# Social Services & Public Safety (SSPS) Committee - August 11, 2026 > Auto-transcribed civic record · Committee · August 11, 2026 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/6848 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/6848?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2026-08-11 - **Body**: Committee - **Last revised**: August 19, 2026 - **Length**: 17,669 words - **Speakers**: Chair > ⚠️ **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 Social Services & Public Safety (SSPS) Committee met on August 11, 2026, at 1:00 PM in the Council Chamber at Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government. The committee heard three informational presentations and took one motion to a vote during the session. No public comments were received during the meeting. The committee addressed three agenda items: a presentation on a Proposed Drag Racing Ordinance, an update on A Caring Place (Villages Model Initiatives for Lexington), and a report on Equitable Enforcement related to Code Enforcement. All three items were presented for informational purposes only. ## Votes and Decisions The Committee took the following action during the August 11, 2026 meeting: **Motion 0349-25: Approval of June 9, 2026 Social Services & Public Safety Committee Summary** The Committee voted to approve the summary from the June 9, 2026 Social Services & Public Safety Committee meeting. The motion passed by voice vote [timestamp: 0:05:27]. No individual vote counts were recorded for this voice vote. ## Contested Items **Proposed Drag Racing Ordinance** The committee engaged in a heated discussion regarding a proposed drag racing ordinance. The primary areas of contention centered on three main concerns: - **Severity of penalties**: Committee members raised questions about whether the proposed penalties were appropriately calibrated and whether they aligned with the ordinance's stated objectives. - **Potential for inequitable enforcement**: Concerns were expressed that the ordinance could be applied unevenly across different communities or demographic groups, creating fairness issues in how violations are handled. - **Impact on low-income individuals**: Committee members highlighted worries that the penalties and enforcement mechanisms could disproportionately affect low-income residents, raising equity and access to justice concerns. The discussion reflected broader disagreements about balancing public safety objectives with fair and equitable implementation of the proposed regulations. ## Proposed Drag Racing Ordinance The Committee discussed agenda item 0681-26, a proposed ordinance to regulate reckless driving exhibitions and speed racing [timestamp: 0:05:58]. **Overview** The ordinance aims to establish regulations and penalties for reckless driving exhibitions and speed racing activities. The proposal is modeled after Louisville's existing ordinance on this subject. **Key Participants** The discussion was led by Evan Thompson and Council Member Elliot-Baxter. **Outcome** The Committee treated this item as informational, indicating the discussion was presented for awareness and information purposes rather than for a vote or formal action at this time. ## A Caring Place (Villages Model Initiatives for Lexington) This agenda item presented information on the Villages Model Initiatives, a program designed to support seniors and individuals with disabilities to age in place in Lexington [timestamp: 1:07:11]. **Presenters and Speakers** Roxanne Cheney led the presentation on this initiative, with Council Member Lynch also participating in the discussion. **Program Overview** The Villages Model Initiatives have received national acclaim for their approach to helping seniors and individuals with disabilities remain in their communities and homes as they age, rather than requiring institutional care or relocation. **Outcome** This agenda item was informational in nature, providing the committee with details about the Villages Model Initiatives and their implementation in Lexington. No formal action or vote was required as part of this presentation. ## Equitable Enforcement (Code Enforcement) This agenda item presented the final installment of a comprehensive review of the Division of Code Enforcement, with a specific focus on equitable enforcement practices and recommendations for improvements. [timestamp: 1:28:44] **Speakers and Presentation** Council Member Lynch and Director Steele led the discussion on this presentation item. **Content and Focus** The presentation addressed equitable enforcement within the Code Enforcement Division, examining how enforcement actions are applied across the community and identifying areas for improvement to ensure fair and consistent application of code enforcement policies. **Outcome** This item was informational in nature, providing the Committee with findings and recommendations from the Division of Code Enforcement review process without requiring a vote or formal action at this time. --- ## Decisions - **0349-25** — passed (0-0): Approval of June 9, 2026 Social Services & Public Safety Committee Summary --- ## Full transcript Music Thank you. meeting to order. And I want to thank everybody that's here today for being here. And welcome back from summer council break, everybody and my colleagues. We have four items on our agenda today. And so I'm hoping that we can get through all of them. So keep that in mind as we're commenting. And our first item is the approval of the June 9, 2026 committee summary. And are there any corrections or comments? There is a motion and a second. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Okay, that motion passes. Thank you. First off today, we are going to start with a presentation on a proposed drag race ordinance. one of the many recommendations that came from the Street Safety Task Force. And Vice Chair Baxter is the sponsor of this item, and I am going to turn it over to her to give some background information and make any opening remarks. And then Evan Thompson, who is a managing attorney in the law department, will provide the presentation. So thank you. Thank you, Chair. Welcome back, everyone. As the Chair mentioned, this was a recommendation that came from our Street Safety Task Force. And throughout that process, we heard overwhelmingly from the community that this is a concern, and it was from all districts. So I want to make that clear that this is something that we're hearing all over the city, and it is a concern that the task force and I both felt was necessary to proceed with. This is just another tool that we will have to make our streets safer for everyone who lives, works, and visits Lexington. and as Evan will present, you'll see that it's very similar to other ordinances in the state and obviously happy to answer any questions that you have. With that, thank you, Evan. Hello, everybody. Welcome back. Today I'm going to obviously, like Council Member Baxter mentioned, we'll be discussing potential draft ordinance that regulate vehicle speed contests and reckless driving exhibitions. So, in 2022, Louisville passed an ordinance that's basically set penalties and potential impoundment of vehicles for taking part in essentially what's drag racing or vehicle exhibitions in Louisville. Their ordinance was $1,000 for the first offense, $2,000 for subsequent offenses, and an impoundment of the vehicle itself for six months. According to the news article that first year, approximately 55 cars were impounded. So as the Urban County Council was receiving complaints about potential drag racing in Lexington or other vehicle exhibitions, led to just look at Louisville's ordinance, the reason why I mentioned it in this presentation, for a similar civil citation and impoundment mechanism to try to protect the public. So, the purpose and the scope of this draft ordinance, it creates a new section of the code, or a new article within Section 18 of the code, rather, to prohibit vehicle speed contests, which is racing against another vehicle, a clock, or a timing device, or reckless driving exhibitions, which are burnouts, donuts, drifting, or wheelies. I feel like I don't have to. Everybody's seen the Need for Speed type of movies, so you probably know what the burnouts and donuts and drifting or wheelies are, so I won't go too much into that. I've never done any of them, for the record, and I'm sure neither of you have either. My little Prius C. The promotion of... Also, in addition to prohibiting the Vehicle Speed Contest or Reckless Driving exhibitions themselves, It also prohibits the promotion of these exhibitions or contests, like getting money at the race site or posting on Facebook trying to get their friends to go, that type of thing. Also, thirdly, it would also prohibit the obstruction of streets for facilitating these types of events. Similar to Louisville, it has the framework for enforcement through civil penalties and impoundment of the vehicle. According to the draft, the draft has taken effect on January 1, 2027 to allow for time for training, for drafting of the civil citations, for getting everybody on the LFUCG site on the same page to make sure we're all working as a team together and following the ordinance. So the penalties under this draft ordinance are imposed on the owner of the vehicle. It's $2,250 for the first violation of the section about prohibiting the actual events themselves or 194, which is the obstructing the roads for the purposes of the events, or $4,500 for each subsequent violation after the first. then $1,000 for the first violation of 18193, which is the promoting section, and $2,000 for each subsequent violation after that. There's also the potential impounding of vehicles, 30 days for a first violation, and then 60 days for each subsequent violation. It's a little different than Louisville's, and I can go into explaining why if you'd like. And then there's a similar, there's a state law, and I'm going to have to pronounce escapement, but esheatement, I think I said it right that second time, but I'm probably going to mispronounce it other times. So esheatement after 45 days after the 30 or 60 days if that's unclaimed, and that's basically how that works for any impound vehicles, if it's in this ordinance or impounding vehicles generally for parking violations. So that follows the state law on that. The civil penalties, the 2250 and the 4500, will cover the storage fees for the 30 or 60 days, but then owner will have to pay towing fees as well as storage fees for additional days. Those days between that 30 days, for instance, and then up to 45 days if unclaimed by that 30 days. Part of the reason why the amounts are different and the amounts of times are different. for ours versus Louisville's is Louisville's has their own tow lots. Well, we contract for that type of thing. So our contractor has storage fees. So this would cover the storage fee for those periods of time and would also not lead to a significant high citation plus costs to get the vehicle out that might be problematic from a state and federal perspective. So, the enforcement is done by any law enforcement officer. They can do one of two things. They can either immediately impound on the scene, if they see if they have evidence to show that an impoundment happened. I'm sorry, that an event happened, rather, and they can impound it then, or they can provide a notice of future impoundment, which is a letter to the owner of the vehicle letting them know the citation, the evidence that they have, etc. It basically says that if we see the vehicle on the streets in the next 12 months, that we'll impound it. There's multiple instances of notice of the appeal right in the ordinance. They'll get the civil citation and notice at the time of impoundment, which could be immediately after the police officer notices the violation or has evidence to show that there was one. And also there's a notice of the appeal right seven days after impoundment. And then also there's a notice upon completion of the impoundment period that would also tell them that, you know, come get your vehicle or we're going to a sheet. It's going to a sheet to the state, or not to the state, to LFCG. So that's multiple ways that the owner violator will know of his or her appeal rights and that their vehicle is impounded. So appeals, so they have the right to appeal the notice of future impoundment. They have 14 days to appeal the administrative hearing board, and the hearing must be 30 days after that request. Impoundment, they have seven days after the receipt of the second letter. That second letter that happened seven days after the impoundment, they have seven days after that and basically it gives them the ability to post a bond which then requires the hearing to occur quicker otherwise it will occur within 10 business days. It has to be pretty quick because ultimately we have someone's vehicle that we have impounded and this allows them to be heard as quickly as possible to potentially get their vehicle back if somehow they can show that they were not participating in or that the vehicle was not participating in these prohibited events. And then also, in order to comply with the state law relating to escapement, esheatement, esheatement, such a hard word to say, that state law basically requires us to give them another appeal period, and that has to happen within 10 days of receiving that notice. Otherwise, we can, after the 45-day period, can keep their car. And then also, they have the ability to appeal the civil penalties seven days after issuance of the citation to the Administrative Hearing Board. Any questions? Thank you very much, Mr. Thompson. And Vice Mayor Wu. