Feb 27, 2025 Metro Council

[00:01:46]

FIVE.

BEGAN TO BE. LA LA LA LA LA LA AND GO. BACK TO. SUNDAY SCHOOL FOR. THE NEXT. 131.1. ON THE FOLLOWING DAY. ONE THING I THINK IS NICE 1009. SO THAT IS ONE. YEAR. AND THEN IF I STILL WANTED TO. WORK ON THAT. YEAH. SO THAT FEELS GOOD. THANK YOU. YEAH. SO LET'S SEE WHAT WE HAVE. WHAT WE OR ANYONE. CAN SAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU SO MUCH. YEP, THERE I AM. HOW ABOUT YOU? THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. CHRISTMAS. IS. RIGHT. IT. KNOW IT'S. YOU CAN. THANK YOU. SO. AND IT'S GOOD TO. SEE YOU. YEAH. THAT'S RIGHT. THANK YOU FOR ALL THAT. THANK YOU. WANT TO GO BACK TO THE OTHER? TEXT? BUT WE'LL HAVE TO GEAR UP NOW. OKAY. SO THAT. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. LET'S GO BACK TO.

BASEBALL. LA LA LA LA LA LA LA. REPUBLIC OF THE. CZECH. JUST TO THE NORTH. OF THE ABSOLUTE

[00:05:18]

YOU KNOW A. I KNOW THAT YOU. YEAH. YOU.

KNOW.

YOU KNOW. THAT. YOU.

KNOW. YOU. YOU KNOW.

METRO TV WILL START IN 30S.

AND. THE REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING OF LOUISVILLE METRO COUNCIL FOR FEBRUARY 27TH, 2025

[Call to Order and Pledge of Allegiance]

[Member Roll Call]

COUNCIL MEMBER. LINENGER. PRESENT. COUNCIL MEMBER MCCRANEY. HERE. COUNCIL MEMBER.

WEBER. COUNCIL MEMBER. OWEN. HERE. COUNCIL MEMBER. RAYMOND. HERE. COUNCIL MEMBER. KRAMER.

[00:10:05]

WINKLER. HERE. COUNCIL MEMBER. PARKER. HERE. COUNCIL MEMBER. PIAGENTINI. COUNCIL MEMBER.

BENSON. PRESENT. COUNCIL MEMBER. RUBY. HERE. COUNCIL MEMBER. BRATCHER. HERE. COUNCIL MEMBER.

HUDSON. HERE. COUNCIL MEMBER. WOOLRIDGE. COUNCIL MEMBER. OH. THAT'S RIGHT. SORRY, MA'AM.

COUNCIL MEMBER. BACHCHON. COUNCIL MEMBER. ATKINSON. PRESENT OR I'M SORRY. PRESIDENT ATKINSON AND COUNCIL MEMBER CRAMER. HERE. MR. PRESIDENT, YOU HAVE 23 AND A QUORUM. AND LET THE RECORD REFLECT THAT COUNCILMAN BEN WEBER HAS A EXCUSED ABSENCE. SO NOTED, SIR.

[Introduction of Page(s)]

COUNCILMAN MCCRANEY. COUNCILMAN WINKLER, I BELIEVE YOU GOT A PAGE TO INTRODUCE. YES. I AM EXCITED ABOUT OUR PAGE TODAY. WHO IS A DISTRICT SEVEN RESIDENT. AND I WILL DEFER TO COUNCILMAN WINKLER TO INTRODUCE HIM. YES. THANK YOU, COUNCILWOMAN MCCRANEY. THANK YOU, PRESIDENT AKERSON. COLLEAGUES, I'D LIKE TO INTRODUCE YOU TO OUR PAGE TONIGHT IF YOU WANT TO STAND UP. ASHIMA IS A FIFTH GRADE STUDENT AT ZACHARY TAYLOR ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, WHICH IS IN DISTRICT 17 AND BUT LIVES DOWN THE ROAD IN DISTRICT SEVEN. SO GO FALCONS.

HE ENJOYS SOCCER AND IS PART OF THE ZACHARY TAYLOR ELEMENTARY SOCCER TEAM. ONE OF HIS TEACHERS. WE ASKED ONE OF HIS TEACHERS TO DESCRIBE HIM, AND HE SAID THAT HE'S A STRONG STUDENT AND AN EXCELLENT LEADER. AND MY UNDERSTANDING IS HE MAY WANT TO BE AN ATTORNEY ONE DAY WHEN HE GROWS UP. SO WE'VE GOT, I THINK, JUST ONE ATTORNEY LEFT CURRENTLY ON COUNCIL. SO SOUNDS LIKE WE CAN EXPECT GREAT THINGS IN THE YEARS TO COME. AS COUNCILMAN MCCRANEY SAID, HE AND HIS FAMILY LIVE JUST OUTSIDE IN DISTRICT SEVEN. AND PLEASE JOIN US IN WELCOMING MAGANZA. SO THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE. COUNCILWOMAN CHAPPLE AND COUNCILWOMAN RUBY, I BELIEVE YOU'VE GOT A SPECIAL GUEST TONIGHT.

