# Services Committee - April 7, 2009 > Auto-transcribed civic record · April 7, 2009 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/830 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/830?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2009-04-07 - **Last revised**: July 17, 2026 - **Length**: 16,487 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed with OpenAI's open-source Whisper large-v3-turbo model, run locally by The Lexington Times. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude. Verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Services Committee met on April 7, 2009, at 1:00 p.m. at the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government Center, with Chuck Ellinger presiding. The committee addressed three agenda items during the meeting: a Peddler's License matter, a Dog Tethering Sub Committee item, and an issue concerning Private Solid Waste Providers. The committee took one motion and vote during the session and heard 12 public comments. Of the three agenda items considered, two were postponed (Peddler's License and Private Solid Waste Providers), while the Dog Tethering Sub Committee item failed. ## Attendance **Present:** Chuck Ellinger, Richard Beard, Linda Lawless, James Myers, Kerry Gorton, David Barberie, Nathan Bowling, Rick Curtis, Keith Horn, Steve Feese, Kerry Loy, Carrie, Tim Bennett, and Ronnie Bastin. **Absent:** Crosbie and Martin. **Late arrivals:** None. ## Votes and Decisions A motion to move the proposed dog tethering ordinance forward to the full council was brought to a vote [timestamp: 01:16:03]. The motion was made by Richard Beard and seconded by Linda Lawless. The motion failed by a roll call vote of 3 ayes to 5 nays, with no abstentions. **Votes in favor (3):** - Richard Beard - Linda Lawless - Chuck Ellinger **Votes against (5):** - James Myers - Kerry Gorton - Dr. Blues - Ms. Henson - Ms. James As a result of the failed vote, the proposed dog tethering ordinance did not advance to the full council at this time. ## Public Comment The meeting included public comment on two primary topics: a proposed dog tethering ordinance and private solid waste providers. **Dog Tethering Ordinance** Multiple speakers addressed a proposed ordinance to restrict dog tethering practices. In support of the ordinance: - **Marianne Fugate** [timestamp: 00:03:52] discussed the need for a strong tethering ordinance to protect dogs and public safety, citing national trends and local data showing widespread abuse. She highlighted SOAR's petition containing over 700 signatures and noted the lack of legal tools available to animal control. - **Tracy Miller** [timestamp: 00:11:53] presented photos of severely abused tethered dogs and urged the council to pass the ordinance, emphasizing that Lexington has an opportunity to lead other cities in animal protection. - **Susan Ritchie** [timestamp: 00:14:33] shared personal observations of dogs left chained without food, water, or shelter, noting that her children's attempts to help were ignored. - **Kristen** [timestamp: 00:16:06], **Katie** [timestamp: 00:16:36], and **Lauren** [timestamp: 00:16:36] each expressed support for the ordinance, stating that chaining dogs is wrong and they should not be treated as discarded items. - **Stephanie Bramlin** [timestamp: 01:12:06] clarified that SOAR does not seek to remove all tethered dogs but wants to work with owners to improve conditions and provide support such as fencing and training. - **Erin Wright** [timestamp: 01:13:13] argued that the temporary sacrifice of not tethering dogs is worthwhile to stop cruelty and protect animals, particularly with the equestrian games coming to Lexington. In opposition: - **Babs Barlow** [timestamp: 00:07:38] argued against the ordinance, stating that tethers are a form of protection and that banning them would harm responsible pet owners, especially renters. She raised concerns about enforcement costs and lack of public input. Later [timestamp: 01:08:16], she suggested creating a waiver system allowing pet owners to apply for permission to tether their dogs after inspection by animal control. **Private Solid Waste Providers** - **Kerry Loy** [timestamp: 01:31:30] stated that M&M Sanitation offers recycling services on a voluntary basis with a 25% residential recycling rate, noting that yard waste and glass are not currently collected due to cost. - **Carrie** [timestamp: 01:26:18] confirmed that private haulers serve approximately 10,000–12,000 households in Fayette County and that new developments are now served by the public system. ## Contested Items **Dog Tethering Ordinance** The council considered a motion to forward a dog tethering ordinance but the measure failed in a 3-5 vote, revealing significant division among members. [timestamp: unavailable] The disagreement centered on multiple concerns: the feasibility of enforcement, the impact on renters, and whether violations should be treated as criminal or civil offenses. Some council members advocated for immediate action to address the issue, while others argued that the council needed more time to develop the proposal and make structural changes before moving forward. **Enforcement of Animal Control Laws** A heated discussion emerged regarding the effectiveness of existing animal cruelty laws and whether the proposed ordinance would meaningfully improve enforcement. [timestamp: unavailable] Council members questioned whether current legal tools were sufficient to address animal welfare concerns. Key concerns raised during the debate included: - Insufficient resources available for enforcement - The risk that the ordinance could lead to increased dog runaways - The need for stronger legal language that would permit immediate removal of animals in danger Members disagreed on whether the ordinance as drafted would adequately address these enforcement challenges or if additional modifications to the legal framework were necessary before adoption. ## Peddler's License The assembly discussed whether nonprofit solicitation requires a peddler's license and the legal implications of posting "no solicitation" signs on private property. **Key Discussion Points** The Department of Law clarified that nonprofit solicitation is not subject to peddler's licensing requirements. The discussion also addressed trespass laws and their application to solicitors. According to the Department of Law's position, trespass laws apply only when a solicitor knowingly enters private property after being notified not to do so. **Outcome** The issue was postponed to allow the County Attorney's Office to provide additional input on the matter. **Key Speakers** - David Barberie - Chuck Ellinger - Kerry Gorton [timestamp: 01:18:46] ## Dog Tethering Sub Committee The subcommittee presented a proposed ordinance that would ban dog tethering except when the owner is present. [timestamp: 00:01:40] **Presentation and Public Testimony** The subcommittee brought forward the ordinance for consideration, with public testimony addressing concerns about the practice. Speakers highlighted animal cruelty issues and public safety risks associated with tethered dogs. **Key Concerns Raised** Enforcement emerged as a significant challenge during discussion. Committee members noted that limited staff resources would make it difficult to effectively enforce a tethering ban. **Speakers** The following individuals participated in the discussion: Richard Beard, Marianne Fugate, Babs Barlow, Tracy Miller, Susan Ritchie, Nathan Bowling, Keith Horn, Linda Lawless, James Myers, and Rick Curtis. **Outcome** A motion to forward the ordinance to the full council failed with a vote of 3-5. Rather than reject the proposal entirely, the committee agreed to keep the issue in committee for further review. ## Private Solid Waste Providers [timestamp: 01:21:43] The committee discussed how private waste haulers can contribute to the county's goal of becoming trash-free by 2020. Kerry Gorton, Steve Feese, Kerry Loy, and Carrie participated in this discussion. Private haulers reported that they currently operate with low recycling rates. They identified cost as a significant barrier to expanding their service offerings, specifically citing financial constraints that prevent them from adding yard waste and glass collection to their operations. The committee determined that this issue required ongoing dialogue with private waste providers and agreed to keep the matter in committee rather than resolve it immediately. This approach allows for continued discussion and collaboration with private sector partners as the county works toward its waste reduction goals. The outcome of this agenda item was postponed, indicating that further conversation and coordination with private haulers will be needed before any decisions or policy changes are finalized. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — failed (3-5): Motion to move the proposed dog tethering ordinance forward to the full council --- ## Full transcript And come on day, it'll be alright, come on day. It is 1 o'clock, April 7th. We will begin. We have a quorum. We'll begin our service committee. The first item on the agenda is the peddler's license, and that was brought by Council Member Stinnett. Mr. Stinnett, if you would, begin. If we could briefly, if David Barber here so we could get the opinion of the law department that has been circulated to Council, I think that would be a great place to start so that everyone in the public watching can understand where we're at on this issue. Because it comes down to basically two questions the Council is looking at. One is a solicitation for nonprofit purposes subject to the peddler ordinance. And number two, what is the effect of the posting of a no solicitation sign on a private property or within a neighborhood entrance? And we did get a response from law. It would be great to have them here to look at that. So I would ask the chair if you want to postpone it until they get here. Well, I think that's going to have to happen. I don't see law here. So let's move on to item number two. When they come in, then we'll come back to item number one. The second item is going to be the dog tethering subcommittee. Council Member Beer was the chair of that. Actually, I see law coming in right now. I know. Are you ready to talk about the first issue or not? Okay, you're here for the second. Okay. Mr. Beard, if you could, we'll go with number two, the dog tethering subcommittee. Okay, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I don't know how many of the public has copies of our packet or copies of the ordinance. if you'll check and look in your packet you'll see the minutes of our last two meetings and our agreement to bring forward an ordinance involving dog tethering dog tethering for the public involves the just exactly what it's saying chaining or tethering dogs the concerns being obviously what's good for the dog, but also to remember that dogs are somewhat attractive nuisances for children, and tethered dogs are somewhat more aggressive as a group, and sometimes the two don't go together very well. And so there's a protection for the public that we're also concerned with as far as dog tethering is concerned. and all the various and sundry things. And we have some speakers here, which I'd like to give an opportunity to speak if they wished. We do have a list in the back, so if you'd like to speak, if you would. I now have the list. Okay, good. But if anybody else wants to be added to the list, and maybe that's as good a place as any to start, and if we have any further discussion, this ordinance is ready to go if we wish to pass it to council today. Let's see. First name on the list, Marianne Fugate. And if you would, give your name, your address, and leave your comments to three minutes if you would, please. Okay. Thank you. My name is Marianne Fugate. I live at 1773 Yorktown Road in Lexington. And I just wanted to tell you a little bit about chaining in general and chaining ordinances around the country. More and more communities are enacting laws about chaining. Since 2003, five states have enacted