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Mr. Thompson, for the presentation. I did Google that word and it's pronounced as-cheatment. Yes, that's- Yes. Cheatment. Oh, you're good. But would you also- wow, my mic is really loud. Let me turn that down just a little bit. Thank you. Can you also define for the public what as-cheatment means? Yes. So basically it'll be determined that it's abandoned, The vehicle is abandoned and LFU has the ability to take possession of the car to either sell it or to use it if we potentially have use for it. And then that 45 days starts after either the 30 or the 60 days? Exactly, yes. The 45 days starts after the 30 or the 60. Okay. In terms of penalties, when the violation is determined, is it always the fine and the impoundment or is it the fine and or the impoundment? I think it's drafted right now as a may, so it could be citation or citation and impoundment. And who would make that determination? Law enforcement officer. Okay. Just at first glance, my inclination would be to make it fine and impoundment as a rule. And then one last question. And we have a shortage in staffing in our police force, and it is very difficult for them to cover everything all at once. Would we be able to use our existing traffic cameras for enforcement purposes for this ordinance? I think that could potentially go into the evidence that's used to make the determination whether or not a violation occurred. Okay, but could you use... It doesn't have to be witnessed by the officer. It does not have to be witnessed by a live officer is what you're saying? Yeah. Okay, great. Thank you so much. Thank you. Council Member Beasley. Thank you, Chair. Thanks, Mr. Thompson, for your great, I have lots of questions, for your great presentation. You might need backup. So what happens if the owner is not the driver of the car? So, for instance, my 16-year-old kid takes my car, does donuts, and then has our car impounded. It would be a violation for the owner of the vehicle. Okay. So, when we said law enforcement officers, who is that? Is it police, sheriff, the safety officers? Who are we considering law enforcement for this particular? Yeah, I think it would be largely peace officers. So all of those folks? I'm not sure if safety officers are peace officers. They're not. Yeah, that's what I thought. And then you and I have already spoke about this, but this is one of the most rudest ordinances that I have ever seen in the language about what we're calling our neighbors. So I would like to see uncivil, the fact that we're calling them criminals, and intimidating, I'd like to see that part of the language removed from the ordinance. Okay, yeah, that's fine. I think you're referring to the first whereas clause of that ordinance, and we took that from Louisville's ordinance. Okay. But I'm happy to remove it if you'd like. Thank you. At what speed do we consider reckless driving? reckless driving I think that might be a circumstances determination but police might have the better ideas on that because this isn't tied to whether or not it's reckless driving if there's a race they could potentially get charged for reckless driving separately nothing prevents them from being charged for reckless driving or vehicular homicide or anything like that Hello. Hi, how are you? I'm doing well. I'm Commander Gordon. I'm over Special Operations. Can I get your questions again, ma'am? Sure. What speed do we consider it to be reckless driving? Well, I mean, based off it's really the behavior more so than the speed because a lot of times when we see, observe this type of behavior, it's the drag racing that you can see and Sometimes we don't even get the opportunity to get the speed. So it's the necessarily, I mean, on these type of occasions, it's really the behavior of lining up and then taking off, which causes really a hazard for everyone else in the community. Okay. I have another question for you. Yes, ma'am. Are we about to use our flock cameras to start impaling people's cars? I don't see it going that direction. Then one thing that we'll do, we'll use our tools as far as investigation. Hopefully we'll get a lot of social media. A lot of this stuff will come in through social media anyway, where somebody will post an event, and then, which we find with a lot of these events anyway, is that people will post the event, and then that's pretty much where we see it, where we're able to pick that type of behavior up. So we don't intend to, but we could potentially be using the flock camera system to prosecute and impound people's cars. Sorry about that. It really depends on the area. So it may not be anything that can be picked up by the flock system. So it could be just regular traffic lights or traffic surveillance. I don't want to say surveillance, but traffic cameras that are in intersections that we may be able to pick up some type of behavior that we can use to see if these incidents are occurring. I have lots more questions, and I may have to ring back in. So my other question is, one of my other questions is, could we possibly be impounding folks' cars for DUI as well, or do we currently impound people's cars when they get caught drunk driving? DUI, we do if the car can't be placed in a safe location. If it's in the parking lot where we're able to conduct our investigation, then we just leave it in that parking lot. But if it's on the side of a road or a highway, then we do tow for the safety of the public for those occasions. But not because they were drunk driving, right? Well, the cause of it initially was the drunk driving, but it's just the location where the vehicle stopped. So I would say no, not because of the drunk driving, but it was caused by the drunk driving while the vehicle got towed in the first place. Do we have a lot of folks who shut down our Lexington streets and have Fast and the Furious races on them? No, we don't. At this time, it's not an issue. It's one of those things that we're seeing in other cities that's starting to become an issue. I know that New York City, they're averaging about 10 per day where these incidents are happening. also Louisville the reason why they presented their ordinance is because some of these incidents are occurring there so I think Lexington decided to get in front of it a little bit to have something in place just in case this does become an issue. Thank you Thank you Evan. Thank you Council Member Ellinger. Thank you don't go far too far Commander don't race off Presently, the state statutes prohibit street racing. Isn't there a state statute that says it? Yes. And there is a statute that reckless driving, too. So those are all criminal offenses, so are we looking at just the civil aspect of it at this point? So this would be a civil penalty on the owner while those criminal penalties are on the driver. That's part of the reason why they're on the owner for these civil penalties. And when I hear street racing, it makes me think that there's going to be two people involved in this. Is that required or not? Because I don't see that in here. Not necessarily. It could be against the clock. So it could just be one. I mean, they could do it like one at a time or something, I guess. I'm not sure. I'm not part of that. So we're going after where they're literally, if somebody's at a traffic light and they just take off and they spin their wheels, that would be considered street racing if they? even though there's not a clock or there's not so it's more than just street racing it's also vehicle exhibitions so it could potentially be considered a burnout if if it fits that definition of burnout which I won't necessarily read to but it's basically the if the vehicle steps kept stationary while the wheels are spun which might be a little bit different than a vehicle would also include a motorcycle under the state statute. That's part of the wheelie, I imagine. Well, when you said wheelie, I don't see too many cars that can. I see that on Fast and Furious. Vin Diesel could probably do it. We have a policy for police no pursuit policy. I guess this is where the commander, I'd like for him to address this. at this point, because I'm on this Facebook page called Lexington Car Culture, and there was a lot of comments on this particular issue. And one of them was, well, if that happens, I'm just going to take off and not let them catch me. And I'm not sure if that's what we want happening, because I think that creates a very dangerous situation at that point. What is our policy about pursuit at this point, and how will this law affect that? Yeah, I would say that for something like this, we wouldn't be pursuing anyway. So it wouldn't be something that we would initiate in anyway. A lot of times in cases when you want to pull somebody over, if you can get a plate number, then later on you can track that person down. And you can go ahead with the investigation from that point on. But as far as pursuing for this incident, you can pull over somebody. I've been in an instance where I pulled somebody over. We went to go pull over for speeding, and then next thing you know, they took off, and that was the end of it. So I was able to get a plate number later on, track them down, and then give a citation or continue the investigation any way that I need to. But this wouldn't be – I mean, if somebody decides to take off because we initiated a traffic stop, you know, unfortunately, that's not something that we control at that point in time. If, and I just go back to Evan, if somebody gets, if say we have, the police are doing a, on New Circle Road where they're pulling people over for speeding, does this fall into that at a certain point that they, because they're speeding all of a sudden now they're, they would be considered street racing if they're going over a certain amount of, that all of a sudden then they could lose their car at that point? It's based on whether or not they're racing against another vehicle, a clock, or a timing device, not necessarily if they're speeding. So there has to be another car? Or something that would indicate that they're racing. Like there's a race. Either it be another vehicle or a speed clock. So two cars come up to a stop sign or stoplight, and they look at each other, and then they both take off. Was that considered street racing then? It very well could be, yeah. And who, at that point, did the police have to then witness that, or is that as... There's the allowance for an investigation. That's part of the... So, for instance, in your example of the person just driving off, right, they can get... If they get the plate, they can also do an investigation, get sworn witness testimony. only they could pull video, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, to get evidence to show that there was a violation and then used to provide one of those notices of future impoundment that basically says, you know, here's your citation. Here's our evidence to show that you were violating this ordinance, and so we can potentially impound your vehicle if we see the vehicle on the road again. So what happens on the very first? Do you get the fine or do you get the warning? So it's not really a warning. Like, it's kind of a warning, but it basically is, you get, so you'll get the warning, so you'll get the citation along with the notice of future impoundment, which isn't necessarily a warning. It's more of a, we didn't impound it on the scene, but if you have the vehicle, if we see your vehicle on the roads in the next 12 months, we will impound it. So kind of like a bench warrant that it's out there, and then when they go to run your plate, then they could see that was on there? basically. