, no, that's fine. I have no preference of where it should be. Just if you're going to make a motion to put it into budget and finance, that's fine with me. We can take it out of this committee at that time. And also just to be sure that that particular issue, I mean, I think you're absolutely right looking at how the money is being spent in that fund. but as long as that issue of the fairness, whatever form it may take, as opposed to the ad valorem tax, because I personally think it's not fair and that we should be looking into that. And as long as that's part of your motion that you're going to make, I'd be glad to just drop it right now and let you go ahead with it. Well, you know, and the fairness works both ways because right now 20 percent of the system is supporting 80 percent approximately, based on the 2005 numbers. But, you know, it's that 80 percent, some of which will see a double increase of their fees and costs for salt waste. So we really have to take a look at that, and it may end up being a tier structure or, you know, some type of fairness issue because you're going to have a lot of people have a significant increase on their garbage collection fees. So I don't think we can make the motion right now to take it out or put it in the budget and finance in this setting. No. But we can make the motion to take it out of this committee. All right. Well, and you are going to make a motion, not in this committee. Right. But you will make a motion. I was going to wait until December 9th. Oh, okay. All right, that's fine. Then I'll make a motion that this issue be taken out of the Services Committee based on a recommendation which is forthcoming to put it in budget and finance. We have a motion. Second. And a second. Any discussion on that? All those in favor, say aye. Aye. All those opposed, that passes. We do have some more people who would like to speak. Ms. Gordon. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm also not a member of this committee, but just wanted to add a couple of things because Councilmember Stenet said many of the things I was going to say. When we look at it in budget and finance, I hope that we'll be brought – fiscal year 2005 is now getting to be a long time ago to base our numbers. So I'd like to have updated numbers. And the other thing is to keep in mind the goal, which I think is garbage-free by 2030 or 2020. Yeah, it's aggressive. Now, when we talk about this, I'd just like to advocate for talking about incentives for people who don't have a lot of garbage. And that kind of was going along with what Council Member Stenet said, because there are a lot of people now into recycling, and they only put their Herbie out every two or three weeks. And the more we can go toward that, the more we'll go toward our 2020 goal, which I think is a really good goal. So I think it's all tied together, and I look forward to working on it. Thank you. Ms. James. Thank you, Chair. I, too, am not a member of this committee, but have always had an interest in waste management. And I've met with Director and Kevin, and we've talked about solid waste. I do think there's a connection between the fees, the fee structure, and the services. I don't see them as two separate things. And as we are in our links and we're discussing financial, we ask about the programs, and we talk about what happens and how those funds are utilized. So where I do agree that the issue of the money should be in budget and finance, we cannot forget that the money and this dedicated funding is used for one of the most important factors in our city. Some say public safety. Some say environmental. And I think this really falls into it, especially where we're trying to be green. So I would just caution the committee to be sure that we, you know, if you look and see that there's a balance, a significant balance in something, it doesn't necessarily mean that people are overpaying. One of the things that we found out about the trucks that need to be purchased is there's some guidelines that have to do with the types of trucks that they need to purchase. And when is the right time to buy those trucks? We learned this in our council link. When is the right time to buy those trucks so that you don't have to buy a truck a year later because of standards that are met? So we need to be careful that we're not – where fairness is very important, and I agree with fairness, we need to make sure that we are providing the funds that we need for service that we can't live without, which is waste management. Another thing, going back to Council Member Stenet's point, is I believe the statistic is over 70% of the people will see an increase in their fees. We have to look at who are those folks and what kind of services are we going to have to subsidize in order for them to be able to pay this. So if they pay this, are they then going to have to go to our adult services, social services, to try to get help for something else? So we need to make sure that we're not impacting negatively the majority of our citizens in our city. So I'd ask caution for that. I'd also say that we can't forget that waste management is also recycling. It's very, very important that we don't just see it as trash collection. And recycling, as Council Member McCord and I talked about yesterday on the chamber, planning for the chamber trip, is a revenue generator. But in order to expand a recycling center, you've got to have money. You've got to have trucks. You've got to have staff. You've got to have equipment. And you have to have all those things in place. So as we learned in our council links, which I'd hoped to continue, and we've not been able to have meetings to continue that discussion, but immediately following our links, I asked for continued conversation in this growing division, this growing division that has to respond to the progressiveness of our environment. And we've not been able to do that. Had we done that, we may have been able to, at this point, look at some type of have the incentives there for recycling. We've got to have those things in place before we even talk about changing anything. So we don't want to get behind the eight ball with, you know, having a fee and then looking at what are we going to do to help. We need to do the incentives and have all that structuring, all that align, and I hope that Budget and Finance Committee will look at all that at the same time, but not necessarily in response. But when we present something, Commissioner and I have talked about this with the stormwater fee, you've got to present something where people feel incentivized from the beginning. And