some kind of protection for dogs who live on chains or are pinned. Connecticut, California, Texas, Virginia, and West Virginia. And over 110 cities and communities nationwide, including some in Kentucky, have now banned or limited chaining. Unfortunately, Kentucky was recently ranked the number one state in the nation to be an animal abuser by the Animal Legal Defense Fund. In other words, Kentucky laws are the weakest when it comes to protecting animals from cruelty. SOAR, Speak Out and Rescue, is working hard to change this shameful distinction, and we think a chaining ordinance that also addresses space and shelter issues would help raise Lexington to a better standard. People in Lexington don't like chaining. Over 700 Lexingtonians have already signed SOAR's petition asking Council to pass a chaining law. Many, many of our citizens call animal care and control about dogs who are either chained, have no shelter, or are living in tiny pens. I recently acquired through an open records request six months' worth of reports from ACC about the hundreds of dogs that they were asked to check on just in the last six months who are chained or penned or have no shelter. Unfortunately, when officers go out there, there is really little that they can do because we don't have any laws regarding chaining, shelter, or space. Here are some of the facts about the ill effects of chaining. If dogs don't learn how to live with humans, they are more likely to bite. They are 2.8 times more likely to bite when they're chained, especially if they're an unneutered male or a mother with puppies. They are also more likely to bark incessantly and create an extreme nuisance for the neighborhood. Chaining a dog in the backyard also won't stop a child from trying to pet that dog. If dogs don't understand or trust children and the owner has taken away its ability to flee by chaining it, then the dog may hurt a child. Chaining also put dogs' health at risk. They are easily neglected. They're easy prey for other animals. They can get tangled. Their chains can get tangled and cause them severe injury or even death. Fortunately, in addition to asking for this ordinance, SOAR is also able to directly help dog owners. We have a low-income fencing program where we will go to a person's house and actually put up a fence for them if they agree to certain conditions, such as letting the dog live inside, taking good care of their dog, providing real shelter for it. We also provide house training and other advice. We also foster dogs who are no longer wanted by their owners. And we've already fostered and placed out several dogs that used to be chained here in Lexington. You just have a few more seconds. Okay. If you would kind of wrap up, please. Sure. So we ask you to please pass a strong ordinance regarding chaining, shelter, and space, not only to protect the dogs, but to make our community safer for everybody. That's all I have. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. The next person on the list is Kim Stewart. No. No. Is that no? Okay. Babs Barlow. Good afternoon. I'm Babs Barlow. I live at 731 North Upper Street, one of the poorer neighborhoods in town. And I'm here to speak toward the proposed non-tethering of dogs ordinance amendment. I also bring with me, I don't see a friend of mine here, I guess she couldn't make it, two points that were brought up by people who couldn't make arrangements to get here today. You take nothing away from what I say today, take only this. Tethers don't hurt dogs. People do. There's not a tether I've ever met that could jump up and abuse a dog by the way it's fastened, by the purposes it's being used for, or anything else. Now, I noticed the previous speaker mentioned an attractive nuisance. There are any number of people who tether a dog in front of the entrances to their property for a purpose. Most people will not cross a tethered dog. They're there for a purpose. If you prohibit tethers in Lexington and Fayette County, then that form of protection will be null and void. As far as children approaching a tethered dog to pet it, granted I have no children, but I would say that the responsibility for controlling the children should lie to the parents or guardians of those children. If I have a dog legally on my property, properly and humanely tethered, with shelter, with water, and so on, then the basic premise here is that I really don't want kids in my yard where I would invite them. So I don't see tethered dogs as the same type of attractive nuisance as, say, a swimming pool full of water. Parents need to be responsible to teach their children about people and about animals and about all of the things they're going to encounter in the great outdoors. And I have a particular objection to very small children wandering around the neighborhood approaching dogs. I would not want children of mine to do that if I had them. But basically speaking, the proposed ordinance, which I've read only just briefly, as it's written, first of all, the previous speaker mentioned penning. I don't see anything in here about penning. And one of the results of admonishing people who are attempting to tether is that they will crate the dog. A crate is not even a carrier. It's just a box, a very small box that the dogs can barely turn around in. And what a friend of mine brought up is by initiating this ordinance, essentially you will be prohibiting renters from owning outside dogs because most renters, landlords, don't want them out building fences of their choice. And although SOAR has a low-income fence program, that would require an awful lot of negotiation to deal with the landlords of the rental properties to put up a fence so that rental people could have dogs. This is liable to set up a situation where the animal control people here in Lexington would wind up with a lot of dogs if people are being fined and... You are out of time. If you could just wrap up real quick and briefly, I'd appreciate it. I think this is ill thought out. I think it needs a lot more time in committee. I think it needs a tremendously greater amount of input from the public. The other point that was brought up by a friend of mine was that who's going to pay for enforcement of this? My understanding from Mayor Newberry is that we don't have any money. There are a lot of things we can't pay for. If you initiate this ordinance, it's going to require increased enforcement, and somebody's going to have to pay for that. I think this needs to be rewritten, reconsidered, and have a lot more input before any attempt is made to pass this particular as-written ordinance. Thank you. Thank you. Those are the only... Yes. Okay, if you would come to the podium, give me your name and address, please. If there is anybody else that would like to speak, if you could just line it behind there. Go ahead. My name is Tracy Miller, and I'm the president of SOAR, and I live at 109 Jelemic Lane, Georgetown, Kentucky. The Fayette Urban County Council has a unique opportunity to set the bar for other cities across the state and an act of law prohibiting unaccompanied chaining. Other cities are watching to see what you do. SOAR has been contacted by a council person in Hopkinsville who wants to propose such an ordinance. Right now, SOAR is forming coalitions in Richmond and Frankfurt. I urge you to do the right thing and put Lexington on the map as being a city that will no longer tolerate this kind of abuse. And I also have a PowerPoint that I want to show you. Let them speak first. Let them speak first. There are only three of them. These are just some of the dogs that SOAR has encountered over the last several months. In Lexington, correct? And these dogs are why we need to address space requirements. This dog is in District 11. Peggy Henson is aware of these dogs. This female pit bull is padlocked, and this address did receive a citation recently. And this is the only difference. They put on a new chain, a little longer chain, but she is still padlocked, and she appears to be pregnant again after giving birth to seven puppies recently. this dog lives at the same address it was on a two foot chain now it's on about a four or five foot chain same location they have three dogs at this address this is Sherman he is chained to the fence and this dog did hang himself when he tried to jump this fence also another reason why we need space requirements and this is sanchez and he is in our care now his owner surrendered him to us and he was chained for most of his seven years. While he was chained out, he was attacked by the neighbor's dog who jumped the fence into his yard and attacked him. He had to get ten stitches in his shoulder, and he's in our care now and foster care. So thank you. Thank you. Are you through? I'm done. Okay, thank you. If, would you give your name and your address, please? My name is Susan Ritchie. My address is 1589 Springfield Drive. I'm in Councilman Myers District. As a neighbor, I've witnessed many animals chained, and in particular, there's a family with quite a few kids, and they get them lots of things to play with, but in particular, they got a big dog one time, and I've seen this dog on many occasions just left outside on a chain, just like a discarded toy. being in it, you know, the dog has a bowl there, but there's no food in it, and there's a bowl for water, but the water is coming from a runoff drain on top of their roof. And these are my daughters. They came to support as well. So what I see is people just sometimes getting these animals, leaving them discarded in their backyard and forgetting about them. Many times knocked on the neighbor's door and made them aware that their dog was on the chain and the chain was wrapped around many different poles and he wasn't even able to reach that runoff water that was in a bowl. He had no shelter and tried to educate them on what I saw and what they could do to help their dog, but to no avail. My children also witnessed this and would try to help as well. Would you like to say who you are? Hi, my name is Kristen. And how do you feel about the ordinance? Would you like to see it passed? If you could bring down the microphone so we can hear her response. There you go. Would you like to say anything? Okay. Would you like to say that you support the ordinance? Hi, my name is Katie. Hi, Katie. Do you have anything you'd like to say about dogs on chains? It's really wrong that people should be putting dogs on chains. And it's wrong. Would you like to see this ordinance passed? Would you like to see dogs on chains? Okay. Lauren? Hi, my name is Lauren, and I'd like to see dogs off James as well. Thank you for your time. Thank you, Ms. Ritchie, and thank your daughters for coming. Okay, thanks. Mr. Beard, at this point, is there anybody else who would like to speak? I see we have the law department here that can talk about the ordinance, but if you could, could you just give a brief summary of, If we'd ask that you had the subcommittee formed and then you met, could you just give kind of a brief update of what you did, especially with the last committee, the motions that came out of that, if you would, please? Yes. We had, obviously, public input. We had the Humane Society present at one of our meetings. We had the animal control individual from Louisville, I believe. Was it not our Humane Society I mentioned? I think the consensus of the committee is that, yes, while there are individual problems with how to handle dogs, and people have different philosophies about that, that without a doubt, as with the pictures that were shown, it is dangerous both to the animal and to primarily children, but anybody who might be passing. I mean, I don't think the intention of having a pet is to have it as a guard dog in front of a house. I have pets. I have one that could pass as a guard dog until you get near him, in which case he then becomes 105 pounds of bundle of love. But anyway, but he lives in the house. And so essentially it was an education process. We had a lot of concern about our ability to enforce a tethering situation of any sort for that matter. We are somewhat thin