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Council Member Lynch. Thank you, Chair, and thank you, Mr. Thompson, for the presentation. My only question is about the appeals part of this proposal. It's going to the Administrative Hearing Board, and I've read the ordinances, so it's definitely within their purview to hear these appeals, and I just want to make sure we're talking about the administrative hearing board that is housed under the division of code enforcement currently? Yes, they also do short-term rental appeals and code enforcement appeals. Okay. And so this might be for Council Member Baxter prior to today with the conversation I had with Commissioner Lanter, Director Steele about these additional duties added to the appeals hearing board. I did not. I did not. I mean, obviously we'll have time between now and report out to ensure that that conversation has had. Okay, great. But because it's a civil penalty, this is really our only option for an appeal to be heard. This is definitely within what the ordinance allows for the appeals hearing board, or the administrative hearing board, excuse me. But I just know in working with our, to better our city boards and commissions that this is one of the ones that needs extra support to make sure that it's sustainable. So I just wanted to make sure they all had the conversation with Commissioner Lanter and Director Steele about that. It was also one of the reasons for the delay in the effective date so that we would have ample time to not only train police, but also to make sure that all those things were in order. Okay. Awesome. And part of the reason, just so you have an understanding, is that board was created, presented to CARA 65, and basically we're trying to build in those protections under CARA 65 for these instances. So that's why this board was used as opposed to somebody like the Parking Citation Enforcement Board or something like that, which could theoretically also maybe potentially do it. But we're trying to build in those protections in CARA 65. No, it makes sense. It completely makes sense. And then the other two things I have, there's gendered language in the ordinance that I think should be changed. And that is in Section 18-195, letter I. And then I also found gendered language in 18-196C, as in car number three. And that's all I have, Chair. I try to do a good job with removing the gender so I apologize for that. I will make sure that that is important but non-material for the substance of the ordinance so we can make that change. No worries. Thank you. And thank you, Chair. Thank you. Council Member Morton. Thank you. So just a couple of quick questions. So how are we defining racing another vehicle. So it prohibits racing against another vehicle. What is that definition? So there's not a definition of racing in the ordinance. So it would go generally towards what the dictionary definition of what racing would be. And I don't have that on me right now, but I think largely... So no set speeds are highlighted in the ordinance. Yeah, that's true. Then it's almost at LPD's discretion then. Well, it's based on the evidence that they have been provided C, et cetera. But, yeah, based on the circumstances, I think that that's how they'd be able to tell whether or not they were erasing another person or a clock. I think largely it's meant to be those circumstances where they block off the road and stuff like that happens more than the instance of two people going off of a red light and looking at each other and speeding like that. But technically, it could be done either way. A police officer can see someone racing, and they could decide that that, per their definition, is drag racing, and they can meet these consequences. Or it seems that it doesn't have to be caught live action, that almost if there's someone that sends clips. I mean, I heard other investigative tools. Those can be used as consequences as well. Yeah. Okay. So promotion of vehicle speed contests or reckless driving exhibition, could that consider a Facebook post that somebody said that they wanted to do a race? And if those folks did not, if they just posted that, we could post anything on Facebook, but if they didn't go to take action on that, they still could be penalized, even if they didn't take action to race. If they are promoting the race, then it could potentially be a violation. And that doesn't kind of push up against First Amendment speech, at least when it comes to Facebook posts or just being able to post what you like on media? I don't think so. I think it would be essentially advocating for activity that's against the law. So I guess the offense is against the law, but if it's not acted upon... You mean there's no race? Right, correct. Okay. I imagine that's not something that LFG would be going after in those instances, ultimately because due to the resources that we do have, I don't want to speak for police, but I imagine that they would prioritize the actual races before the promoting non-existent races. But as it's written, technically, could that be the case where if a Facebook post is out there, it's brought to the attention, as it's written, they could reap those consequences, even if the race did not take place? Yes, potentially. Okay. Okay. I think it was mentioned using FLOC to investigate this scenario. Can I – Chief – yeah, can you – Commander, excuse me, sorry. Sorry. I heard somebody say, he's not a commander anymore. Don't keep him a promotion. There you go. No, I don't need that. Well-deserved, well-deserved. So you mentioned that, I guess, FLOC could investigate these possible drag racing concerns. I just know in conversations that we've been emphasized that Flock is just taking pictures of the back of cars, mainly to locate cars and things like that. So can you go a little bit deeper to share how Flock could specifically be used to investigate drag racing? Well, it's a license plate reader. So what we'll do is just if we find that particular picture of the license plate and it seems to be involved in that, that's what we're looking for is just a plate. So not live action? No, sir. Not at that point. No, sir. We're just looking for that plate, and if it's involved in that incident, then that's what we're using as a license plate reader. It's just a tool that's out there. Now, there's still an ongoing investigation that has to take place, so we can't just say, well, there it is, and move on there. We have to continue to conduct an investigation to complete this. I just want to clarify that it wasn't being used. The flock wasn't being used. No, no. They're watching people racing, and we can go catch them. No, no. We have a report. We have an image of a place that was possibly involved. But then the investigation, that's just the start of an investigation from that point on. Thank you. While you're here, are there any other policies related to vehicles or traffic enforcement policies that allows us to send fines or any other consequences kind of in this same lane afterwards? And I can give an example like no through trucks. I know a big concern always here in our neighborhoods that having three trucks come through is kind of hard to enforce because you need a police officer there sitting all day to kind of watch those trucks come through. Could this set a precedent where we could have footages of trucks coming through communities and if they get pictures of them, those businesses or whatever have to reap consequences? Well, I mean, they're not involved in a crime or anything. So it's one of those things. I mean, that's a citizen's thing. So we're not looking for that. So we would actually just have an officer sit in that area. Councilman, I'm going to ask you to sign back in. Yeah, we would have an officer sit in the area and just look for those type of violations. We wouldn't actually go, and that's not even something that I don't think that we've ever been involved in. So that's just a no-through neighborhoods just assigned us there. So we don't enforce no through trucks through neighborhoods, like semi-trucks in neighborhoods that are not allowed? We haven't been. I'll have to look that up for you to get that data if we ever cipher that, but I don't think that we have. Okay. Council Member, please sign back in for more comments. Thank you. All right. If we can stick to our time, that would be great. Council Member Curtis. Thank you, Chair, for recognizing me since I don't serve on this committee. Um, so first off, uh, I would like to say thank you to council member Baxter for her hard work on this. Uh, it's something that my constituents have reached out to me, uh, about extensively since I took office. And I also recognize that you are in a particularly thorny situation trying to find the right balance, uh, with this policy. Uh, I have a follow-up question and I think Evan, this is probably be for you, uh, on, uh, vice mayor Wu's line of questioning. earlier, and I just want to be explicit about this. When we're talking about the potential for footage from our traffic cameras being used as evidence, we're not talking about automated enforcement here, correct? Yeah, no, we're not. Okay. I just wanted to make sure that we were explicitly clear about that with the public. Automated enforcement is something that we get a lot of requests for, but it is prohibited by state law. Something else that I wanted to get just a little bit more clarity on is when we're talking about, you know, this idea of racing and timing. Feasibly, like, does there need to be an audience or a statement that this is what is happening or, you know, because how do we enforce this if somebody is just, say, timing themselves in their own vehicle. Would something like that be enforceable under this ordinance as written? If someone is timing themselves by themselves in their own vehicles, I'm not sure if we would be able to find enough evidence to show that there was a violation. Does that make sense? Basically speaking, unless the person just admits it randomly, and to some police officer or something, it would be difficult to enforce it in those circumstances. So I wouldn't think that that's probably a very likely situation to occur. I didn't think so, but again, I just wanted to get some clarity. I'm foreseeing the questions that I anticipate from constituents about this. And so with that, I have one more question for you, and this might also be something that Council Member Baxter could answer. A lot of the complaints around street racing and whatnot that I get at least are related to noise from it. So I was wondering if one or both of you could speak to how this deals with that or how it interacts or doesn't interact with our noise ordinance just to provide clarification for my neighbors who are concerned with that. I think for me, thank you for the question. I think, like right now, I turn those complaints over to police and I ask, you know, hey, can you do some targeted enforcement in this area based on the sound? And I think that this would be an opportunity for enforcement, but it isn't directly related to loud vehicles because we have done some targeted enforcement on that. And unfortunately, some loud vehicles come that way from the factory. so it's not directly correlated with loud vehicles but i think that we can use that in correlation with a targeted enforcement area and then utilize this ordinance to help enforce it that's my opinion on it anyway so anybody from police wants to say anything else good i think that answers my question and i appreciate that because i want my neighbors to know that it is a coordinated effort to deal with something that is, again, a very thorny legal area. So lastly, I'll just say that with a couple amendments, I think that this can be an even stronger piece of legislation. And I really appreciate the work that's gone into it. I echo council members Beasley and Lynch in talking about some of the language used to describe our residents. that I think that we could improve on that a little bit. But overall, I think that you all have done a great job, and I'm looking forward to seeing this outside of committee. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Savigny. Thank you, and thank you for recognizing me, even though I'm not on this committee. Thank you for your presentation, and I really wanted to thank Council Member Baxter for this is something that came out of the Street Safety Task Force, and I appreciate your following up and bringing it to this point. And it's even, to me, it's even better than I thought it would be. So I feel good about that. But I wanted to confirm one thing because we've been going back and forth on this automated enforcement because that was one thing that I was very interested in. So make no mistake, I'm interested in automated enforcement. I feel like we need an extension of our law enforcement to manage the things that are easily managed by automation. The thing that we ran into continually with that is that you're not allowed to do automated enforcement if there's a moving violation for the same thing. Most people always do them on a civil violation, and that's what this is. But if you have an equivalent, the law also states, KRS, that you cannot have an equivalent civil violation to a moving violation. And I know that you know that because you worked on this. So my guess is the language in here is very written specifically to create civil violations for something that there is actually not a moving violation for. Yes. Okay. That is definitely true. And I think that's great. And that's probably what Louisville did to kind of thread that needle. But I would not stop short to say that this could not be enforced with some sort of automated enforcement because it actually does not have a moving violation that's associated with it. It's a civil violation, and you can enforce civil violations with automated tools. Yeah, you know, that's true. I think I was thinking the question was whether or not that was the plan from the get-go. Yeah, it may not be. I just don't want to take it. I will not want to take it off the table. And I think to Councilmember Curtis, I get two or three of these a week of people complaining. There is a circuit that people do in District 10 that they love. And the noise piece, I think, is a fairly easy one to add to this because we already have a noise ordinance. And I know that there's noise ordinance cameras as well. so I would just I don't know that we need to add this to that but I do think it relates and I don't want to money this but it does relate and I hope we can get some I'm wondering if if an e-motorcycle has a 14 year old that's doing a wheelie that's unlicensed on a public street how do we manage that particular situation because that's what I have the most of right now in my neighborhood. If it's classified as a motorcycle, they have to have a driver's license so they can get cited for that. Okay. So it's only a true motorcycle. Well, if you look at the definitions of all the different types of vehicles in state law, it's very confusing. They call everything everything under the sun. So it's always a good idea to be able to figure out what exactly the vehicles are that you're talking about. If it's just a motorcycle, then the laws regarding licensing and registration of motorcycles pertain. But I don't know what vehicles you're talking about. I don't want to speculate too much. But I think there's probably a plethora of this ordinance plus multiple other state and local laws that could be potentially cited for those instances. I just want to see if we can get to that problem as well, if there's a way to ring it in here. Because an e-motorcycle is just a motorcycle, just like I have an EV, it's a car. And I just think a kid doing wheelies down the middle of a street in a neighborhood that's a fairly busy street, probably something should happen. So thank you very much. Thanks again for bringing this to us. Thank you. Council Member Shan. Thank you, Chair, for recognizing me because I'm not on the committee. And so I won't be voting on this today. I look forward to language coming forward to Council. I want to thank Council Member Baxter for working on this as the sponsor. And, like others, I'm really happy to see one of the recommendations from the Street Safety Task Force moving forward in this way, because we set out those recommendations to see action, and now several times we have seen those actions come forward. So, I appreciate this council for working on all of this together. I, for my district, I do see a lot of the same things that you guys are talking about with, you know, the wheelies, the speeding, the noise. And I think with particularly the noise and the speeding, like I hear about on Richmond Road and New Circle, that those do correlate. And so if we're doing things to address the speeding and the reckless driving, that we'll also see noise reductions because it will be less likely that people will be speeding in those areas. And I think this is one tool in the toolbox that we use to address the community safety concerns around our transportation network. So enforcement like this might be one piece of this, but we've also been working on physical and structural changes to our roads that also implement traffic calming. So I think this is one piece of the puzzle. So I am supportive of the intent overall. I'm interested to see about any amended language that comes forward based on some of the concerns that have been raised today. And I guess I'll see that if it comes out of committee today and comes to the full council. But thank you, everyone, for the committee discussion today and for taking these community concerns very seriously. Thank you. Council Member Beasley. Thank you, Chair. Hi, Evan. Hi, Council Member. Okay, so if we impound their car and they win their appeal, who pays the impound fee and the storage fees? That would largely be on LFUCG. Okay. So, and I might have read this wrong, so feel free to correct me. But if the car is supposed to be impounded, but I pay the extra $1,000, then they won't take it? So that extra, let's see, that extra $1,000 I think that you're referencing is for the, why do I have all these pieces of paper in front of me? Let me find that real quick for you. I think that is the, let me find that just a second. second. So I think, yes, so that's for the if you get the notice of future impoundment, if you pay the citation plus an extra $1,000, yes, it would not be impounded. That's correct. So then the citation for the first offense is like $3,200 and change, is that right? $3,250, yep. Yes. I guess that's, to me, that's a lot of money. So I just worry about like how equitable that is across our community that I can pay $1,000 and not get my car taken or if I can't pay the $1,000 we're going to impound my car for 30 or 60 days. So I just want us to think about that. Also you said that we don't have to have an officer witness it and it doesn't have to. So if Council Member Civigni is mad at me he can say that I was racing and then what? Like then I'm still going to be fined and impounded? I think it would be based on On the totality of the investigation, I don't think necessarily it's, I wouldn't think that it would necessarily be any one specific, you know, just be potentially based on just one specific piece of evidence. You know, these would theoretically be sworn statements and also, you know, communications found in police reports and stuff like that, which would be filed. So I think it would largely be a part of the entire investigation. I don't think that they would necessarily stop it, just someone said that they did. Okay. Because the standard is higher than that. Especially if it was you. And then if no officer sees the drag racing happening, where are we going to get the license plate number that we're looking from for the flat camera? So Council Member Civigni would say this license plate was speeding, and then what? Then we're going to watch the flat cameras, right? We're going to roll back the video. I think there's also the cameras at lights and those other things too that might potentially have the ability to see what the license plate is as well. But I think it's case specific obviously. I can't tell you all of the parts that go into an investigation by the Division of Police because I'm not generally involved in those investigations. But I think that they generally do a good job of making sure that there is actually a violation before they start doing actions against them. All right, I have one more question and then I'm going to leave you alone. And you may not be able to answer this. You might have to call for backup. How many accidents are because of drag racing and reckless driving versus folks on their phones are drunk drivers? Do you know? Do we have a number? I do not have that information. No. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Vice Mayor Wu. Thank you, Chair. As a former member of the Street Safety Task Force, I'm also really excited to see our year's worth of work becoming implementation items now. So I'm pretty excited about that. I have a couple follow-up questions based on Councilmember Beasley's questions and comments. Earlier on, she talked about the scenario of her kid taking her car and violating some of our laws, and this is why I don't lend my car to my children. But in that sort of incidence, what happens? Because these penalties are put upon the owner of the car, right? How do you go about it if you find out that it was a stolen car? A stolen car is actually a defense in the appeal. So you then would appeal it and say the car was stolen, here's the police report showing it was stolen, and that's one of the reasons specifically mentioned in the ordinance for the ability to actually win one of those appeals. Okay, great. Thank you for that. And then I also wanted to untangle the idea of what I see right now as two standalone penalties, right? One is the monetary penalty, the fine, and then one is the impoundment of the car. And I wanted to get some clarity following up Council Member Beasley's question. It sounds as though what you've answered is essentially that if you pay a certain portion or the full portion of the fine, then your car is not impounded. So they're tied together or they're entirely two separate penalties? please. So, like I mentioned, the ordinance provides that basically one of the ways besides immediate impoundment is that we send you a notification of future impoundment which allows the person to pay the extra, the fine plus the $1,000. So that way it won't be impounded. So in that way it is intertwined with each other. I included the May language to try to give as much. Okay. So if that's the case, then there's no circumstance in which one's car would be impounded and they're also paying the full fine. Is that correct? Yes. Can you repeat that? So, okay. You have to do both. You have to, sorry, could you repeat the question? Sure, if I violate section 18192, first violation is 2250, and then the impoundment is 30 days, right? Will both of those things happen to me at the same time, or is it kind of one or the other? So under this ordinance, if it was immediately impounded, they were both happening at the same time. Okay, but then there's the option. There's the notice, which is a citation and possible impoundment if it's found again on the streets. And this is the discretion of the arresting officer or the citing officer? Yes. And, of course, that's how it's drafted right now. I drafted this in May to provide flexibility, but obviously it can be changed to a shell. I think that would be fine as well if you wanted to do that. Okay, gotcha. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. Council Member Morton. Thank you. I'll just follow up on my last question, and I think Commissioner Armstrong can help provide some clarity. So the question was tied to, are there any other policies related to vehicles that allow us to send fines after offense occur due to cameras footage or due to evidence being provided? And the example I gave was the no through traffic sign, which is an adopted ordinance at this city. And I'll just let you kind of provide clarity. Yes, as it applies to ordinances like this, there are administrative ordinances that exist that officers or anyone in government can actually not directly observe. But whenever it comes to traffic violations like you and I discussed, the officer has to observe it and he or she can cite for it. With that being said, if a citizen is able to properly document that information, they can always go to the county attorney's office and file a complaint as well. Right. Does that answer your question? That does. I appreciate that. Thank you. And I think that's kind of the lens I was looking at it from. We do have existing policies in place that are adopted, and we have constituents that have concerns. And if there's ways that we're going to set a precedent in doing it like this, then we should also look at other policies and provide that. But neither there nor there. I do have some more questions related to the impoundment. Was there any consideration given to making the impoundment a consequence after a second or third offense rather than on the first offense? I think largely from the beginning, the discussion was largely mirroring Louisville's ordinance, which is the impoundment on the first defense. Okay. And are there any other situations where the city impounds someone's vehicle or property for this length of time? There might be impounding for where the vehicle was used in criminal violations or crimes and stuff like that. But as it pertains to civilly, the cars can get impounded for parking violations, although that largely follows that same 45 days maximum before it goes to us. I appreciate that. So, you know, first, I think I just want to share the lands that I'm looking through. I 100% support the policy and its intent coming out of the street task force. And I understand the need for enforcement accountability, but I do think the 30-day vehicle empowerment is a stretch, particularly on the first offense. I believe there's other avenues of enforcement, whether that's increasing the fines, depending on the severity of the violation. And even, well, it seems like a civil, so it's not a possible jail