we don't necessarily do that in government. We kind of wait to see what happens, and then we try to soften the blow afterwards. And it doesn't always work. The harm is already done. So be cautious, and I hope to be on that budget and finance committee and hope to work towards that. Let's see. Also, let's make sure that we are consistent with what Division of Solid Waste or Waste Management has for whatever their strategic plan is. They've got a restructuring proposal that they presented to our council link, and we need to make sure that everything we do financially is consistent with or that we're working with a possible restructuring, and especially with being in environmental quality. So let's please remember that, and I will be sure to remind us. And I think that's all that I had here so far, but I look forward to continuing the conversation on this, and I look forward to talking with Council Member DeCamp offline a little bit more about the issue of the fairness in the fees and his interpretation of that and what he's heard from the public. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. McCord. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just as we go forward in this, I want to make sure that you all know that, as Councilman James had said, there's going to be 200 leaders go to Madison, Wisconsin here in May to go see one of the most green cities and the most recycling friendly city in America. And they're going to come back really excited as a community and as community leaders towards pushing this. So as we go, just recognize that is kind of a backdrop date for us to be working, that to have some real numbers together, what is it going to take for this government to really turn that engine on? I think we're starting to almost get to a tipping point of where people want to do this more and more and more. And I know that capacity is an issue. And I would love to see, Commissioner, you know, what does it mean to run it an extra hour, an extra half hour, an extra three hours? What does that look like? and then what do we really need to actually turn this thing on and turn it loose, and how can we utilize this? Because as we move forward in a very, very tight budget season, not just this next year, but over the next couple of years, this is something that's staring us in the face that we can certainly put some resources toward and probably have a tremendous return on investment and be doing things that are very positive for the community and environment and so forth. So I just wanted to let you know that as a backdrop, May, you're going to have a very fired up community that's coming back ready to do this and ready to embrace whatever we put forward. Thank you, Mr. Chair. If I might make a comment. Tomorrow we're kicking off the Waste Stream Characterization Study that you all approved for us. So beginning December the 15th we'll be doing mega dumpster dives, I guess you call it. But we're going to try to get a very clear picture of exactly what it is we're generating as a city, how much of it, and what markets are we missing. We've been meeting with marketing specialists to try to identify additional waste streams, and we do agree with you that we have a very big potential opportunity here. Thank you. I think the last council member would speak with Mr. Beard. Thank you, Chair. Commissioner Taylor, and I don't know why I don't know the answer to this, but I don't, and maybe you don't for that matter, but the private hall operators that we have operating within Fayette County, Are they licensed by us in some way? Do they operate like a franchise? How does that happen legally, I guess? We don't have a franchise currently. That's been suggested as another idea. As a city, we could franchise or we could offer territories, that kind of thing, but currently we don't do that. So how do they arrive and start to operate without some kind of a license to do so? How do they carve out their territories? I know how we carve out the territories in relationship to taxing districts, but then beyond that, because there's more than one, do they have turf battles? Do they flip a coin? What do they do? I'll defer. It's simply a subscription service. If you live in an area not serviced by the Irving County Government, you simply call up one of the private haulers and develop a contract with them. So there may be on any given street two or three different haulers on different days. I just don't happen to see that. I see in my neighborhood anyway, M&M has got pretty much the whole ballgame. I don't see any other. And I didn't know whether they carved out territories for efficiency purposes or not. Some cities have done that. They've required certain areas and territories. That's a carbon footprint impact as well. So in order to minimize truck traffic, they designate certain areas and offer a franchise. I do know that I was given an option of pick up one day a week or two days a week, and I don't generate a lot of trash, so I picked one, and I get it a little cheaper. And I also noticed that I do pay an upcharge for a fuel surcharge. which hasn't gone down since gasoline's gone down $1.70. But anyway, that's all beside the point. I just was wondering how this worked and its privatization of sorts, actually, within our governmental area. Thank you. Thank you. Anybody else on this topic? Then the last item that we have on the agenda is the man-of-war truck restrictions, and Dr. Stevens brought this forward. Dr. Stevens? Thank you. I was prompted to refer this to the service committee by constituents who contacted me about the noise generated by trucks on man-of-war and the interference with sleeping and so forth. And so I referred it, and after I referred it, I discovered that we already have an ordinance in place that prohibits truck traffic on Manowar. And it would seem to me that a solution to this problem, at least the immediate solution, might be preventing those trucks from entering Manowar and using it as a, to get to Richmond Road or someplace like that from 27, which is the primary problem that a citizen lived in. So I see we have some representatives here of the Department of Public Safety, and I'd like to hear what comments they have about the feasibility of enforcement of this ordinance. Gentlemen. I wasn't prepared really to speak on this topic, but my name is Lieutenant Pape. I work in the traffic section, and we've gone back and forth about this topic quite a bit. My understanding of this 1844 ordinance had to do more with designating traffic that was cutting through Lexington, that they were designated to come into town, hit New Circle