AND I'M MY OUR GUEST IS NOT HERE. SHOULD WE PROCEED? I THINK. NOPE. YOU WANT TO HOLD OFF TO AFTER ADDRESSES? THAT WOULD BE WONDERFUL IF WE COULD GET ON TIME. AND IF HE'S NOT HERE AT THAT TIME, THEN WE WILL TABLE. SO THANK YOU SO MUCH. OKAY. THANK YOU. MADAM CLERK, ARE THERE ANY ADDRESSES TO COUNCIL? YES, SIR. THERE ARE. LET ME REMIND THOSE ADDRESSING

[Addresses to the Council]

[00:15:07]

THE PROCESS OVER THE PAST SEVEN WEEKS HAS BEEN LED BY A SMALL BUT LOUD GROUP OF IRATE AND DANGEROUSLY MISINFORMED LANDLORDS PRESENTING THEMSELVES AS EXPERTS ON LEAD POISONING, DOING THE WRONG THING FOR 56 YEARS DOES NOT MAKE YOU AN EXPERT AT ANYTHING, EXCEPT CONTINUING THE DECEPTIVE PRACTICES THAT ALLOWED LEAD POISONING TO FLOURISH, EVEN 47 YEARS AFTER IT WAS BANNED. HOW DO I KNOW THAT THIS SMALL GROUP IS BEHIND IT? I MEAN, THEY'RE NOT LINED UP HERE TO SPEAK PUBLICLY. PUBLIC TRANSPARENCY IS NOT THE LAST THING THEY WANT.

TWO AND A HALF YEARS AGO, THEY TRIED TO OFFER ARGUMENTS, AND APPARENTLY NO ONE FOUND IT COMPELLING BECAUSE THIS MEASURE PASSED UNANIMOUSLY. I KNOW BECAUSE I HEAR THE SAME MISINFORMATION, THE SAME SCARE TACTICS, AND EVEN THE SAME BOGUS ANECDOTES BEING REPEATED BY LAWMAKERS. IN FACT, AT LAST TUESDAY'S COMMITTEE HEARING WHERE THIS ORDINANCE WAS PASSED, THE ANECDOTE WAS REPEATED. THAT WAS SHARED WITH ME A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO, I'M SURE, BY THE SAME PEOPLE. I WAS TOLD BY SOMEONE THAT I WAS TOLD IN 1969 BY THE GOVERNMENT TO USE LEAD PAINT, AND NOW THEY WANT ME TO TAKE IT OUT. MARXISM. THIS IS NOT THE PEOPLE THAT WE WANT TEACHING US ABOUT MODERN LEAD POISONING PREVENTION TECHNIQUES, BUT WE ARE ALL VICTIMS, RENTERS, OWNERS, LANDLORDS, THE OG VILLAINS. TO BORROW A MARKETING PHRASE FROM ONE OF THEM, SHERWIN

[00:20:05]

APPLIED BEHAVIOR ANALYSIS IS THE ONLY SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN TREATMENT FOR AUTISM, HELPING INDIVIDUALS DEVELOP CRITICAL LIFE AND COMMUNICATION SKILLS. BY 2012, THANKS TO THE GENEROSITY OF THE METZ FAMILY, WE EXPANDED INTO DONATED SPACE AT MID CITY MALL, SERVING OUR TEENS AND YOUNG ADULTS. THE FOLLOWING YEAR, WITH SUPPORT FROM KOSAIR FOR KIDS, WE ESTABLISHED OUR CAMPUS ON BLUEGRASS PARKWAY IN J-TOWN. AROUND THAT TIME, FUNDING FUNDING SOURCES FOR AUTISM SERVICES, PARTICULARLY ABA THERAPY, WERE BECOMING MORE WIDELY AVAILABLE. THIS PIVOTAL MOMENT ALLOWED US TO TRANSITION FROM A SCHOOL BASED TUITION MODEL TO A BEHAVIOR HEALTH MODEL, OFFICIALLY BECOMING THE BLUEGRASS CENTER FOR AUTISM.

THIS SHIFT MADE OUR SERVICES MORE ACCESSIBLE TO FAMILIES IN NEED BY ENABLING COVERAGE THROUGH INSURANCE AND MEDICAID, ENSURING MORE INDIVIDUALS IN OUR COMMUNITY COULD RECEIVE THE CARE THAT THEY DESERVE. FAST FORWARD TO TODAY. BLUEGRASS CENTER FOR AUTISM NOW HAS FOUR LOCATIONS ACROSS LOUISVILLE AND SERVES CLIENTS FROM 37 ZIP CODES FROM KENTUCKY AND INDIANA. WE PROVIDE OVER 2600 HOURS OF INDIVIDUALIZED THERAPY ON A WEEKLY BASIS THROUGH A STAFF OF 96. DESPITE ALL OF THIS, THE DEMAND FOR OUR SERVICES CONTINUES TO GROW. OVER THE PAST TWO DECADES, THE PREVALENCE OF AUTISM HAS RISEN DRAMATICALLY. ACCORDING TO THE CDC, THE CURRENT RATE OF AUTISM IS ONE INCH 36, WHICH IS A STAGGERING INCREASE FROM JUST 20 YEARS AGO, WHEN THE ESTIMATED RATE OF AUTISM WAS ONE INCH 150 CHILDREN. ASD IS FOUND ACROSS ALL RACIAL, ETHNIC AND SOCIOECONOMIC GROUPS, AND IT OCCURS FOUR TIMES MORE IN BOYS THAN IT DOES IN GIRLS. KENTUCKY MEDICAID ALONE IDENTIFIES OVER 17,000 CHILDREN DIAGNOSED WITH AUTISM IN THE STATE OVER THE PAST 14 YEARS. OUR DEMAND FOR SERVICES HAS GROWN, AND SO DOES THE URGENCY TO EXPAND ACCESS TO OUR HIGH QUALITY ABA THERAPY. WHILE DAILY OPERATIONS ARE SUSTAINED THROUGH BUILD SERVICES, FACILITY EXPANSIONS AND PROGRAM ENHANCEMENTS ARE RELY ENTIRELY ON COMMUNITY SUPPORT. OVER THE PAST 14 YEARS, WE'VE MADE A LASTING IMPACT THANKS TO THOSE WHO HAVE RECOGNIZED THE NEED AND TOOK ACTION. TODAY, MORE THAN 350 INDIVIDUALS REMAIN ON OUR WAITLIST, HIGHLY HIGHLIGHTING THE CRITICAL NEED FOR EXPANSION.