time. But I was hoping that some of this would be like you have to be caught live action so that there would be consequences for those drivers. But taking someone's vehicle for 30 days can also have consequences beyond the violation itself. It can impact their ability to get to work, provide for their family, and meet their everyday responsibilities. In an economy where many families are already struggling, I think we should consider whether the punishment creates additional hardships that go beyond what we're trying to address. So I don't know if we're looking to vote this out of committee today or what the plans are, but I think that at the least that empowerment piece should be looked at. From more than just the angle of drag racing, but from the angle of people and what they're dealing with in their daily lives, other than just that one action or bad action they may have occurred at that time. So thank you. Thank you. I just have a few questions myself. Thank you so much for the presentation and your work on this. I think that over the years we've heard a lot of complaints about drag racing in Lexington. I've witnessed it myself multiple times and have called police. And I think that any more tools that we can have in our toolbox to deal with drag racing is important. And I think we need to address it. And I think that penalties need to be harsh because otherwise people continue to do it. And they're not right now as harsh as they could be. So I am in agreement with this ordinance. Mr. Thompson, I had a question. I know you mentioned this would cover motorcycles, but now we have e-scooters, we have little other sitting scooters, and we have e-bikes. Would those be covered under another ordinance? So this ordinance includes all vehicles and the definition of vehicle, but that doesn't sound. all modes of transportation and the definition of vehicle. So we have to explore whether or not that includes those other types of modes of transportation. So if it has a registered license plate, it would be included, but if it doesn't, like an e-bike or the little rentable scooters that we have, then it would not? Not necessarily. Like I said, I'd have to go back to the definition of vehicle to see how far that goes. I can't remember at the moment. But part of the, like I was mentioning to Council Member Civigni, a lot of the difficulty when we were talking about all these different new modes of transportation is which definition they fit into for the purposes of state law. So I think it would largely depend on what the mode of transportation is that we're talking about. Okay. I don't know if police can help with that, or I think it would be important to have a definition that's clear to everybody of what is included and not included, you know, because we have, now we have, you know, I saw an e-bike popping a wheelie at a main intersection the other day, you know, is, could they get their, you know, e-bike impounded, et cetera? Yeah, there is currently a definition of vehicle in Chapter 18 of the code. Okay. Yeah, but I can get back with you. I think Council Member Baxter might have it. I do have it. I do have it. I do have it. I do have it. I do have it. I do have it. I do have it. A motor vehicle, according to KRS, is all vehicles. It's just vehicle, not motor vehicle. It's not motor vehicle. Yeah. Hold on. Next one. All agencies for transportation of persons or property over roadways, except electric low-speed scooters, tractors, that kind of stuff, propelled by electric power. Oh, that's excluded. Every device by which any person or property may be transported except Well, that doesn't give me much. There may be other ordinances in the pipeline that address what a vehicle is. I think we need to define that just so it's completely clear who we're covering in this particular ordinance. But that was my main point. So just so you know, the definition in 18.1 of the definition of vehicle is every device in upon or by which any person or property is or may be transported or drawn upon a highway, including boats, personal watercraft and trailers or similar devices used to transport said property except devices moved by human power or exclusively upon stationary rails or tracks. So it sounds like it would largely, those instances that you would be including, that you mentioned would be included in that as well. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Vice Chair, did you have something that you wanted? Yes, I just have some closing remarks. I appreciate everyone's questions today. It sounds like we maybe have a few things that we still need to work out, so I'm happy to leave it in committee if that is the will of the committee. We will bring back a few of those changes, the vehicle definition. But I will say that while this does seem really intense, we did that on purpose. Safety of our community is very important to me. I think it was something that was really evident in the street safety task force is that we wanted to do things that meant something. And, you know, we modeled this after Louisville's ordinance. They impound for six months. Like that, to me, was a hardship on a family or whoever owned that vehicle. I think the main reason why we chose the 30 days was because it had enough teeth to actually mean something to the individual that was the offender, but it wasn't something that was overly burdensome. Now, I know that that is a different definition for everybody. So if there is a proposal, especially Council Member Morton, if there's something that you would like to work together on to make some changes, I'm happy to do that. But I can't stress enough that the reason that it is as harsh as it is is because we're serious about the safety of our community. So if any of our colleagues want to work together to make some changes, happy to do that, and then we'll bring it back as soon as we've got those updates, unless somebody wants to move it forward right now. Thank you. Thank you very much. Okay, I don't see any other comments, so we will move on. Thank you, Mr. Thompson. And next, we have a presentation on the Villages model by a caring place. And Councilmember Lynch is the sponsor for this item, so I will ask her to make any opening remarks. And we have Ms. Cheney here as the presenter. Glad to have you here. And we are going to try to quickly fit in three presentations in an hour, so we'll see how we do. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Colleagues, I'm excited to present this update to the committee regarding the creation and growth of villages in Lexington. This is an initiative that has had and continues to have Council's full support, not only in word and deed, but financially as well. Thank you for your support. Because of your support, seniors and individuals with disabilities in our community are beginning to find additional support as they choose to age and remain, age in place and to remain at home and thrive. I would also like to add that our Lexington Villages model and movement has now received national acclaim. So our steering committee and leadership team will be presenting at the National Village to Village Conference in September, presenting on how they've cultivated the movement here in Lexington. We have received kudos from the national president of the Village to Village organization. Our feasibility study is going to be archived with the organization as a best practice for future villages that are established around the country. So kudos to our team in the steering committee. And also we've received a nice donation because of that work, so on the national level. So our team has been working extremely hard and are dedicated to this work. And I'd like to give some special thanks to my CAO, LaShawn Barber, who has helped me along the way. Council member Liz Sheehan and her aide Sylvia Cassidy, Commissioner KCL and Bryant, Christy Stamball, the Senior Services Commission, Reimagining Home, Caring Place Board of Directors, BUILD, the Villages Steering Committee, research partners from the University of Kentucky, all the Lexington neighbors who have already formed villages and are activated, and of course our fearless and comparable leader, the Roxanne Cheney, who's going to give the presentation. Well, thank you. Thank you very much. My name is Roxanne Cheney, for those of you who do not know me, and I am the founder and the chairperson currently of a Caring Place. And so I was going to mention again our coalition and thank our coalition for being present, but I think that Councilmember Shayla gave a better rendition of all of that than I could ever hope for, so thank you. What we're doing here today, our purpose here today, is to thank all of you. You gave us a lot of money, and we sure appreciate it, and today we're going to show you the results of that money that you gave to us. I think that you all received a package of our entire feasibility study, so I'm not going to belabor every single page in it, but I'm going to hit the highlights that our task force that's working on village development felt that it was important to talk to you today. So who we are. Our mission remains the same. The only thing that may be a little bit different is that we're highlighting mitigating burdensomeness and advance personal health literacy amongst the elderly, caretakers, and disabled. Thank you, Dr. Oldham from the University of Kentucky for introducing us to that concept of burdensomeness. That extends throughout everything that we have been doing, as you will see as we report on the feasibility. So stewardship of council funding, so this is what we did with your money. 90,000 of that went to the University of Kentucky Research. We had three colleges, three different colleges working with us. We also had one of those people who helped us to write up a recent grant in the ESR thing, so it was money well worth spent. In the Caring Place operations, it was $60,000. And that went for, we had food at each of our engagements, we had to rent a lot of the places that we were in, we had a lot of marketing, etc., and all of that cost money, of course. So that was $60,000. What you see over there with the 2025 council investment of $50,000, it shows you maybe where we spent that. Well, we didn't spend it. We didn't get the one grant that was going to follow up after this, so all that money that we did spend came from us, not you, so we still have that $50,000, and I'll show you a little bit later on how we intend to use that and how we're going to use it. So one of the findings that came out of this was when we looked at what other villages were out there and what they were doing. It was called the Hub and Spoke Business Model. And what that is, is you keep the nonprofit centralized with most of its functions, and you decentralize the socialization connection functions. And what we hope to do, and this is a map of all your voting districts. Probably you don't recognize it the way we drew it, but yes, that's what it is, and it shows all 12 voting districts. We would hope to have a neighborhood in each of those voting districts. So we have started already with the 10th district. You can change the slide. We're going to hit back on this, though, in a little bit. So what did we exactly do? Well, we had about maybe actually 25 events. 20 events is what the researchers were with us on. Five more events after that to catch the people that had not been involved initially. So 25 events in all. 400 respondents, at least two campaign events in each council district, and this includes HOAs, subsidized homes, and the regular people that came out dependent upon their advertisements that they saw. We did put in 1,000 voluntary hours through this. So this is 1,000 hours of volunteer for just a summer. That's immense. Anybody that's ever been a volunteer or worked for a nonprofit, you know that that 1,000 hours is gold. You can turn the page. So just some simple facts that our researchers from University of Kentucky started with that I think probably all of you are well aware of. The one is that by 2030, we will have one in four people over the age of 65 living in Lexington. The other important thing to notice is Kentucky ranks 48th in older adult well-being. That's terrible. Reality is of older adults and adults with disabilities in Lexington, You see that 70.7% did not work in the last year, 10.5% are living alone, that number will probably go up with the increase in our aging in our community, and 12.5% adults with disabilities. So what did our residents tell us in this feasibility study? Well, what we learned was the average age of the people taking this was 72 years old, that they've lived in the same home in Lexington for over 22 years. 88% want to age in place, over half express moderate concern about ability to do so safely, 36% live alone right now, which is a lot higher than that previous slide you just saw, where it was about 10.5%. So that shows an increasing risk of social isolation and unmet needs. 