as far as animal control officers are concerned. In all probability, they won't just be cruising looking for tethered dogs. They have a more pointed mission to respond to situations, and it would be helpful that the public would alert them to the fact that there is some form of abuse going on. There will be a period of time where we will do some public education so that the public will know what we're attempting to do as far as tethered dogs is concerned. And I would like to ask if Chief Bolling, I think, is here, how they may approach the enforcement and what problems they have. I know he's got plenty of manpower problems, but over and above that, just identify yourself, if you would, for the public. Chief Nathan Boling with the License and Fed Animal Care and Control. To try to address that, good afternoon, Council, I'm sorry. this ordinance any ordinance that the urban county council passes of course we will try to mandate and enforce to the best of our ability but in the 2010 budget of course we were talking about some budget cuts if you remember last year the dog task committee that got us back up to 12 from the 1998 regiment will probably be downsized if the budget cuts come through. So it's going to have an impact on the enforcement of this. Out of the Dog Task Committee that we formed last year, we worked on three ordinances, one of them which made a major increase on us, which was the Barking Dog Ordinance. That increased in the magnitude of two to three calls a year for noise disturbances, up to about 300 so far this year. So you can see the difference of just one ordinance change of what is going to happen to us on if a new ordinance is passed. There will be an influx of new calls coming into our office on a regular basis. Thank you. Does any of the council have questions for Chief Bowling before we let him go sit down again? Thank you, Chief. Thank you, Chief. So I would like to, as the subcommittee chair, move that we move this ordinance forward to the full council for deliberation and ultimate passing. We have a motion. Do we have a second? Second. We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? Ms. Lawless? First of all, I joined this task force when I first came on the council because I do care a lot about the abuse of animals. In our last meeting, there was a great deal of discussion. The gentleman from Louisville was extremely helpful. and we discussed other ways of enforcing this, taking it out of a criminal act, coming up with an administrative hearing board, and being able to levy civil fines. And I don't know what happened to that. That was the last thing in the minutes after we adjourned the meeting. I too expressed concern about well-meaning dog owners, and we decided that that would be too hard to implement. But if we pass an ordinance like this, it's not going to get enforced because we don't have the staff power to do it. And all these dogs that we're looking at aren't going to get the help we need. We need to come up with a creative plan to be able to enforce this ordinance so that we can, in fact, help these dogs who are suffering. One of my very dearest friends adopted a lab who had been chained so long that the chain had literally grown into its neck. So that kind of cruelty is unacceptable in our community and in our state. And but if we my concern is that we're passing yet another ordinance that we're not going to be able to enforce because there are too many barriers to enforcing it. And so the way I thought we left it was we were going to look at ways to make it a civil matter to maybe have a fund that could help with fencing, that could have an appeals board, and maybe help fund the implementation and enforcement of this ordinance. Mr. Stinnett, also I see Mr. Horn here with the law department. Would you like him to go ahead and talk first, or would you like to? Okay. Mr. Horn, I think you helped draft this ordinance, so you might give us some clarity on this. Specifically to the hearing board, when the subcommittee left, we were asked to look into having a hearing board for this, and that's being examined. And one thing that the government's looking at is having one administrative hearing board to take the place of many of the several that exist now, and that's being examined as well. Now, it's not going to change an enforcement mechanism. You still have to have somebody who goes out and issues a citation. The only thing that will change is that it won't go to district court. It would go to a hearing board instead. Citation's still going to work the same way as it would. Couldn't the fines, though, be directed to whoever's going to enforce this? And we all know that when matters like this and many other go to criminal court, they get lost. And so my point was the fines then could be utilized to help the Humane Society, hire more officers that could go out and, you know, make things better for the animals in our community as well as the people. So that was a big point of the civil fine is making it a directed fine. I just worry about, you know, I've heard about the overall hearing board and looking at it for over a year. And I worry about what's going to happen if we pass this ordinance and we have no way to enforce it. What's going to happen to these dogs who are suffering? Well, you certainly don't have to pass this until you have a hearing board established for it. But as it stands, it would be handled like any other animal control citation is now through district court. But you're right, those fines for that are criminal fines. Right. Now, this council has a history of not dedicating funds that come to the government for any particular use, but you could certainly make appropriations based on what you think may be. Right. We could make appropriations on it, or we could change what we've done and do designated fines. But that being said, the way this is written, it will be a criminal offense. It will go to district court. The fines will not come to our fines in any way, and there will be. And that concerns me greatly. Mr. Horne, if you could take just a couple minutes, Could you just go through what the changes are being made in this ordinance? So for the audience that we know exactly what, A, we're going to be voting on, B, what are going to be the changes that occur? Basically, under your present ordinances, an animal may be tethered or chained. It has to be restrained when it's on the property, either by tether or behind a fence or something like that. This ordinance is basically going to say that if you chain or tether your animal, that's only permitted when you are present with the animal. So you can't leave your animal out in your yard chained or tethered after this ordinance is passed. And it also provides a few exceptions for limited amounts of time for things like veterinary treatment, grooming events, things like that. And it also has some provisions in it related to the type of chain or tether that can be used on an animal when it is permitted to be chained or tethered. And it also inserts into the section of 419 that deals with penalties the same penalty for improperly chaining or tethering an animal as exists under the current restrictions for animals. If you want to make this a delayed enactment, you need to let me know that as well, because as it's presently written, it becomes effective on passage. You can make it effective whenever you want to, but I need to know that so that we can write it into the ordinance. And if you prefer to wait until there's a hearing board established, then we can work on that. But as you know, creating a hearing board is not necessarily a quick and easy process. and my presumption has been that you would like to add not only tethering to that hearing board but other animal issues that can go to that hearing board. Are there any other questions for Mr. Horne? Ms. Lawless? I'm sorry, I guess I'm just confused because I say that was the very last thing as we adjourned the last meeting and then this new ordinance shows up very different than what I felt like we discussed in the last task force meeting, that I felt like the Humane Society, SOAR, and Animal Control were all on board with, as well as all the attendees of the meeting. And so, and also I want to say kudos to SOAR. I do know they do wonderful work and have really stepped up to the plate. But that's why I'm just confused that that's the way we left it, and then we get this ordinance. And, again, this would be a criminal offense and go to a criminal court and add absolutely nothing to our ability to really help these animals, and the cases get dismissed and we still don't have any money to pay for the animal control officers or to support the Humane Society or to support other groups like SOAR that go out and do really great work. I don't know. This is the ordinance that the subcommittee voted to bring out. And at the end of that meeting, we were asked to look at establishing a hearing board. I would not ever present to any of you an ordinance that was not voted on by the subcommittee. I'm not upset with you. I'm just confused because I thought we were going to delay it while we did that and not that you didn't follow the direction, but that we as a committee, I think, somehow dropped the ball. I don't know. And I'm not, just so you know, I'm not advocating for one thing. Oh, I know. You're just doing, I completely get that, and I'm not suggesting that. I guess I'm suggesting that we as a committee maybe drop the ball. I don't know. Well, I'm not sure. Let me make a comment about that. This administrative hearing board process and the ability to do, rather than having multiple administrative hearing boards, to be able to combine them for more efficient utilization of people's time and such is something that we agreed we'd like to look at, yes. But at the same time, I also look at those pictures, and I think, do we want this to drift into the dead of summer when a tethered dog is really a lot more vulnerable? It's almost worse being tethered in the summer than it is in the wintertime. Not passing something because it's not enforceable, we could apply that same logic to running stop signs or anything else, and maybe we ought to take those off the books. Because people do it all the time, and if there isn't a policeman observing them, And then sometimes even when there is a policeman observing them, they have a tendency to ignore it. And as I said in my first opening remarks, it's going to have to be a neighbor or someone who has observed this over time, the tethered dog and the fact that the tethered dog is in some distress and would call the Humane Society and give the address of where this dog is, and then they could go out and do a rifle shot as opposed to a shotgun approach to enforcement. As I said, they can't just be cruising 285 miles of Fayette County looking for tethered dogs or looking for any other type of animal cruelty, not with 12 people. And how many shifts is that? Is that two shifts? Could you come to the mic please? I'm sorry. Yeah. We start our shifts from 6 o'clock in the morning until 12 o'clock at night. And then from after 12 o'clock at night, we have an on-call officer for extreme emergency call out with the police department or law enforcement agencies. Is that split amongst two groups of folks? That's divided seven days a week, 365 days a year. So you really don't have 12 people on the street at one time? Nope. Okay. That's what I would have assumed. I think it averaged out, I believe, when the dog test committee averages out to three and a half to four people a day. Yeah. And as I said, 285 square miles, even within urban services boundaries themselves, it's a pretty daunting task to be able to cruise and discover abuses like this. Yes. I don't know, and Mr. Horn maybe can help us, how long it would take to get this administrative hearing board put together and enabled. and you could probably get one the ordinance written for it and put together we can probably do within 30 days but then you're looking at there have to be discussions about what you intend for that board to be do you want to be a hearing