WITH YOUR SUPPORT, WE HOPE THAT WE CAN GROW AND ENHANCE LIFE CHANGING SERVICES THAT SO MANY CHILDREN AND ADULTS WITH AUTISM NEED IN OUR COMMUNITY. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND WE LOOK FORWARD TO CONNECTING WITH YOU IN THE FUTURE. THANK YOU. MARK. MARQUITA FORREST. MARQUITA.

FORREST. MARLEE. HARRINGTON. OKAY. HELLO. MY NAME IS MARLEE HARRINGTON, AND I'M A SENIOR AT DUPONT MANUAL HIGH SCHOOL. I PARTICIPATE IN A RESEARCH PROJECT THROUGH SPALDING UNIVERSITY WITH THE WEST LOUISVILLE MATH AND SCIENCE PROJECT. IN THIS PROJECT, WE RESEARCHED LOCAL LEAD POISONING AND ITS IMPACTS ON CHILDREN IN LOUISVILLE, WHICH IS WHY I'M HERE TODAY. ACCORDING TO THE CDC, AROUND 500,000 CHILDREN IN THE UNITED STATES HAVE BLOOD LEAD LEVELS THAT MEET OR EXCEED THE THRESHOLD CONSIDERED DANGEROUS. HERE IN LOUISVILLE, NEARLY 10,000 LOCAL CHILDREN HAVE TESTED WITH HIGH LEAD LEVELS. THE HIGHEST RISK FOR EXPOSURE AMONG CHILDREN ARE IN THE 40203402 TEN 402, 11 402 12 AND 402 15 ZIP CODE AREAS WITH

[00:25:05]

HOWEVER, LIGHT EXPOSURE IS AN ISSUE ACROSS THE CITY. LEAD EXPOSURE CAN CAUSE IRREVERSIBLE DAMAGE TO A CHILD'S PHYSICAL AND MENTAL WELL-BEING. WITH A MYRIAD OF NEGATIVE HEALTH ASPECTS, INCLUDING PERMANENT BRAIN DAMAGE, DEVELOPMENTAL DELAYS, AND, IN SEVERE CASES, DEATH.

THESE SYMPTOMS NOT ONLY DISRUPT A CHILD'S HOME LIFE, BUT ALSO IMPACT THEIR PERFORMANCE AT SCHOOL. SINCE THESE SYMPTOMS CAN BE HARD TO IDENTIFY AS LEAD POISONING, MANY STUDENTS ARE MISDIAGNOSED OR MISLABELED, PREVENTING THEM FROM RECEIVING THE PROPER HELP THEY NEED.

LOUISVILLE'S LEAD REGISTRY IS AN ESSENTIAL COMPONENT OF ADDRESSING THIS HEALTH CRISIS AMONGST OUR MOST VULNERABLE POPULATION. LANDLORDS HAVE THE RESPONSIBILITY TO ENSURE THAT THEIR PROPERTIES ARE FREE FROM HAZARDOUS TOXINS THAT CAUSE IRREPARABLE DAMAGE TO CHILDREN.

THE REGISTRY IS A TOOL THAT THE CITY CAN USE TO ENSURE THAT BOTH LANDLORDS AND TENANTS UNDERSTAND. TO HAVE A PROCESS FOR HANDLING THIS DANGEROUS MATERIALS. BY ROLLING BACK ON THE CURRENT REQUIREMENTS, THE CITY WILL HAVE LESS OVERSIGHT AND LANDLORDS WILL NOT BE REQUIRED TO EVEN TEST FOR LEAD UNLESS A CHILD IS ALREADY EXPOSED AND TESTED POSITIVE.