93% report satisfaction with the current living situation, but many worry about the future. You see a short testimonial here of someone that came to one of our events last summer, that it's just worrying about the near future, I guess is what bothers me more than anything. And keeping yourself enough to where you can live by yourself, I mean, that is right now in my life. That is my biggest concern, is to keep my mind and my body strong enough to be able to live by myself. I thought that this demographic was really important because what it's showing with the people that answered the question to, what is your biggest concern right now? They answered, as you might have anticipated, transportation, affordable housing. But then what's interesting, look at where social isolation and loneliness are. And those two, if you really, there's about 93% correlation. So when you say social isolation, it means loneliness. So if you combine those two, social isolation and loneliness, that's a pretty big percentage of people living here that feels that is their need right now. That's their concern right now. And what you can see if you read your package, and I don't know if you have or not, but for those of you who have not, you can see one of the biggest things that they want right now is some sort of that social connectivity right now. Again, not to mitigate transportation or affordable housing. Okay. So if you could, yes. So Hubbin spoke to talk just a little bit more about that. and that was done through Dr. Carolyn Oldham's analysis. We have about 400 villages in the United States, but there's only about eight around there, hub-and-spoke villages. The rest, who say they're hub-and-spoke, interestingly enough, are not. So what they have is not one hub and many neighborhoods, but many hubs surrounding each other, so not really a hub-and-spoke. But there was eight that were definitely hub and spoke, and three other villages. Their emphasis was on service and socialization. Socialization, interestingly enough, never became one of the pushes in this until COVID, when all of us realized socialization is huge. We need to socialize as human beings. All of them had one to two paid staff. Otherwise, they were all volunteer. Right now, we are all volunteer. They used a computer software to support the functions, and they recommended Helpful Village. Since this came out, we have purchased Helpful Village. Next slide. In looking at this again, these are all, and we're looking at the eight villages that Dr. Oldham looked at, and these are the type of activities that they already held. And you can see when we get to it later and we report on our first neighborhood that they're using a whole lot of this. And I think actually they're more impressive than what you see here as offered by other villages. And next slide. Partnerships are vital. We have, as a caring place, partnered with our elder care community, I think very well. We have, and you may not know this, but you will now, a very strong elder care community here. We are so fortunate to have that a lot of cities don't. But it's showing the other things that in villages and as we develop it more that we need to really partner more with. And there's a whole list of them. Some of them we've already talked about and we are partnering with them. Our churches have been wonderful in Lexington. Beaumont Presbyterian Church, that's our presenting sponsor. St. Elizabeth Ann Seton, which is an up-and-coming kind of village. Soon, just too many to mention. So, next page. So what we learned in looking at other villages, their fees or donations, they don't call them fees, it's all donations, generally run from zero to $600 per year. There's one out in California that charged around $1,200, but it is California, so that needs to be considered. Through this, we're thinking that probably our average donation would be around $300. We would not turn away anyone just because they could not pay. We don't now. We have about 80 participants or members right now, and none of them pay anything. So we're here to help age in place and to have a meaningful life and not to get the money. Next page. Okay, metrics used by other villages. I know that you all know this. You don't start anything without some way of evaluating it. And this shows you all the different ways that when they looked at all the villages out there, or the aid hub and spoke, that's what they're using right now to determine quality of life. So why a caring place? Well, we've been in existence since 2017, incorporated since 2019. We're a recognized village model, thanks to Reimagining Home. Before that, we were just a charitable nonprofit with an elder care mission. But since joining Reimagining Home, we know we are a village. A trusted community partner, especially in the elder care community. And we're ready to grow. The vision is no longer an idea, it's a reality. Already underway is Beaumont Gardens, and their name they really decided on is Beaumont Green Gardens. So that's their official name. And they have been active ever since January. District 8 and the captain of that is going to be Mary R. Twain and that's with St. Elizabeth Ann Seton and we're looking at other churches HOAs around there to help solidify that kind of neighborhood. And we appreciate Councilmember Beasley for her excellent suggestions. Right after you gave me the suggestions I took a vacation so I haven't had a chance to really call any of them, but I'm on it. It's on my to-do list. And St. Martin's Village, which will be in District 2. Wonderful Vice President of that HOA, Tina Warren, many of you might know her. Very excited about getting into this and being one of our neighborhoods. So that's three neighborhoods. Next slide, please. So our units of service and what we're A lot of the things we're doing are what we've always done, so we're going to retain those, and that's the phone buddy system and the social chit-chat groups. We found those things just immensely effective in dealing with your lonelier people in this city. We are adding a health literacy workshop, and that's going to include fall prevention and exercise. We are having Dr. Abigail Latimer head up that particular task force to look particularly at this. And then our neighborhood engagement activities, and that includes minor home repairs. And this is where our neighborhoods have really come in. I am just so impressed with Beaumont Green Garden. Every month they have an activity now, a socialization group. They are working on their walking group that's coming up shortly. They have really focused on the health literacy and working with the Fayette Public Health Department in getting a lot of the kind of things that we all need to know if we really want to live a little bit better life. So thank you for that. Go back to that slide. I have one more thing to say. Community Bulletin Board. This is through Helpful Villages. And Helpful Villages, I mean, it does so many things. It's very complicated and sophisticated, actually. But one of the things that it does is, oops, am I done? I think I'm done. Can you finish in two minutes? I'll finish. Okay, as quickly as you can. And we'll let you have two more minutes. That would be great. Going on to the next thing. This is from, so what makes us different? Well, you can see up there the warm handoffs. We make the first connection for members. We're embedded in the community. Our neighborhoods are embedded in the community. And if you're going to really recognize social, isolated people, that's the way to do it. Because otherwise, these people are invisible. They're probably living in your neighborhood. They're probably living next door to you. But you don't know. They truly are invisible. Volunteers helping neighbors age safely at home is one of our most critical kind of functions. Compassionate connections were not just services. So what we needed, now we did not get the ESR grant, so we do need a full time person to look at all of the neighborhoods, because look at all the things they need to do, right? But we don't have that right now, so what we're going to do is we're going to remain with our three neighborhoods that we have up and growing. We're stopping it until we get more money, more financial help, and we're really into fundraising, so we have great hope that we can do that. And then at that point when we can hire somebody, then we will hire them to do this type of job to manage the city. page, and the cost for that person was going to be $65,000 a year, which averaged $5,500 per district. Not too much, not too unbearable. We'll continue to do the fundraising that we've always done ever since our inception. Next, cost of doing nothing, just one really important detail in all this, because I think all of you realize, but what we found out is higher risk of suicide if you do nothing. Currently, highest risk is amongst men over 75 years old in Kentucky commit suicide. And what's really interesting, committing suicide, the attempts for suicide, of course, outweigh the actual people that do it. The average is 1 in 200. With these older people, it's 1 in 3. So when they want to off themselves, more than likely, that's exactly what's going to happen. Thank you so much. Thank you. Is that okay? Can we finish there? Thank you. Thank you all. Thank you for the robust presentation, as always. We appreciate it, and I always love your passion for this subject. Colleagues, if you have anything, if you could please sign in to speak. Council Member Sheehan. Thank you, Chair, for recognizing me because I'm not on this committee. I do want to just acknowledge, as Roxanne said, that in the packet you have today, there is an extensive report on all of the data they collected and the feedback they got during the feasibility report. So please give that some attention and let us know if you have any questions about the data or how you can get involved because I do think this is one of those types of programs that we can offer in our community that really has a transformational effect for our seniors, and so I would like to see it continue. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. I don't see anyone else signed up to speak. I wanted to say that I am thrilled with this, and I have seen so many of my constituents get excited about the work that you all are doing, and I think it gives people a place to feel like they belong, which is really important as you age. So I just want to echo our appreciation for the work that you're doing and using the money that we gave for a good purpose and a much needed, as you showed, gap that we have in our city. So thank you. And Council Member Lynch, I don't know if there's anything else you want to say. We don't have any actions on this item correct today. So thank you so much for coming. Thank you all. And thank you all for your continual support. It's appreciated. And for everyone that's here for this item, I see a lot of faces that are supporting this, so thank you. Our next item is an update on equitable enforcement, which is part of the comprehensive review of code enforcement sponsored by Councilmember Lynch. And so I will turn this over to you for an update and to introduce the presenter. Thank you, Chair. Today I'm coming to you colleagues with the last installment of my review of the Division of Code Enforcement that began in 2023. I have truly enjoyed this journey. I learned and saw with my own eyes the passion and diligence of our staff and the care in which they execute their jobs. I'm excited to present the data regarding equitable enforcement as it was a common refrain from our neighbors from around the city during the town hall meetings that we had in 2023 and 2024. I'm providing this presentation today from the reference of a launching point. As I know that some of you are also working with community partners and the Division of Code Enforcement on some related important initiatives. So I hope today's report helps you in that work. I'd like to give a special thank you to the following people. My CAO, LaShawn Barber, who's given the presentation today. Commissioner Lanter. Code Enforcement Director Lee Steele. Kendra Thompson, Council Research Analyst. former code enforcement supervisor Michael Hauserman, code enforcement administrative officer Koyuki King, and the entire code enforcement family, and all of the Lexington neighbors. Thank you so much. Let it calm down a little bit before we get started. Good afternoon, council members and committee members. I wanted to start by thanking Council Member Lynch for the opportunity to share this information. We're going to move through this fairly quickly, hopefully. Let's get started. So let's start with the first slide. We wanted to just revisit why we're here to do this update today. There was, in October of 2020, recommendations from the Mayor's Racial Justice and Equality Report, recommendation