person versus a hearing body and then having people appointed to hear those types of things setting up your citations have to change, your notices have to change, etc., etc. So there's not only, as you said, creating the body, it's getting it functioning, up and functioning. And it's hard for me to say how long that would actually take. Well, you know, subcommittees are not necessarily created to last forever. and I still would probably like the motion to go forward. Maybe we can do a bit more investigation between now and when it would come to council and if we still aren't as a body, council body ready to pass it, it could be tabled for some span of time, but I think... There is a motion on the floor and we will vote on that and if not, then we can, if there's some other issues that aren't addressed, We can always look at that, too. Mr. Stinnett had requested to speak. Thank you, Chair. I'm here wearing a couple hats today, one being the council member on the Animal Care and Control Advisory Committee. And I'll wear that hat first. We had our bi-monthly meeting last month on March 18th. I passed around to council members a statement from the Animal Care and Control Advisory Committee. And I'll read that statement if I can, Chair, just so everyone in public can watch and can understand what happened at the meeting. There was a great length of discussion about the tethering ordinance as it's presented, and the members of the Animal Care and Control Advisory Committee, ACC, after a near unanimous vote, one abstention, which is myself, on agreement that there should not be an either-or type of ordinance that would unjustly prosecute responsible pet owners for temporarily tethering an animal outside. After considerable discussion, we as a committee believe that the current laws to regulate cruelty are sufficient in extreme cases and in the discretion of the animal control officer should not be negated by ordinance. The officer should have the ability to make decisions based on the relative condition of the animals when at the scene. We are also in agreement as a committee that animals should not be tethered constantly or for extended periods of time, which would only serve to cause harm to the animal's physical well-being or cause an animal to become violent towards others. Caring pet owners may need from time to time the ability to tether their animal outside for a short period of time. It should not be punished because they do not have the capability to secure their animal outside without tethering. And this was submitted by the Animal Care and Control Committee via the Chair, Rick Curtis, who is also here today. If anybody has any questions in regards to that meeting, I'll be happy to answer any before I shift hats back to Councilmember. Okay. Any questions for Mr. Sinder or Mr. Curtis? Mr. Chair? Mr. Myers? I would, if Mr. Kurz could come up and just speak to when I read this letter today, on one hand it sounds like the committee is not in favor of this ordinance, but then the committee passed the ordinance and brought it to us. There are two separate ones. One's a subcommittee and this one is the Animal Care and Control Advisory Committee. Two different committees. Yes. Okay. That helps out a lot. Could you just kind of go over a synopsis? Could you just summarize it for us if you would? Right. Basically, I'm the chairman of the advisory committee, Animal Care and Control Advisory Committee, and what our intentions and what we're supposed to do is to advise the council, to advise the administration specifically on items of interest to deal with animals across Fayette County itself. That's what the committee was set for. It is actually a committee that's nominated and positioned by the mayor. You have to request, just like any other committee board or commission specifically. With that in mind, we did, we had just a huge amount of discussion and have had over the past several meetings as a committee in reference to tethering itself. And the glowing concern that continued to come up, and I'm going to put this in simplistic terms, was a 65-year-old lady that tethered their dog in the morning because that's the only option that she has for that animal to use the bathroom. If, in fact, it was an either-or tethering ordinance where it was black or white, that when an animal care and control officer got there and that dog had been tethered for 30 minutes or whatever so that he could go outside, they would have no option but to cite that lady specifically for tethering the animal. And as such, we just felt that for citizens across Fayette County specifically that are very well cared for their animals specifically and have to tether that animal occasionally should not be punished because of that. And that pretty much was the concern, and I tried to condense it down into as few words as I could, and that was the end result of what I wrote last night. Thank you very much. Thank you. Mr. Stinnett? Thank you, Chair. As many of you know, I was the chair of the Dog Task Force that met a couple years ago. I looked at several issues. This was one of the issues that came out of the task force that we heard about that we recommend the council for taking up, and I thank you, Chair, for taking this up in this committee. When this was brought to the Animal Care Control Advisory Board, I made the statement, any time a citizen or group or councilor brings something to council to change something or to create a new ordinance, two things normally have to be shown. One is the need, need being are current laws not fair enough, not inexistent, or won't support the problem? And where is the need in the public? Who are we really trying to go after? The second is enforcement. Councilman Lawless hit that on the head. We have to be able to enforce anything we change or any policy change. We have to be able to enforce it or abide by it. On this particular issue, the need, obviously there's a need here in certain cases. How many people in Fayette County does this represent? Is it less than 1% of our dog owners, less than 10%, 20%? How many does it really affect? Second of all is our current laws, our cruelty laws. I don't know if the subcommittee, I haven't heard any discussion about, do we look at our cruelty laws? Do we look about beefing those up, giving the officers more discretion when they visit a scene and more power to confiscate a dog immediately if they feel that dog's in danger? Do we look at those rather than passing a new ordinance? I don't know if that's been done. Councilman Brier, do you want to address that issue? I don't know if you worked with Chief Bowling and our state folks, because, again, under the dog statutes of Kentucky, we operate under statutes of KRS for our animal cruelty laws. Do we look at any changing or adding to those on a local level and making those stronger? Well, I can't exactly answer that. there is a state law for animal cruelty. Obviously it's not been working very well. Here we are, the state of Kentucky and even central Kentucky, we call ourselves the horse capital of the world and we have had several occasions, especially with the downturn in the economy where there's 15, 20, 30 horses found out in a field with their ribs sticking out and hardly able to stand on their four feet because they aren't being properly fed and cared for. and you know this whole thing is a slippery slope we have evidence that tethering, strong evidence that tethering happens and when it happens it's not a very good experience for the dog and maybe as I mentioned earlier an attractive nuisance for any children. And I don't care what age they are. They may have dogs at home, and they have no fear of dogs, and so they think, you know, it wouldn't be nice to go over and pat the dog or scratch the dog or talk to the dog or whatever, and the dog is, again, a little different one than maybe the one they have at home. And so we're trying to protect the public, too, in this. You know, there are a lot of good points to be made to wait. But I guess in my opinion, the process of the barking dog situation is very similar and parallel to this, in that it's very difficult to enforce because for the span of time that a dog is barking, it has to be observed by an animal control officer. and to get a conviction in all probability you have to videotape it and time log it and all that, and that eats up time and eats up staff's time to do something of the sort. And in some cases a barking dog is a tethered dog, as was pointed out earlier by I've forgotten which member of the audience that spoke. But the only reason I stopped to ask was just if you all even looked at it. If you haven't, my point is we may need to look at looking at changing our cruelty laws. Because, you know, in every one of these cases, I see abused animals. I see cruelty to animals. You know, in a current ordinance that's before this body, you can chain a dog if you're out there with it. I really have a hard time understanding what's the difference of chaining a dog if you're not in the yard with it and chain it when you're in their yard with it. I mean, it's the same thing. Chain a dog is chain a dog. Just because it can see you doesn't make it any less harmful if the collar is too tight. There's a thousand ways we can go on this. The other problem is dogs that jump fences. Some people do tether their dogs either on a run or if they jump a fence. So they no longer are allowed to do that, and it's getting out a lot more people that usually used to tether, let their dogs out the front door without a leash now. because you can let your dog in your yard without a leash as long as you can stand at the door and see it. You can let them out there. Will this increase our off-the-leash issues that we address with the Animal Care and Control Dog Task Force? So those are just questions that wasn't meant to you personally. I was just curious if the subcommittee looked at any type of change in our quality laws because to me that's the real issue here. We don't want to see our animals abused, period. Something has to be done today. Something has to change in our community. We need to beef up enforcement. We know that. heaven forbid, Chief, in this budget, if we have to cut you back again, you've got to go back down to six officers. That's an issue we're going to have to deal with as a council and community. But something does need to change. We need to really start addressing our abuse cases and our cruelty cases. I'm just not sure if what's presented today is the best. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. Dr. Blues, I have you on to speak. Thank you, Chair. As you know, I was on this committee when this subcommittee was formed and served on that, and I'm no longer on the Services Committee, but I thank you for the opportunity to make a comment here. First of all, with reference to the possibility of administrative hearing mechanism to change the process to civil rather than criminal. I think that it's going to be important to look at this, not only with reference to a barking dog or a tethering ordinance, but to various kinds of offenses. And we have talked about this, for example, in the noise ordinance task force. So it's a more comprehensive issue that could indeed touch upon this piece of proposed legislation and others. I would support sending this forward if the committee votes that way, because I do think that while the ordinance is not perfect by any means, it's not going to, I think, make a really material change in the treatment of animals that are tethered. It may help in some cases. I think it's true that other animals will be confined without being tethered. The abuse and the cruelty will find a way to continue. But it is an improvement. It will make a difference in some cases. I would imagine that enforcement would be mainly complaint-driven and would provide a way for citizens to make a complaint to animal control about the tethering of the animals. And finally, I think that this is, and I would echo Council Member Beard here, this is an ordinance that can protect the public. And I think it probably has more potential in that direction. A tethered dog, as the members of SOAR have pointed out, is much more likely to bark. It's much more likely to be vicious. is much more likely to bite. And so if we can make at least some progress moving toward the lessening of those hazards and those annoyances, then I think that the ordinance is worthy of debate and discussion, and I think passage by the full council. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. Ms. Henson? Thank you, Chair. I had some questions for Chief Bowling. Yes, ma'am. I was just curious. Currently, if you get a call and you're on a property and it's obvious that it's cruelty or neglect of an animal, what happens? They don't remove that animal. Is that correct? No, that's not correct. We do remove, we impound animals under the impoundment law. cruelty to animals. The tethering issue when we had this committee started was strictly a tethering issue. As Council Member Stenet had addressed, the cruelty laws are still on the books, whether they be local ordinances or the state laws for cruelty. Proving them is a little bit more difficult, but there is a process that we have, a protocol internally, of either impounding the dog, issuing a citation, because again, this tethering ordinance will be a criminal offense, no different than any other criminal offense that you have. So we do at this time impound dogs and site owners to court for cruelty to animals, and I'll let you know that Fayette County has a 100% conviction rate on it. That's good. Also, if we put a time limit on the tethering, if we said the dog is not, that would be very, very hard to tell, right? Like if you said you would be allowed two hours in a certain period of time or whatever, but someone was tethering their dog 24-7 and you go out there, you wouldn't be able to tell whether it was within the time frame allowed or whatever. Now, the time limit has its restraints. Plus, you're talking about doubling the manpower. Because then the officer or a secondary officer would have to do a recheck on that address. And we already do that on majority of our calls. Keeping in mind to the council that we answer every animal complaint that comes in, via wildlife to dogs run at large, vicious dogs, cruelty to animals, loose livestock, owner evictions, owner arrest, the list goes on and on. So we have to get our call board fairly cleared out. And thanks to the dog cast committee last year and the increased staff, this is the first time, and I've been there 22 years, that we've actually had the call board cleared by the time I went home of evening. In a situation, I've just seen some really horrible situations with dogs. and if you go to the property and it's obvious that the dog's constantly tethered, there's probably not much hope for that dog because it is just vicious, beyond control. You couldn't get close to it. How would your officers handle that? Is there anything? Would there be anything at all? Well, they've got to look for several different things. First of all, they'll issue citations, as some of the speakers talked about the case that they showed where the citations and the tethers was lengthened. There was actually citations issued to the owners for babies, vaccinations, and license violations. We try to look at every violation when they walk up upon the scene, be it having no doghouse versus unsanitary living conditions, such as smell or odors created by the animal itself. We have to take everything in consideration at that time and then proceed. The officer has discretionary methods depending on the severity of the violation. To make it short, Margaret Kennison, years ago we said and we talked about the no shelter issues. If we cited every violator that we saw on a regular basis, we could not keep enough officers in court or there would be enough time for us to stay in court on just those violations. So we have internal protocols that are set up. We give people written courtesy warnings that we can track to get them to get in compliance with that ordinance. And then failure to do that, then, of course, the dog can either be impounded or then a citation or a criminal summons issued on that behalf. Thank you. I want to thank you. I know that any time we've contacted you from my office, you're very responsive, and I appreciate that. And I wish you could have a lot more manpower than you have. Thank you so much. Thank you. I think in its current form, I'm not particularly happy with the no tethering law and where it would be completely a violation. because I just know from past experiences I myself owned a large dog, and if my backyard wasn't fenced in, I put him on a tether. If we were going to need to leave our doors open for some length of time, move in furniture or whatever, if we were having construction done to the inside of the house. So there was times that we would need to tether him. but he knew we loved him and that we wouldn't leave him out there long. But I do have a problem with no tethering to speak of. Thank you. Thank you, Ms. James. Thank you, Chair. I am not a member of this committee, but I did want to just give a little bit of input just from listening. It sounds like to me I agree with Council Member Henson that it's the length of time on the tether That seems to be a big issue even within my district. And the tethering associated with just complete lack of care. I mean, it's not just tethering. It's that the dogs just aren't being taken care of. And I think that is the cruelty issue that Council Member Stenet mentioned, I think, is the bigger issue. And the no tethering, I don't think we'll get at that. I think it will put in fear some of my rental residents who don't have a landlord that's going to put a fence up. Um, and if they are dog lovers or animal lovers and have always had pets, that's what they're going to want to have. And for some of those folks, putting a dog on a tether is the only way they can get that, um, outside, you know, exercise if they're disabled or elderly, um, or if the dog just wants to go out for a while, you know, and you don't want to be there chaperoning the dog. So I'm a bit concerned about it in its current form. I do appreciate the intent of SOAR. I really do appreciate you all have done quite extensive work, but I want us to be able to have some legislation that really encompasses the bigger cruelty issue, because I think we can really deal with that. But the no tethering, I think, is going to be more harmful than helpful. I think we will have more dogs running free, because they'll want to get out. And if someone can't tether or they're fearful of tethering and running inside and maybe, you know, checking what's on the stove or they fall asleep and having a nap or something, they're going to be fearful of that. And the dogs are going to be ready to get out of there. The fencing is also an issue. I'm glad to hear that there is a fencing, a low-income fencing. I'd like to hear more about that, how it works with renters. I'm hoping it's not just owner-occupied, but that renters can somehow, there can be something worked out with the homeowners that can take care of that as well. And then I'm wondering about some kind of a waiver or something. What if something happens and you have to have your dog out for an extended period of time, and that just so happens to be when that neighbor or member of SOAR is going out looking around, and it just so happens to be then what can you do when you're out of town and you have a neighbor that's going to take care of your dog, but the child next door is allergic to dogs, and they can't go inside the house. But that neighbor has promised to take care of the dog, and that dog is out for an extended period of time. So I think it needs to be vetted just a bit more with maybe a little bit more conversation, maybe even a hearing, a larger hearing setting where we can hear from more of the general public about it. Now that this is on GTV3, we'll hear more about it hopefully. I know I certainly have since it's been announced it was going to be discussed today. but just the length of tethering, a waiver sort of thing, the fencing, and, of course, the manpower. And then, as it's written, there's fines, subsequent fines. Well, what happens after the fines still aren't paid? You know, is the dog then taken for collateral? Or, you know, is there a lien put on the house? You know, what's going to happen after the fourth fine is not paid? And those things have to be worked out because Council Member Lawless is right. We've got a lot of things on the books, but we don't have consequences that come from those things. It's just kind of this infinite, you better do it, and then it's like, or what? So a little bit more in depth, I think this is a good start, and I think either the subcommittee or this committee could look a little bit more at what can we do to deal with the cruelty issues that are obviously going on today. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. Mr. Myers? Thank you, Mr. Chair. Chief Bowling, could you come up with just a second? Could you speak a little bit to the threshold for removing a dog or an animal from a property for cruelty? Well, there's two things we have to prove. Either criminal intent or criminal wanton. That means somebody knew that they had a situation prior to us getting there to the scene. Or the intent is a little bit more difficult, of course. This is just a direct line. the wanton is where we get most of our convictions because it is a known fact, of course, if we come out there and say you have 72 hours to get a doghouse in place, a proper doghouse, and they fail to comply with it, it's not also a failure to comply with a lawful order. It proves our wanton issue if we have to charge them with the offense. Okay. What happens after the dog is removed? it seems like if it's a case where they don't have a doghouse then they just have to get a doghouse, they get the dog back? They can. They can, but once the animals, anytime we seize property a charge has to go forth. So they still have to answer the charge or the county has to dismiss the process. So this is a criminal process. It's no different than anything other than if you're caught with drugs and they take your vehicle away from you from the impound. And it has to be treated as property. That means it would stay at the facility. Sometimes the county attorney's office requests us to hold the evidence because that is our evidence. Sure. So to give you just some examples, the Jack's Creek with the John Hewson case, I ended up holding 84 animals for almost a year. If you've seen our facility and what 84 animals would do to you, trying to hold on to those for almost a year, but we couldn't disposition the animal. The cases that we see here in the pictures and the video that we saw, that type of cruelty, what are the odds that that homeowner or that dog owner would get that dog back? Very slim, because that's one of the goals of the Humane Society and the Lexington Fed Animal Care and Control is if we take an animal for the event of cruelty, whether it's pled out in court on a plea agreement, one of our main goals is always get possession of the animal because that's our main goal. Right, to make sure the animal doesn't go back in that same setting. Okay. When you look at those laws and that threshold that you have to reach, that's a state law, right? It's the state and local ordinances as well that backs up the state laws. Do you have any recommendations for us as a council that we could strengthen that to make your job easier? At this time, I would enforce whatever the council deems to be appropriate for me to enforce, but I don't have my own opinion on that right now. Okay. Professionally, because I'm not trying to put you in the middle of anything. That's not my intent. When you go out to the site and there's a dog there, it seems it's almost easier to see there's no doghouse. And so you give them a certain amount of time, you come back, there's no doghouse. That's a no-brainer. And I'm not suggesting that that's an unsafe or a less unsafe situation for the dog to be in. But these other cases that we