THIS MEANS THAT ACTION WILL ONLY BE TAKEN AFTER THE HARM IS DONE. ADDITIONALLY, REMOVING TENANT PROTECTIONS AGAINST RETALIATION WILL PREVENT TENANTS FROM BE ABLE TO REQUEST LEAD ABATEMENT SAFELY FOR THEIR PLACING CHILDREN IN HARM'S WAY. I URGE YOU TO VOTE NO ON THIS ORDINANCE AND ALLOW THE RED THE LEAD REGISTRY TO STAND AS IT IS, NOT JUST FOR THE HEALTH OF OUR CHILDREN, BUT FOR THE FUTURE OF OUR CITY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. KEVIN TOOMEY. KEVIN TOOMEY. DEBORAH O'GORMAN. FIRST, I WANT TO SAY GOOD EVENING. WELCOME TO THE FAMILY. ALL THE NEW PEOPLE. YOU ALL GET TO KNOW ME VERY WELL. I'M DEBORAH O'GORMAN. I RUN A SUPPORT GROUP FOR EPILEPSY CALLED SIEGE SUPPORT EPILEPSY AND GUIDING EPILEPTICS. AND I HAD EPILEPSY, WAS A CHILD. IT WENT AWAY IN 1995. IT CAME BACK AT HUMANA. I LOST MY JOB THERE FOR WALKING AROUND THE ROOM, PINNING MY BOSS AGAINST THE WALL, FRENCH KISSING HIM. WHEN I WOKE UP AN HOUR LATER. DEBORAH, YOU HAVE TO GO. IN 1995, OUR PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH, STARTED AN ADA AMERICAN DISABILITY ACT. EPILEPSY WASN'T ON THERE TILL 1997, SO I COULDN'T SUE ANYBODY. I LOST MY JOB AT SECTION EIGHT FOR DOING JUMPING JACKS. WENT TO UNIVERSITY OF LOUISVILLE. I WAS STUDIED BY BY VERY GOOD DOCTORS. GRÜNTHAL DOCTOR ROY MECKLER. I WAS THE FIRST VNS PATIENT. I'VE HAD THREE LAWSUITS IN THE CITY OF LOUISVILLE BECAUSE PEOPLE SAID, YOU DON'T LOOK EPILEPTIC, YOU CAN'T WALK, TALK, TAKE YOUR CLOTHES OFF. I WAS WEARING THIS THING. MEDICAL ID WE DO NOT HAVE. WHAT, IN THE CITY OF LOUISVILLE. ADA IN 1995, GEORGE BUSH STARTED ADA. OUR MAYOR. WE HAVE NOW WITH FOUR DEPUTY MAYORS. THE CITY OF LOUISVILLE IS A 25TH, 28TH LARGEST CITY IN THE UNITED STATES. I'M ON THE CONVENTION BOARD. WE'RE DOING A $4 MILLION TO THE LARGEST FAIRGROUNDS. INDOOR FAIRGROUNDS. SECOND LARGEST CONVENTION CENTER. YOU JUST HAD SOME WOMEN TALKED ABOUT AUTISM. ONE OUT OF 30 SOME CHILDREN. ONE OUT OF 25 PEOPLE HAVE EPILEPSY. THERE'S 40 TYPES NOW. I HAVE BURIED 15 PEOPLE IN 25 YEARS. ONE OVER 100 PEOPLE DIED FROM EPILEPSY. DO I LOOK EPILEPTIC? WHAT'S AN EPILEPTIC LOOK LIKE? EVERY SHOE YOU HAVE IS MADE OF RUBBER SOLES BECAUSE THAT'S FULL OF ELECTRICITY. I TRAINED TARC BUS FOR 25 YEARS. BARRY BARKER DID AN INTERVIEW ABOUT ME. HE CALLED ME INTENSE. ME? INTENSE. I'VE BEEN CALLED GREGARIOUS. I'VE GONE TO LAWS PASSED BECAUSE I DON'T TAKE. NO. I DON'T WANT MONEY. I DO WANT STATE FAIR TIME. I DON'T CHARGE MONEY. I CHARGE LOVE AND HAPPINESS. YOU'VE GOT HOMELESS PEOPLE OUT THERE WITH NEUROLOGY PROBLEMS. BUT WE DO NOT HAVE AN ADA. WE DO NOT HAVE AN AMERICAN DISABILITY ACT REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE CITY OF LOUISVILLE. OH, WE MADE $28,000 FOR THE FARM MACHINERY SHOW. 28 MILLION. I'M SORRY. AND THEY DIDN'T CHARGE PEOPLE MONEY TO COME IN THIS YEAR. WE HAD THE LARGEST INDOOR FAIRGROUNDS WITH A $4 MILLION RENOVATION. WE LOST. YUM. WE GOT TO GET THAT TAKEN CARE OF. YOU ALL WENT THROUGH A MAJOR GAS LEAK. BELIEVE ME, WHEN WE HAD GAS LEAKS WITH OUR BRAINS, YOU DON'T WANT TO BE AROUND US. I WANT TO TRAIN MORE PEOPLE. AND I DO IT EVERY DAY. YOU RUN A MAGNET ACROSS MY HEART FOR THE VEINS. EVERY TIME YOU TURN THE LIGHT SWITCH ON, THOMAS SAYS. AND WAS EPILEPTIC. YOU BETTER THANK HIM. THE AFRICAN-AMERICANS. HARRIET TUBMAN WAS EPILEPTIC. I CAN GO ON. ON. YES, SHE WAS, SWEETHEART. AND I'M WORKING ON A BOOK ABOUT EPILEPSY. THE UNDERGROUND RAILROADS ON THAT BEAUTIFUL NEW MOVIE. I'LL SHUT

[00:30:03]

WHENEVER THIS COMMUNITY SEEKS TO MAKE ADVANCES IN THE HEALTH AND QUALITY OF LIFE IN SOME INTEREST GROUP IS OFFENDED. GIVE THAT MOUSE A COOKIE AND THERE'S NO END TO THAT CYCLE. MY THREE MINUTES OF TIME IS NEARLY UP, BUT IT IS NEVER THE RIGHT TIME TO CEDE YOUR POWER AND YOUR AUTHORITY TO PROTECT KIDS. IT IS NEVER THE RIGHT TIME TO REWARD THOSE WHO WOULD RATHER SPEND MONEY ON LOBBYING THAN ON DOING THE RIGHT THING. IT IS ALWAYS THE RIGHT TIME TO PUSH BACK AGAINST LEGISLATIVE OVERREACH BY A FEW MEMBERS OF A BODY THAT PROFESSES TO RESPECT LOCAL CONTROL IN GOVERNANCE. FOR THE ADVOCATES OF HOUSE BILL 173, YOU MIGHT WANT TO RETHINK YOUR POSITION, BECAUSE ASSESSING AND CORRECTING HAZARDS PROTECTS YOU AS WELL FROM DAMAGE AWARDS THAT COULD BANKRUPT YOU. IF A CHILD WHO LIVES IN YOUR RENTAL IS POISONED AND YOU DIDN'T TAKE STEPS TO ASSESS AND CORRECT. FINALLY, TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY, A COLLEGIAL BODY I DEEPLY RESPECT AND WHERE FOR DECADES I WORKED, BEGINNING IN 1978, IN A BIPARTISAN WAY TO IMPROVE KENTUCKY'S ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH. DON'T LET YOURSELF BECOME ENTANGLED BY THOSE WHO WANT YOU TO PREEMPTIVELY OVERRIDE LOCAL DECISIONS THAT THEY COULDN'T OR DIDN'T WIN ON THEIR MERITS. GIVE THAT MOUSE A COOKIE, AND YOU WILL HAVE TO LIVE WITH THE EROSION OF PUBLIC CONFIDENCE AND TRUST THAT COMES WITH IT. MR. PRESIDENT, MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU. RASHAWN MARTIN. THANK YOU. GOOD EVENING EVERYBODY. MY NAME IS RASHAN MARTIN AND I'M THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF SAINT JOHN'S CENTER. I'M NOT HERE TO ASK FOR ANYTHING TODAY. REALLY? HERE TO CELEBRATE AND UPLIFT, IF YOU WILL. WHAT IS POSSIBLE WHEN WE ADDRESS THE ISSUES THAT ARE HEAVY ON OUR HEART, RIGHT. AND THAT ARE PLAGUING OUR COMMUNITY BY ADDRESSING THE ROOT CAUSE OF THOSE ISSUES. SAINT JOHN'S CENTER IS A HOMELESS SERVICE AGENCY. WE'VE BEEN PROVIDING HOMELESS SERVICES FOR 38 YEARS, AND THE ROOT CAUSE OF HOMELESSNESS IS A LACK OF AFFORDABLE, SAFE RIGHT HOUSING WITH METRO COUNCIL SUPPORT. WE ARE WORKING TO BE A BIGGER PART OF THAT SOLUTION BY ADDING TO THE HOUSING STOCK. A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO, YOU GUYS ALLOCATED $32 MILLION FOR PERMANENT SUPPORTIVE HOUSING IN RESPONSE TO THIS CITY'S. PLEASE WRITE FOR MORE HOUSING RIGHT SOLUTIONS TO GET PEOPLE OFF OF THE STREET.