Road, and then leave town by New Circle Road off a road from there. But as far as hitting man-of-war, they're allowed to go anywhere they have a destination along the route, and that's designed by or decided by the driver, the most erect route, not by us. Actually prohibiting trucks from being there, the trucks that seem to be the complaint are gravel trucks, concrete trucks, stuff that's used for construction that they would have to design their own route based on the driver's preference on how they're going to get somewhere, the most erect route. So I don't see where 1844 is that is very enforceable for us. A couple of ordinances later, it's 1846 that talks about that they can use any route as long as they have a destination along that route. So if they were coming on from 27 and going past Manowar and Crosby to get to Pimlico, that would be a designated route. They could take that travel. delivery trucks and such like that would still be able to use Manowar even if you prohibit Manowar trucks on Manowar because they have delivery routes along that corridor. I will share with you the comments I received from the citizens, but their idea was that this was in the middle of the night, and these were 18-wheel semi-trailer trucks that were using Manowar as a cut through to go from say 27 to 60 or the US 60 or but not going to a local destination. Right and because there's so many stoplights on Manowar I think there are somebody told me 26 different signalized intersections and each time the truck has to stop and they don't always use the brakes as you know they use a system of loud noise to stop the trucks as they slowdown. And that's been a disruption for the neighborhood. The complaint we had received was gravel trucks, concrete trucks, and stuff like that during the day, which would be business-related traffic that would be allowed through there. I haven't heard anything along that line. And the system you're talking about is called a Jake Brake. They use the engine to stop the truck, which causes a loud noise. I'm not aware of nighttime truck traffic through there. Now, for us to actually enforce that, we have to follow that truck from the time they enter the roadway to the time they leave the roadway before we stop the truck and then to ensure they don't have a destination along the roadway. Or we'd have to stop every single truck. We can try to enforce that, and we could probably enforce it under 1844. Well, would the police department be able to do a surveillance of this to see what the actual facts are? We could try, but I think traffic engineering generally does the impact studies. We simply enforce the ordinance as it's out there. They don't go out there in the middle of the night, do they? Right. And in the middle of the night, we're not exactly the highest staffing level doing traffic enforcement. We can try to do something along that line and see if we can come up with something that would enforce that. I just don't know that it's winnable in court. We used to enforce the gravel trucks that came off 27 and then used, there's coal trucks and gravel trucks using Manowar. It's a 36,000-pound road. But there's a few state laws that touch that to say they can go five miles from a state road on a local road to get to a destination. And Manowar, every road they were touching gave them another five miles. So they could go from Versailles Road to Nicholasville Road without impedance. Well, if the citizens' observations are accurate, how would you say we should solve the problem for him? I don't really know. All I can do is try and put somebody out there to see what they're seeing. and I'm not aware of the midnight truck traffic. I can put an ex-patrol out there for East Secretary to try to do something with it, but I'm not aware of the problem. Well, that's why I brought it up. I cannot make a motion, but if somebody would make a motion, we ask the police to report back to the service committee in 60 days or two months with the report of their surveillance and their plan for enforcement of this ordinance. It looks like this ordinance would be difficult to enforce any place if they can't monitor it. They must have a reason and a plan to do so. Is there a committee member I'd like to make? Dr. Blues? You make that motion. We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? All those in favor, say aye. Aye. All those opposed? I'll be glad to return from some sunny shore to hear the report. Okay, good. That passes. Is there, oh, Mr. McCord, I'm sorry. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just very quickly, you know, this is a problem that really Council Member Stenet is probably best addressed, and that is that you've got a road that was designed to be a neighborhood connector. We had people back a number of years ago who decided that the second phase of this shouldn't be done because there would be too much building and too much growth, and so therefore a connector to the interstate was not ever done in northern Jessamine County and now you have all the growth and no infrastructure to handle it and so Manowar is being used in a capacity that it's not really meant to be used but there's no other way for trucks to go other than New Circle Road. Now one thing that is coming up is that as Brandon Crossing develops, Brandon Crossing also will provide a cut through all the way over to Tates Creek Road and to Harrodsburg Road and so forth. But at the end of the day, I think, Mr. Chair, that we, again, need to move post-haste with Council Member Stenet's recommendation to fund the design study, not study, the design of reworking Man of War. Because this is only going to get worse. But when you buy a house that's sitting right next to a major thoroughfare like this, you put 20-some-odd traffic signals on it, this is what you get. And, you know, you have one person complaining or two people complaining or whatever. But at the end of the day, this is what you get for very poor and lack of innovative planning. And that's what our city is suffering from at the end of the day. So, Council Member Stennett, once again, you're validated by we need to get on with the program and rework this road. And just so I can add one more piece to it, as we start stopping trucks on Manowar, we will have to pull them off of Manowar into a neighborhood and then they will start getting started again within a neighborhood. So as we start enforcing this, we're going to create another problem in the neighborhood. So as that starts to happen, I would expect to get complaints along that line. Thank you. Is there any other issues before the committee? We are adjourned.