from the Housing and Gentrification Subcommittee, just about reimagining the code enforcement, the code agency for the city, to ensure that health, well-being, and the protection of residents is a part of its mission. And I think that from previous reports we'll talk about we've seen some significant changes in code enforcement over the last few years. This slide here, the code enforcement comprehensive review, we held town halls over four months from November of 2023 through January of 2024. at six distinct locations around Lexington, Fayette County. They're listed there, but they covered District 1, District 10, District 6, District 2, and District 5. So we got an opportunity to see a lot of the city and meet hundreds of people that attended. And we were thankful for the code enforcement staff for attending those with us. The feedback that we received largely centered around fairness and equity in enforcement. Of course, people had individual issues and very specific issues, but some of the examples of the feedback we got were, are certain districts targeted for complaints and citations? Are officers assigned to certain territories and districts? And could we work toward consistency with these assignments to build rapport and trust with residents? And do we have sufficient officers for the size of our city? All of those questions we've kind of addressed throughout the various iterations of this comprehensive review, but today we will address a couple of those specifically with data. To date, this is just a timeline. You've seen this before with a new addition. In June of 2023, this item was referred to committee, and then we did the town halls for those four months. Then we spent about close to a year researching and working with staff. That included some write-alongs, some detailed reviews of our code, and visiting appeals boards, administrative hearing boards, and that kind of thing to learn what was actually happening. And February 25th of 25, there was a presentation by former Councilwoman Gray and Director Lee Steele where there were some clarifications added to the code about tenants' rights for reporting code violations, and graffiti was added to the list of nuisances. And then there was also a review by Director Steele of their 2024 annual achievements. That was because there was a transition in leadership, so they wanted to provide some updates on what had been happening. August 26th of 25, there was a second presentation by Council Member Lynch where she specifically addressed some other specific topics. We had two with no recommendations. That was a condemnation process and naturalized spaces. But we did have some administrative and procedural recommendations on the review of the administrative hearing board, which will, that's intersecting actually with the work we're doing on the boards and commissions subcommittee. So we'll be, you'll be hearing about that in another committee at some point soon, later in the year. So to get into the meat of the equitable part of the enforcement, this is the last piece of the comprehensive review. We looked at detailed data to identify patterns, outliers, etc. And we looked at total complaints filed with the city from June 2020 through September of 2025. We looked at anonymous and non-anonymous complaints. And we looked at the distribution among zip codes, districts, and the types of complaints. So five years of data, we saw over 60,000 complaints on record. D1, of course, had the higher volume of complaints, followed by D11 and D6. The numbers are listed there, and D5 was a close fourth. All the other districts made up 54%, so four districts essentially made up almost half of all the complaints in the city. The pie chart there just kind of shows you, when you get to the question about whether there are some targeted complaints happening, If you can see, all of the pie slices are very close in size, except for a couple of outliers. District 12 is sitting at only 4% of the city's complaints. District 1 is at 17%, so the high to the low. Okay, so in this chart, we wanted to provide you with, by district, the total number of complaints for the city and the total number of citations. Because to the problem of do neighborhoods feel targeted for enforcement and fines, we wanted to see if there was a difference in the complaints received from the city and the citations that are actually issued, because that is where the enforcement comes in, that is where equitable issues can become a little bit dicey. So to take a closer look, we reviewed the total complaints by council district, the total citations by council district, and the citation types by council district. That's all laid there on the chart for you to see. So of the 60,000 complaints, there were only 12,000-ish citations issued over that five-year period. And we'll talk about our conclusions on the next page, but that meets a pretty good benchmark for the nation. when it comes to closure of complaints. Of those citations, the mix of citations is 35% of housing, which are structural issues, 37% were nuisance, which are grounds such as grass, weeds, trash, furniture, junk, those kinds of things, and 28% were for sidewalks. So when we begin to talk about conclusions based on just a quantitative look at the data, what we found is that roughly four out of five enforcement cases citywide were resolved without a citation, and that's considered with the industry like voluntary compliance rate, and the average around the country is between 70 and 90. So we sit really nicely in that band. which tells us that code enforcement is relying heavily on education and warnings first, which is minimizing the citations that are issued. What we also see is that the caseload is kind of concentrated. As you can guess by the complaints that we saw, 38% of all complaints are from three districts, districts 1, 11, and 6, and then 42% of all citations are from the same three districts. So we're not seeing a significantly higher rate of citations in one district over the other, which is important for the public to know so they don't feel targeted in their specific district. And the chart, we provided that to really kind of show how smooth the correlation is between the number of complaints and the citation rate. And so other conclusions that we came to, just looking at the data and talking with our friends that helped us, the differences in citation rates, we kind of probably need to take a closer look at those. Even though the average citation rate is 20% across the city, The actual citation rate, the conversion of complaints to citations, is about 16 to 25 percent across the districts, and it varies. The top district is District 11, and then District 1, and surprisingly, District 12. And that is for a specific reason that has a lot to do with their mix of citations on the other page. We have eight districts at or above the city average. And examples of those, because there can be a lot of reasons why complaints are converting to citations. And based on our conversations and what they could tell us on their expertise is that the age of the housing stock, off-campus housing, concentration of investment property and or absentee landlords. And then I wanted to add also probably a little bit in some of the districts, the commercial versus residential mix that is included as well. So now the meet is the recommendations based on some conversations between Council Member Lynch and Commissioner Lanter and Director Steele. Here are four simple recommendations we are bringing. We've highlighted with them and they're actively already working on. The first recommendation is to increase a proactive and preventative measure in high-volume districts and or hubs of specific neighborhoods. In District 11 specifically, code enforcement has taken an active interest at the suggestion, I think, of a council member for that district, taken an active involvement in going door-to-door and doing outreach specifically at homes. And so that probably is contributing to the number of complaints being so much higher, but it actually is yielding some pretty good rapport, education, and engagement among the neighbors. And we believe that if they continue to do that across other high volume or hubs of specific neighborhoods, they could leverage neighborhood associations and public reminders like seasonal flyers, seasonal notices, and that kind of thing to inform areas of issues. The challenge to that recommendation is that it would require additional staff for that kind of outreach, that kind of dedicated staff assignment to a specific area. The second recommendation is to adopt thresholds to ensure similar violations receive similar outcomes regardless of district and document exception criteria for outliers. Basically, that is about making sure that citations across districts in their severity, not necessarily in the type that they are, but in the severity of the type, that they're the same. That there aren't any subjective things going on. And if there are, that somebody can point to why that is. So establishing some clear thresholds. The challenge to that is also to have staff that can look at that much more closely instead of just continuing to close a case and move on. The third recommendation is to consider reviewing the fine structure to determine if we adjusted those fines, will that prevent citations and or prompt more timely compliance. So that means to basically look at some escalation tiers that might change the game for repeat offenders. And we heard neighbors ask about investment properties, specifically in absentee landlords, and then also consider urban versus rural properties. The challenge to that is that Lexington Fay County already has the highest fines in Kentucky for a code enforcement agency. And so the last recommendation that we have is the one that I know that this code enforcement is actively working on now, is to really dig into some more data to begin to develop metrics that help to develop a more qualitative analysis for what is happening in code enforcement. These are known as key performance indicators. You can track outcomes to document the quality of enforcement, like time to compliance, repeat case rate, and post-citation resolution time. So once the citation is issued, how quickly does it take for that citation to be closed? Configure per capita measurements to discern workload impacts from density effects. We know that some districts are a little bit more dense than others, and how does that impact the workload of the code enforcement officers? How quickly are they able to get there? and that kind of thing. Data can answer some of those questions for us. And then to really begin to look at year-to-year comparisons to really kind of determine how reliable things that are called, no citation, they're just closed and nothing was happening, just to kind of determine what is causing that. Is there reliable year-to-year comparisons? The challenge to that, also you would need additional staff because data, of course, requires a little bit more dedication than all the work that they're doing in the field. And so those are the recommendations that we have. This is the final piece of this comprehensive code enforcement review, and that concludes my presentation. Thank you very much. I appreciate it. And colleagues, if you have any questions, please sign in now. Council Member Morton. Thank you. Just the first question. I guess just looking at the number of complaints and citations we're seeing, is there a need to expand programs and resources that help residents address these issues before they become a violation? And I guess Director Steele or Commissioner Lanter can answer that. And I know we have a lot of different programs that are great programs in code enforcement, whether it be housing rehabilitation, those different things. Just looking at that, is there a need to possibly invest more into those programs? Yeah, the biggest thing we changed a few years ago when we implemented some of these changes that came out of the work that the council members did and the mayor is we implemented the housing repair program that Code has, where if you're a single family homeowner and you're income eligible, we will basically pay for the repairs. And to that extent, what you see is largely eligible homeowners that are not getting fined anymore as a result of that program. and it's running at a pretty i would say the correct size right now a lot of the challenges that we're seeing in a couple of these districts where you see the two the ones that are up at the top yours and council member reynolds in district one you've got a district that is just as a percentage more residential than some of the others as well as the age of the housing stock is the oldest of all the districts and you see that same occurrence in louisville and some other communities when you have the older part of the city that's where the larger number of area violations occur in carnal valley district 11 we see some of that but a lot of that's what's happening there is being driven by some large multi-family owners that have had financial difficulties and have fallen into disrepair that's a different strategy where we're pushing on foreclosures and stuff so in that sense a program per se wouldn't necessarily make much of a difference so i guess the short answer to your question would be i think at the individual level we're meeting a lot of that need. A lot of the challenges that we're still seeing in the code are from investment properties and sometimes when properties are so far gone that just $5,000 isn't going to do it. We do run into those sometimes. I guess in kind of that same lane related to their older houses, did you see a correlation in socioeconomic status? Yeah, there's absolutely a correlation there. One of the things that I was thinking about as we were looking at this data was that conversion rate from the complaint to the citation. I think one reason that you may see a lower conversion rate in some districts versus others is just the resources that the residents have. Those residents, in general, may have more financial resources to make repairs. The one outlier on that that doesn't make sense is 12. 