WITH THAT SUPPORT, WITH THAT FUNDING, WE HAVE BUILT HOUSING, AND WE'RE HERE TODAY TO INVITE YOU GUYS TO STAND WITH US AND SEE WHAT IS POSSIBLE, RIGHT. AND SEE WHAT WE HAVE DONE AND WHAT WE HAVE BUILT TOGETHER. WE HAVE BUILT 80 UNITS OF PERMANENT SUPPORTIVE HOUSING, AND PERMANENT SUPPORTIVE HOUSING IS FOR PEOPLE WHO ARE THE MOST VULNERABLE PEOPLE WHO ARE LIVING WITH DISABLING CONDITIONS, PEOPLE WHO ARE HAVE BEEN UNHOUSED FOR TOO LONG. SO TOGETHER WE BUILT THIS HOUSING FACILITY AND WE ARE GOING TO PROVIDE HOUSING, AND WE ARE

[00:35:03]

COUNCILWOMAN CHAPEL, IS YOUR GUEST HERE? MY GUEST IS NOT. DO I HAVE TO MAKE A MOTION TO TABLE, OR DO I JUST REQUEST TO MOVE ON? OKAY. THANK YOU. MADAM CLERK, NEXT, WE HAVE THE

[Council Minutes]

[Committee Minutes]

[6. ID 25-0106     Regular:  Committee of the Whole – February 13, 2025]

[7. ID 25-0076     Regular:  Planning and Zoning Committee – February 18, 2025]

[8. ID 25-0077     Regular:  Labor and Economic Development Committee – February 18, 2025]

[9. ID 25-0078     Regular:  Public Works Committee – February 18, 2025]

[10. ID 25-0079     Regular:  Government Oversight/Audit and Appointments Committee – February 18, 2025]

[11. ID 25-0080     Regular:  Equity, Community Affairs, Housing, Health and Education Committee – February 19, 2025]

[12. ID 25-0081     Regular:  Appropriations Committee – February 19, 2025]

[13. ID 25-0082     Regular:  Ad Hoc Committee on Efficiency of Boards and Commissions – February 19, 2025]

[14. ID 25-0083     Regular:  Parks and Sustainability Committee – February 20, 2025]

[15. ID 25-0084     Regular:  Budget Committee – February 20, 2025]

AYE. ANY OPPOSITION? IN OPPOSITION, THE MINUTES ARE APPROVED AS WRITTEN. MADAM

[Communications to the Council]

[16. ID 25-0097     Code Enforcement Board – Naya Oliu Faloh (New Appointment).]

[17. ID 25-0098     Human Relations Advocacy Board – Yvonne Jones (New Appointment).]

[18. ID 25-0099     KentuckianaWorks -  Louisville Workforce Development Board – Bill Miller (New Appointment).]

[19. ID 25-0100     Louisville Downtown Management District Board – Todd Warren (Reappointment) and George Timmering (New Appointment).]

[20. ID 25-0101     Louisville Metro Housing Authority Board – Joseph Pusateri (New Appointment).]

[21. ID 25-0102     Tree Advisory Committee – Rebecca Kostrach (New Appointment).]

YOUR PROMPT ACTION ON THE APPOINTMENT IS MOST APPRECIATED. SINCERELY, CRAIG GREENBERG MAYOR

[22. ID 25-0103     Water Works Board – Kenneth Marshall (New Appointment) and William Summers IV (Reappointment).]