saw where the dogs are injured from being tethered and things like that, are there ways that we could professionally do you think there are ways that we could strengthen the law so that it's more automatic in that if you don't have a dog house I come back you still don't have a dog house I'm taking the dog are there things we could do that make it more automatic and easier for you to remove the dog for an unsafe situation of course there is it's all in the wording of the laws and of course I ain't a lawyer myself or an attorney so I won't go into that line But to give you an example, the vicious dog ordinance on the state law as well as the local ordinance, it's got one word in there. It's called known. Right. Very hard to get around that because it's sort of like a free-by-first situation to get a conviction. Yeah, I chaired the previous vicious dog committee before Councilman's Senate did, and that's what we ran up against. It's a horrible law. Yes, it is. And it needs to be rewritten. And so I guess my question would be for members of either of the subcommittee or this other committee that Mr. Curtis chairs. Did you guys discuss how we could strengthen that law? Or I don't want to put you in the middle of it again, but your professional opinion will help us. If you could get back to one of those two committees and then they could bring some legislation, and some recommendations forward that we could send to the law department to look at. Mr. Curtis is shaking his head. Is that something that you guys looked at or will look at? I think everybody in the room and probably watching by TV agrees something has to be done. And it seems like the obvious place to start is the laws we have on the books and how can we make it easier for the officers that are charged with upholding that law to do their job in a way that doesn't overburden the court system, that kind of thins out those situations where it's as easy as just to get in a doghouse. That can be done pretty simply. But these other situations where the animal is actually being injured and it's just straight cruelty, we've got to find a way to help address that and get those dogs removed immediately. Mr. Curtis? We'd be more and more willing to look at it if it was to bring something to us. That's pretty much what we're charged and tasked with to do as an advisory committee is to come back to you all or to the administration to give you the advice of what we deem as right. Our committee is made up of very knowledgeable members. Sure. Can you put this on the agenda for your next meeting or meeting or two down the road? Sure. I can add it. We meet every other month. We don't meet again until May. I'll put it on there. That's not a problem. Okay, and then could you look to bring in, you know, all the people you probably already have on your committee, but all the people that would help you come up with draft language for legislation? Sure. Okay. Thank you very much. One other question I have about the law, and then we have a couple hands raised that the chair would be gracious enough to let them speak. That would be great. Sure. The current law as written, does it allow me to be a homeowner and have a fenced-in backyard and allow my dog to run loose in the backyard? The current law that we're dealing with right now, yes, it does. Okay. So if we pass this ordinance as written, then I guess I'm trying to understand why people would tether their dog instead of just letting it run loose. The biggest ones they would do, tethering their dog, would be jumping the fence if it's in their, if they've got a fenced-in backyard. A lot of these houses that we'll go to, as you can see, their fences ain't always maintained well. They've got holes in them, their shore broke down, or they're four-foot fences. And if you're dealing with a Rottweiler, they can leap five foot in the air. So what they do is they put a tether out or some of them put trolleys out. It all depends on what they're using. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I think there was a couple. If you have already spoke, I would like to keep your comments very brief, but I will give you an opportunity to respond, but keep it very brief. And if you would, just kind of line up here and we'll let you speak. But keep it very brief because we do need to. We have some other items on the agenda today. And please stay to the motion that we're talking about on the floor. I'm Stobabs Barlow, and my question is whether it would be possible to institute a sort of a, to apply for a, this was like the waiver that I believe was mentioned over here, a permission to tether. In other words, if you have a tethering necessity, could you go through animal control at the Humane Society up front and say, I need to tether my dog, please come check my on-site facilities and make sure I'm doing it okay. No cost, no specific licensing, just an agreement between our animal control people and the dog owners that they know how to humanely confine the dog and tether it and maintain it in the shelter and water and food issues and checking back periodically, just driving by there maybe twice a year to see if the animal is tethered. Is it okay? If you only need to tether it five hours a day while you're at work, you could put on the application during work hours only. Would it be possible to initiate something like that where we knew where the tethered dogs were? And if people are not applying for it, that would be the violation. Make it perfectly clear that if you go to, just like you have to have a city license, you have to have state rabies tags. You have to do that. If you don't, you're in violation whether you knew it or not. If it's publicized properly, you could go in and say, I need to tether and here's why. Come check my yard. I think that's a good issue we could address and look at. Thank you. Next. I think Chief Boulding made a great point when he said when they went to District 11, the pit bulls that were chained and padlocked, they were given a citation for no rabies, no license. The reason they couldn't give a citation for anything else was because there is no law against chaining. So therefore, there was nothing they could do in that situation. And to delay this would just be so wrong because these dogs that are padlocked and chained out will have to remain that way while this is debated and discussed for months. You know, who knows how long this could last before a decision is made. Thank you. Thank you. Hi, I just wanted to reiterate that as far as enforcement goes, animal control is already being called hundreds of times per year to go out and check on specifically chained dogs. So now, if we have a chaining law, it won't be a waste of time for them when they go out to a house. They can cite for chaining, and then they won't have to go back there. Right now, they are being called over and over again to the same house about chaining, about no shelter, about no space. So chaining is a problem right now in our community, and animal control is spending a lot of time on it. Whether or not we have an ordinance, it's a big problem for animal control because people don't like it. Also, I wanted to point out, I don't know what it is about people and how they think they have the right to chain an animal, but there is never a reason, unless you are a police officer or a vet, to chain your dog unaccompanied. No more than you would chain your child unaccompanied, no more than you would chain your cat. There's always an alternative. You can crate, you can provide an adequate kennel space, you can be out there with your dog. this is not a right for people to put their dog on the end of a chain. This is just something that we've neglected to address, and unfortunately it's causing incredible suffering. Thank you. Please, I urge you to address this. Thank you. Thank you. And we have one more person, I think, who wanted to speak. Yes, if you will, let me address you, please. My name is Stephanie Bramlin, and I'm a representative of SOAR. I live in Frankfurt, Kentucky. and these two ladies are very knowledgeable and have thought this through and been through all the channels, I think. But I think what I would like to specifically say is we're not going to sweep Lexington and take every dog away. It's going to be an absolute abuse problem, as these are, and there are many of them. They go do their homework first. They talk to the pet owners. We try to help. We do provide assistance with crate training. in house training, and with their fencing with landlords or property owners. So I urge you to work with these ladies and us and all the other animal control, law enforcement, that we can pass something that will really take care of our animals. With the equestrian games coming, we've got to make it look like these horses and our animals mean something to us. Thank you. We have one more person, and then I think I'm going to stop the conversation. here. I'm Erin Wright, 329 Taylor Drive in Lexington. I know that in some situations, people will tell other animals to use the restroom for five, ten minutes at a time, but I think that that's a luxury those people have. And if it's a sacrifice that needs to be made to stop the cruelty, I think that those people should make that brief sacrifice and comply with the new laws that SOAR is asking you all to pass. I don't think that we're asking for much. So I strongly encourage you to vote yes to this ordinance. Thank you. Thank you. Is there any other council members have a question because i have one question i'd like to and i hope this doesn't cause a lot of discussion here but i know it was an issue in the very first subcommittee meeting and i guess mr horn if you could answer this because this was kind of an issue that people were concerned about when you say or the person remains with the dog can you define what you mean by that because there was different discussion if you're beside the dog or if you're in the house looking at the dog. Well, first let me say that the subcommittee, the members of the council on this subcommittee listened to a lot of this same stuff and had discussions about a lot of these issues. And I don't want anyone under the impression that this subcommittee did not consider nearly all of these issues. This ordinance went through several drafts, and they looked at it, they debated it, and decided what they wanted it to say. At one point, there was a draft that would permit someone to be inside their home. As long as someone was present in the home, then the dog could be tethered outside in the yard. But the subcommittee decided they didn't like that language. So presently, the way this reads is you must be in the same area as the animal when it's chained or tethered. Okay. Mr. Beer, do you have a question? Well, as we're kind of toward the point of wrapping this up, you know, there's a thousand shades of gray that we have to deal with. And we very rarely, this body, the council as a whole, very rarely comes down either purely black or purely white on an issue. Everything we look at is one shade of gray or another, and this is one of them. I mean, there have been many valid points that have been made, which we did discuss, all of those various situations that could happen. But, you know, those are rare situations. What we want to do and what we wanted to do was to give animal control some teeth to be able to handle the extreme situations, no pun intended, Council Member Gordon, to be able to handle these situations expeditiously. And, again, we can talk this to death. We can talk about it continually until next year. Well, I think we'll go ahead and vote then. We'll never get it perfect. We have a motion on the floor, and I want, for the people watching and the audience, I did not recognize anybody prior to make a quorum, so therefore only the committee members can vote on this. If it's a 4-4 vote where there are actually eight committee members, as Ms. James said, she is not a committee member. Mr. Stenet is not. Dr. Blues or Ms. Gorton are not committee members, so they will not be voting on this. If it's a 4-4 vote, then we'll move it forward with no recommendation. If it doesn't pass, then it always can be brought up by another council member, move it forward at another time. Or if it does pass, then we'll move it forward, and I'll bring it up at the next committee council meeting work session next Tuesday. At this point, I will close all the discussion. We'll go ahead and vote. All those in favor of this, please say aye. Aye. And raise your hand if you would. And I guess use your electronic vote, too, if you would. And all those opposed, say nay. And raise your hand and vote. and that that fails three to five but as i said it can be brought up again by a council member there were some discussion and some issues here that i think um maybe need to be looked at again and and brought forward again but i want to thank the subcommittee i want that worked on it and i I also want to thank all the people in the audience that have come to all the committees and met, because it is an issue that's important to this community, and I'm glad for all your input. I think Mr. Myers had a question or a comment. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Curtis, is it? If you would come to the microphone, please, Mr. Curtis. I'll ask you on the web to try to save some time. Is it possible to have your advisory committee or council meet this month or meet sooner than the regular May meeting and try to take up this issue of looking at legislation that would make it easier for animal care control to remove dogs from unsafe situations? Sure, I can try to get them together. We've got a couple of professional people, one out of Frankfort, a veterinarian, and sometimes their schedules are somewhat sketchy as far as time allowance, but I'll see if I can get them together. beforehand. Okay. I have a special meeting to address this. Thank you very much. And I will keep this in committee and if you want to bring something back to us and we can look at this again at another time. But I want to thank once again everybody for all their input and we look forward to your committee coming back to us. One thing I would ask of you all is, specifically if you have any points that you wish us to address, it's rcurtislfucg.com. Certainly. That way I can take them directly to the committee. Thank you. At this time I'd like to go back to the first issue that was on the and that was the peddler's license. I see Dr. David Barbary here, and he's a doctor of law, so that does count. If you would, could you talk about the memo that you sent to us? Certainly. You all have asked a couple of general questions about peddling, some of which have actually come up before, and the solicitation issue comes up from time to time as well. The first question had to deal with whether or not if you were soliciting for nonprofit purposes, you would be required to get a peddler's license, and the answer to that is basically no. That's how revenue, it's our understanding, has always interpreted it that way, and there's nothing inconsistent or anything like that with their interpretation of that particular issue. The other issue that was asked about was whether or not, or actually what the effect of posting a no solicitation notice on property is. It's probably a little more complicated with respect to a general posting in a neighborhood than it is with respect to a piece of private property. Generally, there's nothing else to fall back on other than the trespass law with respect to that particular issue. So if you're talking about a neighborhood that's not otherwise private, the posting of a no solicitation is probably not going to do a whole lot of good because the streets and sidewalks are otherwise public anyway. If it's posted on the private property, it would probably be more enforceable if it had the trespass language in it. But the solicitation posting would probably have some effect. But with trespass, as with many of our violations, it's going to require the actual citizen that suffered the offense to report that in order to make that work and be enforceable. So I don't know if that answers all of you all's questions on this or not. I've also enclosed a couple of memos on this that we had done for you all previously. Mr. Stenet. I do think it addresses the two pertinent questions from last meeting. I think it would be, Chair, if we could keep this in community and have the county attorney's office come. I think they need to be consulted on how this is being enforced when they go to court. I meant to mention that, too, on our previous issue. You know, when we enact an ordinance, whether it be on this change or any change, the county attorney has to be able to prosecute it and win. It would be great to know if they are even prosecuting this ordinance right now. Do you know, David, are there any cases pending now? With respect to the peddling or the? Peddling. I don't know. It would be great to find that in. We can contact them, and if we want to keep it in committee, then we can invite them to come to the next meeting, and we can. Or we can just pass for information only. If we feel like that's not enough, we can maybe invite them. I don't want to. Okay. Well, we can. That's fine. We'll start with that and see where that goes. Thank you, Chair. Is there any other questions on this issue? At this time, the third issue on the agenda is the private solid waste providers, and Ms. Gorton brought this forward, and I'll let Ms. Gorton lead this discussion. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Quite a number of months ago, our administration announced that Lexington Fayette County would be trash-free by 2020. And so that got me to thinking about the garbage issue and how we are going to be going about that. And so that led me to thinking about the private haulers and what services are offered through the private haulers and how we can get there together because there is a significant portion of our county that's picked up by private hauling. And so I put this issue in committee so that we can start looking at the services and exactly how the private hauling fits into our goal of getting to be trash free by 2020. So there are a number of issues that I had hoped we could talk about, but I think mainly what's in the packet is the ordinance and definitions. So that's just kind of where I was coming from. Okay, you're right. In the packet there was mostly definitions. You're right. Where would you like to lead with this? Would you like to have some of the private haulers come talk about what they provide at this point? Well, I know some are here with us today, and I really appreciate that very much. And what I had hoped that we could look at is, because my intent isn't to make private hauling go away. I'll just say that straight off. My intent is to work together toward this awesome goal that we have. And so I had thought it might be good to see what services LFUCG offers. Okay, why don't we start there? I think we have some folks from Solid Waste here that they could talk about what we offer, and then we can see how that compares to what the private haulers are offering. Do we have anybody that would like to volunteer, or should I request somebody? I see Steve Feast is getting up here. Welcome. Yes, just a quick synopsis. We have about 85,000 households that we service every week. We provide three streams of pickup, landfill-bound waste to the Herbie recycling through the Rosie, yard waste to the Lenny, as well as the paper bags. We also provide separate quite good appliances, pickup every week, and we also provide bulky item collection at this point every week. There are a number of other things that we do. We get animal collection, a lot of ancillary services like loan-a-box for when folks are doing special pickups or basically trying to clean out their garage or basically spring cleaning, things of that nature. Those are some of the basic services that we provide. Of course, we also have services to businesses. All the businesses get twice a week service as well, some through the Herbies that they have if they don't have enough room for a dumpster. And we also provide recycling services to businesses and non-residential entities also. Did I miss anything, Kevin? Is that pretty much it? And I don't know if you have any more questions, I'd be glad to try to answer them. That's kind of what we do in a nutshell. Any questions? Ms. Gorton? Well, I would ask, you said that you serve 85,000 households. Somewhere in that area, yes. And so do we have anyone here who knows how many households are served by private hauling? Well, Carrie could probably give you a better idea of that. I think it's somewhere around 10,000 households or more than that. 10 to 12. By all the different companies. For those who are watching, could you tell us how you make the distinction between if they have the public pickup and then how they might have private pickup and how that might happen? It kind of goes back to when the urban county government merged in 1973. The people who were in the old city had the city garbage pickup. and when the urban county government merged. At that time, the residents who lived in the old county sections were given the opportunity to petition in for city service. And over the last 30 years or 35 years, we've had thousands of homes who have year by year petitioned in for the city service. That has slowed down a good bit because most of those homes where it was economically advantageous for them to come into city service have already done so. Now, there are a few other homes where it would be financially advantageous for them to actually have city service to get that. But the number of homes that are changing over at this point has slowed down quite a bit. And so at this point, any new home, new development coming into city service that is being built in the urban county government, in the full urban service district, is being serviced by the urban county government. They come into that tax district. And so there is, to my understanding, there is no more privately serviced homes that are being built right now inside the full urban service area. Thank you. Any other questions? Ms. Gordon? Do we have a standard agreement that, like, I think of our franchise agreements with our utilities, any kind of standard agreement that urban county government signs with our private haulers? No, not to my knowledge. Okay. Okay. And do you, I might be better served to ask one of our private haulers, but can, is there a comparison of the services? You listed off several services that we offer. Do you have a comparison of that, what LFUCG offers and what private haulers offer? No, we really haven't looked at that at this point. So how, not to put you on the spot, you and I have talked a lot over the years, but how are we going to meet our goal, this goal that we have of recycling everything we can recycle? If we, I mean, what's our plan for moving forward with that? Well, I think that one of the ways that we do that is to kind of level a playing field for the disposal options. Right now we have a lot of landfill opportunities. It's very easy to landfill stuff. And we're upgrading the recycling center, and I hope that we can do the same thing for our yard waste and expanded organics operation where we can make it easier for the private sector to participate in the collection of different streams. And I think that's one of the things that we could do that would move us toward that goal. So that's kind of where we're working and putting our efforts. Certainly, as we make it easier for, as we build infrastructure for our waste management system, in terms of alternatives for landfill disposal, I think it also makes it easier for all those private haulers as well. Okay. Thank you very much. I trust you're going to ask to hear from our private folks. Exactly. There was supposed to be a list back there. I think it might have got picked up with the other list. If you would like to speak as a private hauler, I guess we don't have a list. Do we have a list there? Okay, there's no one on there. If you'd like to speak, we'll give you this opportunity now. Anybody want to speak to this