12, in theory, under that logic, shouldn't have such a low conversion rate, but it does. So I'm still kind of driving at some of this data. And that's kind of, I guess, where I was looking at more so tied to those programs. If, you know, for those folks that may not have the means, and I know that 100% you said that the programs are working, I 100% support them. If there's a need to be more proactive and take those programs out to the community, educate them, maybe that we'll see that those programs would need more funding or that we could get, you know, more, we can address some of those challenges in those areas proactively rather than waiting towards, I guess, until a complaint comes in. I guess, so what additional proactive or preventative measures can we put on the ground in neighborhoods that are seeing high-volume complaints or citations? Would that be like biannual neighborhood cleanups, like adopt-a-block, anything innovative like that? Have you had any thoughts like that? I think what we probably could do is formalize some of the things that we do more sporadically and systematize those and do it more regularly. For example, we've had a couple of neighborhoods where we had cleanup days. And on a Saturday, we came in and we dropped dumpsters and loaned boxes at code's expense and told everybody, you know, these will be available to you for the day. And that's been really successful in a couple of neighborhoods. There's other scenarios where we've done sort of, I don't want to say targeted enforcement, because it's not so much about the enforcement as it is the engagement with the neighborhood and hearing what their needs are. That has worked tremendously well in 11. And that is something that we absolutely want to replicate in other parts of the city. We started out there in 11 largely because of language barriers and where the staffing was and what the need was. But I think what we've learned is that when a code officer can build personal relationships in that neighborhood, you get a whole different response. And then 100%. Lastly, how are we making sure there is a balance between enforcing code and preventing predatory enforcement that can contribute to displacement or the loss of property? I think we established that in our office through the expectations that we established with our staff. And we know that, and our staff all know that the expectation is we are a partner with the citizen. We are not the police. We moved code enforcement out of public safety to give it a kinder, gentler approach and show folks that we're here to work with you. and that is a really fine line we walk because we can't treat some property owners different from others and if someone's a an older couple and a homeowner and they've got a problem we want to work with them give them as much time as possible to fix it if someone's a multi-million dollar property owner that has walked away from a residential property and it's falling in on itself it's hard to give them the same level of flexibility but the law is really really difficult on that and that we have to treat them the same so where we where we are able we always try to give the citizen the the benefit of the doubt and the time to work on it where we have run into challenges is where the fines and the structure is not motivational meaning for those for whom that is not a significant amount of money it's not motivating them to make the change i appreciate you and i appreciate everybody that they worked on this item thank you thank you vice mayor thank Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Ms. Barber, for the presentation. And my question kind of piggybacks on Commissioner Lanter's last point, and I'm not sure who would answer this necessarily, but I think it is really important to kind of differentiate how we approach code enforcement when it comes to owner-occupied properties, where these issues that people are calling about are also impacting themselves, right? And very often the reasons that they're not able to deal with it is socioeconomic and other reasons. And then you do have the investment properties, the absentee landlords, the folks who own dozens and dozens, if not hundreds of units, who are essentially and should be responsible for their tenants but are maybe falling short in that responsibility. So thinking about sort of like the escalation of fines as an incentive or as a stick to kind of make people own up to their responsibilities and get back up to code, how would we approach differentiating sort of types or categories of folks that we're applying the code to? Are we able to kind of silo them out to say if you're an owner occupied or a certain size or you own X number of properties, you're kind of dealt with this way versus if you own 60 properties, you're dealt with in a different way and you have a different sort of fine structure? That is exactly the stickiness of this topic, which is why it's not like a firm recommendation. And we know there's a challenge to doing that. I think that Council Member Lynch would probably defer to the commissioner and them to provide us a little bit more data to just kind of see. But with us having the highest fines in the state, I don't really know if there's an appetite to have an escalated fine structure at this point. But I just think that involves a little bit more deeper digging and have a little bit more qualitative data. And to that point, too, I have seen in the past certainly that we will often settle with the offending property owner in terms of the fines that we're trying to get X amount of fines, but then we end up settling for a smaller amount to get it paid off. I don't know if Director Steele or somebody else could speak to kind of the rationale behind us doing that versus pursuing the full amount of fine with whatever other, you know, accountability or enforcement mechanisms that we might have if they don't pay the fine that we're asking them to pay. Vice Mayor, is your question, do we negotiate the fines or settle the fines? I think that has been done in particular cases. One thing I was just talking to one of my colleagues about is whether an option is you sort of assess the fine, but it's conditional upon the repair being made within an X number of days. We essentially do that now with compliance schedules where we'll go in, we'll say X is broken, you have to fix it by X date, or we're going to fine you. I think you could also implement, and this is where we would need some help from law, maybe where you are on residences or certain types of residences, you can allow that fine to be suspended with the understanding that they're going to make the repair and the fine only applies if they don't. We're getting into some pretty gray legal area there, so we would want to revisit that with the law department. I'm interested in how we kind of finesse that and find, in my mind, sometimes thinking about it as a pain point. Because ultimately, for me, if you're an investment owner or a landlord that should be responsible for dozens, if not hundreds of residents, I would want our code enforcement policies to produce two outcomes. One of two outcomes is either A, you improve the conditions for your residents, or B, you go out of business and you go do it somewhere else. Those are really the two outcomes that I want to see out of our policies, and I would love for us to continue this conversation to kind of improve it. I see folks from BUILD here that we've been working with thinking about these very issues with code enforcement. Because I think ultimately what we want is for people to live in places that not only can they afford, but that they're going to actually feel safe in. So, thank you. Thank you. Council Member Simigny. Thank you, Chair. And thanks for recognizing me, even though I'm not a member of this committee. Great presentation. I appreciate it. On the statistics piece, I've got a general concern with people repeatedly annoying a particular either homeowner or landlord over property. And I am wondering, A, why do we have an anonymous option? And B, is there something, like, did you track that in those numbers? Because I'm just wondering if some of those numbers are driven by a particular situation. Because that really, that was, the original report was all about using code enforcement as a weapon for gentrification, right? And so I do believe that that's still happening, I guess. It probably does. I know that we've heard from residents that they appreciate the anonymous option if they are not the owner of the property. because they would feel a little bit of retaliation if they were to repeatedly report an issue that's a real problem. I don't know that we differentiated between anonymous versus non-anonymous data, but I'm sure that we could go down that path if you were just interested. I would just be kind of curious of that. And I would probably be interested in the numbers that are like it's a repeat annoyance on the same four properties or something like that, that someone is trying to deliberately change a block or change a street, and they're just using it as well. I think that skews your numbers quite a bit. It does. And it might be easier to do that in certain neighborhoods, unfortunately. We can look into that for you. Thank you. I appreciate it. Thank you very much. Thank you. And thank you, colleagues. Thank you, Council Member Savigny, for bringing that up. I know that was an issue that a lot of us were concerned about with sometimes people that want to flip houses and targeting certain properties over and over. And we discussed that it was difficult to find that data and how to track it. So if there is a way we can do that, that would be great. I want to thank code enforcement. I know they've been through a lot, and they've been down a lot of people, and all of the recommendations require more staff and resources, and I think they're great recommendations. I want to appreciate what they've been doing in the 11th District. You know, after several conversations we had a few years ago about just some of the landlords not being responsible and responsive, and that is still happening, and they are working hard in that area. And I'm really interested in something that you mentioned, of really education. Sometimes it does go beyond just the apartment owners into the renters and the owners of properties. Looking at the numbers in my district, Some of the code violations don't cost a lot of money to fix, whether that's mowing the lawn, trimming weeds and grass and things like that. So I know I'm committed to help working on spreading that education in my district and help give people all the resources they need to take care of their property. And I think at the end of the day, we're seeing a lot of folks that aren't able to do that for one reason or the other. And I appreciate everyone committed to try to help them upkeep their property and uplift our neighborhood. So thank you, Council Member Lynch, for working on this. And thank you very much, Ms. Barber. Thank you. Now, if you all have any updates that you would like to send me of any items in committee, then we will do that electronically. Believe it or not, we only have one more meeting for the rest of the calendar year. And it's kind of crazy to believe. So if you have anything, I want to say that I'm really sorry that we did not get to Division of Youth Services. I did let Ms. Persily know that we would be in contact. And I apologize that our items took a little longer than we expected today. But we will be in contact with her to get that information soon. And thank you, everyone. And we are adjourned. Thank you.