THE FOURTH REAPPOINTMENT TERM EXPIRES APRIL THE 30TH, 2029. YOUR PROMPT ACTION ON THESE

[00:40:03]

THOSE APPOINTMENTS NEEDING COUNCIL APPROVAL SHOULD BE FORWARDED TO GOVERNMENT OVERSIGHT, AUDIT AND APPOINTMENTS COMMITTEE. THE NEXT ITEM ON OUR BUSINESS WILL BE THE

[Consent Calendar]

[Legislation forwarded from APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE]

[24. O-043-25     AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 100, SERIES 2024, RELATING TO THE FISCAL YEAR 2024-2025 OPERATING BUDGET, BY TRANSFERRING $10,000.00 FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT FUND (DISTRICT 1) TO THE LOUISVILLE METRO COUNCIL GENERAL OPERATIONS (DISTRICT 1). 2/20/25 Budget Committee  Recommended for Approval Action Required By: August 13, 2025 Sponsors: Tammy Hawkins (D-1) ]

[Legislation forwarded from EQUITY, COMMUNITY AFFAIRS, HOUSING, HEALTH AND EDUCATION COMMITTEE]

[Legislation forwarded from GOVERNMENT OVERSIGHT/AUDIT AND APPOINTMENTS COMMITTEE]

[Legislation forwarded from LABOR AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE]

[39. R-016-25     A RESOLUTION PURSUANT TO THE CAPITAL AND OPERATING BUDGET ORDINANCES APPROVING THE APPROPRIATION TO FUND THE FOLLOWING NONCOMPETITIVELY NEGOTIATED PROFESSIONAL SERVICE CONTRACT FOR THE OFFICE FOR SAFE AND HEALTHY NEIGHBORHOODS CONCERNING EVALUATION AND ANALYSIS REGARDING THE LOUISVILLE YOUTH CONTINUUM OF CARE PROJECT – (MCNARY AND ASSOCIATES LLC - $99,539.00). 2/18/25 Labor and Economic Development Committee  Recommended for Approval Action Required By: August 13, 2025 Sponsors: Ben Reno-Weber (D-8) ]

[40. R-018-25     A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE GRANTING OF LOCAL INCENTIVES TO WILA USA LLC AND ANY SUBSEQUENT ASSIGNEES OR APPROVED AFFILIATES THEREOF PURSUANT TO KRS CHAPTER 154, SUBCHAPTER 32. 2/18/25 Labor and Economic Development Committee  Recommended for Approval Action Required By: August 13, 2025 Sponsors: Ben Reno-Weber (D-8) ]

[41. R-019-25     A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE GRANTING OF LOCAL INCENTIVES TO HOUSTON-JOHNSON, INC. AND ANY SUBSEQUENT ASSIGNEES OR APPROVED AFFILIATES THEREOF PURSUANT TO KRS CHAPTER 154, SUBCHAPTER 32. 2/18/25 Labor and Economic Development Committee  Recommended for Approval Action Required By: August 13, 2025 Sponsors: Khalil Batshon (R-25) ]

[42. R-023-25     A RESOLUTION DETERMINING THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1407 HEAFER ROAD (PARCEL ID NO. 002300250000) AS SURPLUS AND NOT NEEDED FOR A GOVERNMENTAL PURPOSE AND AUTHORIZING ITS TRANSFER. 2/18/25 Labor and Economic Development Committee  Recommended for Approval Action Required By: August 13, 2025 Sponsors: Markus Winkler (D-17) ]

[Legislation forwarded from PARKS AND SUSTAINABILITY COMMITTEE]

[43. R-015-25     A RESOLUTION PURSUANT TO THE CAPITAL AND OPERATING BUDGET ORDINANCES APPROVING THE APPROPRIATION TO FUND THE FOLLOWING NONCOMPETITIVELY NEGOTIATED PROFESSIONAL SERVICE CONTRACT FOR METRO PARKS CONCERNING CONSULTING SERVICES FOR PARKS FOR ALL PLANNING AND REPORTING – PROS CONSULTING, INC. ($118,000.00). 2/20/25 Parks and Sustainability Committee Recommended for Approval Action Required By: August 13, 2025 Sponsors: Councilman Khalil Batshon (R-25) ]

[Legislation forwarded from PLANNING AND ZONING COMMITTEE]

[44. O-044-25     AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 156 OF THE LOUISVILLE METRO CODE OF ORDINANCES (“LMCO”) TO MAKE VIOLATIONS OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE (“LDC”) WITH RESPECT TO EXTERIOR PROPERTY AREAS CODE ENFORCEMENT PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE VIOLATIONS. 2/18/24  Planning and Zoning Committee  Recommended for approval Action Required By  August 13, 2025 Sponsors: Jeff Hudson (R-23), Andrew Owen (D-9). Shameka Parrish-Wright (D-)]

[45. O-046-25     AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE CLOSURE OF APPROXIMATELY 220 LINEAR FEET OF RIGHT-OF-WAY LOCATED ALONG SHIPLEY LANE CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 8,684 SQUARE FEET AND BEING IN LOUISVILLE METRO (CASE NO. 24STRCLOSURE0026). 2/18/25 Planning and Zoning Committee Recommended for Approval Action Required By  August 13, 2025 Sponsors: Andrew Owen (D-9) ]

[46. O-048-25     AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE DETAILED DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 5024 SOUTH THIRD STREET CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 0.1463 ACRES AND BEING IN LOUISVILLE METRO (CASE NO. 24DDP0079). 2/18/25 Planning and Zoning Committee Recommended for Approval Action Required By  August 13, 2025 Sponsors: Andrew Owen (D-9) ]

[00:45:04]

COUNCILWOMAN SHANKLIN'S A YES, COUNCILWOMAN HAWKINS, ARE YOU A YES? A YES. COUNCILWOMAN HAWKINS IS A YES. THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. YOU HAVE 25. YES. YOU HAVE 25. YES VOTES. THE CONSENT CALENDAR PASSES. THE NEXT ITEM OF BUSINESS WILL BE OLD BUSINESS. MADAM CLERK, A READING

[Old Business]