issue? I see Mr. Loy back there with M&M. You're not being subpoenaed to come here, but we appreciate your opportunity to come here and answer some questions. Sure. Kerry Loy with M&M Sanitation for Public Services. We do residential, commercial, and industrial service collection in Fayette County. Our company does own landfills, operates the current transfer station operation for the city, and we do offer recycling both on the industrial, commercial, and residential lines of business. I'll be happy to answer any questions that you may have. I think one of the questions was how many customers do you have in Fayette County? I think you said 10,000 to 12,000. Is that correct? Yeah, it fluctuates anywhere between 8,000 to 10,000 customers. There's only a certain size piece of pie in Fayette County anymore for the private residential collection. And we tend to, as my competitors are here today, we tend to trade accounts back and forth depending on people moving in and out of those areas, and we change accounts around. In response to what Ms. Gordon had asked about the mayor making the 2020 as being trash-free, what would be your all's objective to help get us to that point? How are you all working towards that? I really don't have anything to add to that at this point in time. Certainly would like to get some more information on what direction, you know, I know Fayette County would like to be at zero waste, but, you know, how is that going to be addressed with the commercial and industrial businesses and what is going to be able to be recycled. We certainly do promote recycling in our company on all three different lines of business, being commercial, residential, and industrial. It's all voluntary at this point in time, as it is basically for Fayette County. So depending on what direction, what push the county government wants to go in and try to increase that. But we're at about a 25% rate on our residential line of business, 10 to 15 on the commercial side, and probably less than 10 on the industrial side at this point in time. So I think you'll find on the residential side fairly similar numbers to what the residential is for Fayette County right now for the Division of Waste Management. And it is all voluntary. I think I have a list here. Is that Mr. Beard? Are you okay? Mr. Beard? I just wanted to see if I heard properly, not necessarily for you, but our solid waste division. And how many residential homes you service? 85,000 households, I believe he said. It's roughly 85,000 homes. How many? 85,000. 85,000. I only got the 5,000 part of it, and I thought, my goodness. There's Nate in front of that. There's a good opportunity for M&M to jump in there and fill the void. Thank you very much. That's all I had. Thank you. That was an easy one. Mr. Lane? Hello there. How are you doing? Good afternoon. Good. Could you talk about how your fee structure is set up for residential collections? Do you have, like, a flat monthly fee per household, or how is that structured? Yes. It's set up based on the service areas that we provide. One of the situations we run into is the density on our routes. And when you have less number of homes on a route, you have to still cover your base costs, so you'll have an increase in fees. So throughout Fayette County in the subdivisions, we'll have a set rate. But when you travel out farther into the county, it's a little more cost. A little more cost has to be spread out over fewer homes, so the cost tends to be higher in the county. But, yes, we do have base rates. Can you say approximately what they run for a residential in the urban service area and maybe a residential outside the urban service area? Yeah, in the county, anywhere from $25 to $40 a month. In basically the subdivision areas, you can run anywhere from $15 to $25 a month in that range. And, again, it's based on route density, and we are in business to make money, And so we have to cover those costs. And as we continue to grow and get more density in these routes, it helps us hold our costs for a longer period of time. You mentioned that you could do recycling. If somebody wants to recycle, do you provide a separate collecting container for that? And is there an additional monthly charge for recycling? How is that structured? Yes, we offer a similar cart to what the Lexington Division of Waste Management offers, a 96-gallon cart. It's collected weekly. There is an extra charge for that service, and, again, it's all voluntary. But we've seen over the past couple of years there's a bigger push by citizens. And if we do get a benefit from the disposal end of that when they pick up that service, And so we've kind of held that cost on recycling at a pretty decent rate for the last couple of years and not looking to increase the rate but just trying to build our density on that. Now we have a processing facility for the Durham County government for the recycled materials. Do you use our facility and bring your materials there, or do you have your own recycling area? How do you handle the recycled materials? We currently process it at the Fayette County Recycling Center. Okay. And there's a fee involved that's charged to us. At the same time, the rebate money's come back, and the processing fee is backed out of that. As far as scheduling your routes, do you use a computer or any kind of technology for that? And do you have GPS service on your trucks? We do not have GPS at this point in time, but we do have routing software that assists us. Do you feel that your services are real cost effective because you're a private hauler as opposed to a government hauler? Well, I feel like I am, but I'm not going to be able to comment on what Fayette County is doing. Would you like to have the opportunity to bid on other routes than Fayette County if they were to come available at a future date? Absolutely. Okay. All right. Thank you very much. I appreciate your comments. Ms. Gorton, I think I had you on here again. Carrie, thank you for being here. Now, when you are answering these questions, are you answering only for M&M, or are you answering for? Yeah, just for my company. That's what I thought. Mr. Lane brought up several questions that I think were important. What is your charge for recycling? $8 a month. And are you aware of the list of things that urban county government recycles? Are you pretty familiar with that? I don't know if you are. Somewhat familiar. I'm more familiar with what we pick up, yes. Okay. Do you pick up all glass? We currently do not offer that in our program. We stopped that approximately three years ago and opted to pick up loose cardboard and replace that because we changed our method of collection to where we can pick this up in a compaction truck, which improved our route efficiencies, and we were able to service more customers in a less amount of time. So, again, in trying to keep the costs down. So you don't, do you pick up any glass? Not at the present time, no. Do you pick up all paper, newspaper, junk mail, magazines, and all those sorts of things? Yes. Anything basically other than glass that they allow us to process at the recycling center, we do collect. If someone sets out a bag of shredded paper, do you take that? Yes. Okay. I'm trying to get a feel for it. I would have enjoyed seeing a columned out comparison, a feel for what you do take. Do you have, of course, you take cans. Yes. I'm sure of all kinds and plastics. Plastics, metals, paper. Okay. Do you have a separate container for yard waste, did you say? We do not offer any separate waste collection for the yard waste at this time. It is something that our company has reviewed. But again, from a cost-effective standpoint, we're just not at that point. So your charge per month, if we were to compare what's picked up, you don't do glass and you don't do yard waste. Do you think those are the main differences? We collect yard waste, but it is combined with the regular everyday garbage. It is landfilled at this point in time. We've got to cut that out. We've got to get you to put that in the other place. So it isn't put in the landfill. So people just pile their yard waste in with the garbage, and it all goes to the landfill. Correct. Okay. Were you, before today, were you aware of the 2020 goal for Fayette County? Is that kind of a new concept? No, I've read about it in the paper. In the paper. I had a few questions to Steve in the past, but I'm familiar with it. Well, I think it's predicated on recycling, you know, as much as we can. And I think it would be really good if there could be some conversation. I realize you're a private business. I do understand that. But if we're to get to our 2020 goal of being trash-free, which is kind of a green goal, and it also is a goal that will help us economically because, as you know, it costs millions of dollars to cap a landfill, then I think we're going to have to have some conversations, friendly conversations about how to get there as a community. Absolutely. We'd be willing to meet and serve on a committee and work towards that goal. This business is ever-changing, and, you know, our company looking long-term understands there's going to be more and more recycling. So we're very flexible in that regard. What would it take to have your company take another look at getting the yard waste out of the landfill stream? Is it pure economics? It is absolutely economics at this point in time. It doesn't mean we can't take another look at it, though. What about glass? Then you look at adding cost to the collection, and it goes back to the consumer. And what are they going to be willing to do? We feel like we've got a pretty good program in place as far as the amount of glass. We still promote that. We let them know that there are drop-off points in the city of Lexington for folks that truly want to push as much recycling as they can to do that. But at this point in time, we feel like we've got a pretty good method. Not that I'm opposed to taking another look at it, but we actually saw an increase in our volume when we dropped the glass and added cardboard to it. So from a weight standpoint, you're getting probably more volume from a weight standpoint, probably getting less weight, but you're getting more volume, bulk. Cardboard takes up more space. Yes. I know that, well, these are very important issues to me. I don't remember, Mr. Ellinger, if you were on the council when we spent our $6 million to cap the old Frankfurt landfill. It's very pricey. And so just personally, I think the less we put in a landfill, the better. And I guess my take on all this would be that it would be a good thing if we could start some dialogue. toward this goal that the administration has made public and how we're going to get there as a community since we're all in it together. So, you know, I don't have a motion coming out of today, but I do think it's important that our citizens understand that we're trying to get to that goal and how we get there is important for us all to work on. And I don't know if your competitors want to speak or not, but welcome back. Is there anybody else that would like to come forward and talk about what you offer with yours? Thank you, Council. Thank you, Mr. Loy. I sure appreciate you taking this opportunity. Well, I assume, Mr. Fees, if you would, could you at least contact the other haulers and at least make them aware that we're looking at this goal and that we'd like to be in a communication with all of them that service this community? I think conversation is very important. I'm sure you have been in the past, and we just want to continue to do that. Is there any further you'd like to ask? I don't have anything else today, but I would encourage the committee, since I'm not on the committee, to keep this issue here, and maybe we can hear back in the future from Mr. Feast. Yeah, if you would, if you could get with them and then get back with us, that would be great. We appreciate that. Thank you all for coming today, especially Mr. Loy for coming and speaking to us today. Is there any other issues before the committee? How about a motion to adjourn? We are adjourned.