[48. O-018-25     AN ORDINANCE APPROPRIATING $11,000 $15,000 FROM NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT FUNDS IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER: $3,000 FROM DISTRICT 24; $1,000 EACH FROM DISTRICTS 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 9, 11, 13, AND 21, AND 23; AND $500 EACH FROM DISTRICTS 7, 15, 16, AND 20; THROUGH THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET, TO FRIENDS OF THE JEFFERSON COUNTY PUBLIC LAW LIBRARY, INC. FOR COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE FRESH START EXPUNGEMENT PROGRAM (AS AMENDED). 2/19/25 Appropriations Committee  Amended; Recommended for Approval Action Required By: August 13, 2025 Sponsors: Ben Reno-Weber (D-8), Tammy Hawkins (D-1), Barbara Shanklin (D-2), Shameka Parrish-Wright (D-3), Donna L. Purvis (D-5), Paula McCraney (I-7), Andrew Owen (D-9), Kevin Kramer (R-11), Dan Seum, Jr. (R-13), Jennifer Chappell (D-15), Scott Reed (R-16), Stuart Benson (R-20), Betsy Ruhe (D-21), Ginny Mulvey-Woolridge (D-24), Jeff Hudson (R-23)]

THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. TEAMED UP WITH COUNCILMAN BEN WEBER ON THIS SITUATION AND SEVERAL OTHER SPONSORS. AND THIS IS FOR AN EXPUNGEMENT BILL THAT HELPS TO PAY FOR EXPUNGEMENTS FOR QUALIFYING MISDEMEANORS AND FELONIES. A LOT OF YOU MAY NOT KNOW HOW HARD IT IS WHEN YOU COME OUT OF JAIL TO GET A JOB AND HAVE TO PUT CHECK ON THERE. I'VE BEEN CONVICTED OF A FELONY.

IT MIGHT BE A MINOR FELONY, BUT HE STILL DON'T GET THAT JOB, OR SHE DON'T GET THAT JOB BECAUSE SHE HAD TO CHECK THAT MARK. AND WE'RE TRYING TO HELP FOLKS WITH THAT WHEN YOU COME OUT OF JAIL, YOU DON'T HAVE MUCH MONEY TO AFFORD AN ATTORNEY. THIS THE THIS LIBRARY GROUP HELPS TO AFFORD THE ATTORNEY. THE JEFFERSON COUNTY PUBLIC LIBRARY INCORPORATED IS THE FRESH START EXPUNGEMENT PROGRAM. A LITTLE THE BENEFIT OF THIS. ONE OF THE THINGS I KNOW A PERSONAL STORY.

A FELLOW WAS AT A SCHOOL AND HE'D BEEN COACHING FOR 17 YEARS, AND HE WAS A GOOD COACH, AND HE WAS ABLE TO AFFECT A LOT OF KIDS LIVES. AND, WELL, HE WANTED TO MOVE UP TO HEAD COACH OF THE SCHOOL. HE WAS A VOLUNTEER AT THE TIME. WELL, THEY HAD TO DO SOME RECORDS CHECK. AND 17 YEARS PRIOR TO THAT, HE HAD A HE HAD A CONVICTION FOR CANNABIS AND THEY TOLD HIM HE HAD TO LEAVE. IT DIDN'T MATTER HOW MANY KIDS HE HAD AFFECTED AND HELPED DURING HIS 17 YEAR TENURE, BUT HE HAD TO LEAVE BECAUSE HE HAD THAT INFRACTION ON HIS RECORD. AND IT WAS EXPUNGED. WHAT WHAT THIS THIS GROUP DOES IS THEY PAY AN ATTORNEY, THERE'S NO FEES. GO FOR PEOPLE IN THE OFFICE AND NO ADMINISTRATIVE FEES. THESE FEES GO DIRECTLY TO THE ATTORNEY, AND THERE'S A $40 FEE FOR CERTIFICATE FOR ELIGIBILITY. THAT GOES TO THE STATE POLICE AS IT IS RIGHT NOW. WE'RE ASKING FOR 25,680. WE HAVE CURRENT SPONSORS OF 15,000. WITH THE CURRENT SUPPORT WE HAVE RIGHT NOW, WE CAN EXPUNGE 62.5 OF PEOPLE THAT GOT THESE ON THEIR RECORD. WE CAN DO THAT WITH THE FULL SUPPORT. WE CAN HAVE 107 EXPUNGEMENTS. A LOT OF FOLKS HAVE GIVEN ALREADY. I'D LIKE TO HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY, GIVE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR YOU TO HELP FINISH THIS OUT. I THINK WE NEED ANOTHER AROUND $10,000 TO HELP THESE FOLKS WITH EXPUNGEMENTS. AND I'M ASKING IF WE COULD PROBABLY GET SOME MORE SUPPORT. THANK YOU, MISTER CHAIR. COUNCILMAN PETTINE, YOU WERE NEXT IN THE QUEUE. THANK YOU. 500 FROM DISTRICT 19, PLEASE. COUNCILMAN RAYMOND 1000 FROM DISTRICT TEN, PLEASE. COUNCILMAN WINKLER 500 FROM 17. COUNCILMAN REED 750 FROM DISTRICT 16.

COUNCILWOMAN. RUBY. I'M SORRY. COUNCILMAN REED. YOU ACTUALLY HAVE GIVEN TO THIS. YOU HAVE GIVEN $500. YES. I KNOW YOU WANT TO ADD ANOTHER 750. YES, I WOULD. THAT'S PERFECT. THANK

[00:50:06]

YOU'RE ADDING 750 ON TOP OF WHAT YOU'VE ALREADY ADDED. SURE. THANK YOU. COUNCILMAN HARDEN THOUSAND FROM DISTRICT FOUR. COUNCILMAN HUDSON. 500 FROM 23. AND AGAIN, SIR, YOU'VE GIVEN.

OKAY. COUNCILWOMAN PURVIS, HAVE I GIVEN PREVIOUSLY? YES, MA'AM. WHAT IS IT? YOU HAVE GIVEN $1,000. OH, I'M AT MY MAX. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. COUNCILWOMAN PARISH. RIGHT. I'LL ASK MY COLLEAGUES. AND AT 750 ADDITIONAL. THANK YOU, COUNCILMAN PARKER. COUNCILMAN BRATCHER, 750 FROM 22. COUNCILWOMAN BAST, 500 FROM 14. 40. THANK YOU. SO THE TOTAL RIGHT NOW, WE'RE AT $22,750. THE ASK IS FOR 25 680. AND THAT LEAVES $2,930. COUNCILMAN ELLINGER. $1,000, PLEASE. FOR MINE. YES. ANOTHER 500. WILL YOU DO ME A FAVOR AND SAY THAT ON THE MIC SO I CAN THANK. I'M SORRY. THANK YOU, COUNCILMAN BENSON. THANK YOU, MISTER PRESIDENT. I WOULD LIKE TO ADD $500 TO MY ALREADY. WHERE ARE WE AT NOW? MADAM CLERK, WE. THERE IS A OUTSTANDING BALANCE OF $930. COUNCILMAN, I DID GET YOURS, MA'AM. OKAY. $500 FROM DISTRICT ONE. YES, MA'AM. COUNCILMAN BATSON. I'LL DO THE 930. COUNCILMAN SIGN. YOU HIT YOUR 25. POINT OF YOU HAVE THE MIC, SIR. CAN I SAY THANK YOU? YOU CAN SAY WHATEVER YOU LIKE.

THANK YOU. THIS IS. THIS IS WHAT METRO GOVERNMENT IS ALL ABOUT. THANK YOU SO MUCH. ANY DISCUSSION ON THE AMENDMENT? HEARING NONE. THE AMENDMENT REQUIRES A VOICE VOTE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE IN OPPOSITION, I. HEARING NO OPPOSITION, IT PASSES. WE NOW HAVE THE AMENDED VERSION BEFORE US. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS? SEEING NO ONE IN THE QUEUE. THIS IS AN AMENDMENT, AN ORDINANCE THAT REQUIRES A ROLL CALL. VOTE. MADAM CLERK, OPEN THE VOTING COUNCIL MEMBER. MULVEY. WOOLRIDGE. YES. THANK YOU. CAN I CALL YOUR NAME? COUNCILMAN? READ. I DON'T KNOW WHAT'S WRONG, FOLKS. FOR YEARS I'VE COMPLAINED ABOUT THE SYSTEM. I'M GLAD THAT'S NOW AFFECTING THE REST OF YOU. YOU MIGHT GET SOMETHING DONE NOW. YOURS EITHER. OKAY, GREAT. THANK YOU. MISTER PRESIDENT. YOU HAVE 25 YES VOTES. THE ORDINANCE IS ADOPTED.

[49. O-026-25     AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE ZONING OF PROPERTYIES LOCATED AT 4217 TAYLOR BOULEVARD, 1059, 1057R AND 1061 LYNNHURST AVENUE CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 0.750.334 ACRES AND BEING IN LOUISVILLE METRO (CASE NO. 24ZONE0117) (AS AMENDED). 2/18/25 Planning and Zoning Committee  Amended; Recommended for Approval 2/4/25  Planning and Zoning Committee Held 1/21/25 Planning and Zoning Committee Tabled Action Required By March 3, 2025 Sponsors: Markus Winkler (D-17) ]

IT'S LOCATED ON AN ALLEY, WHICH IS REALLY INTERESTING. SO ALL THE DOORS OPENED ONTO THE ALLEY, AND THEY'VE BEEN VERY GOOD NEIGHBORS FOR YEARS, AND THEY'RE JUST TRYING TO BRING THEIR ZONING INTO COMPLIANCE, AND I HAVE NO OBJECTIONS. THANK YOU. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? SEEING NO ONE IN THE QUEUE. THIS IS AN ORDINANCE. REQUIRES A ROLL CALL. VOTE. MADAM CLERK, OPEN THE VOTING. COUNCIL MEMBER. WOOLRIDGE. YES. COUNCIL PRESIDENT. I'LL BE A YES. BUT

[00:55:06]

COUNCIL MEMBER. PARKER. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. READ. YES. THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. YOU HAVE 25 YES VOTES. THE ORDINANCE PASSES AND IS ADOPTED. MADAM CLERK, A READING OF ITEM NUMBER 50, AN

[50. O-027-25     AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE GUIDELINES FOR THE NULU REVIEW OVERLAY DISTRICT AS SET FORTH IN CHAPTER 162 IN THE LOUISVILLE METRO CODE OF ORDINANCES (“LMCO”). 2/18/25 Planning and Zoning Committee Recommended for Approval 2/4/25 Planning and Zoning Committee Tabled Action Required By:  July 30, 2025 Sponsors: Markus Winkler (D-17) ]

PRESIDENT. SO IN IN AUGUST 2024, METRO COUNCIL APPROVED ORDINANCE 080 DASH 24, WHICH REQUESTED A REVIEW OF THE NULU OVERLAY DISTRICT, WHICH WAS LAST REVIEWED IN 2015. THE GOAL WAS TO BRING THE OVERLAY DISTRICT INTO CONFORMITY WITH PLAN 2040 AND THE 2022 UPDATES, 2022 UPDATES THAT HAVE BEEN MADE TO THE BUTCHERTOWN, PHOENIX HILL AND NULU NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT PLANS. SO TO GET THOSE ALL IN ALLIANCE. THE NEWLY DISTRICT MET AND DEVELOPED THESE REVISIONS THROUGH A SERIES OF MEETINGS IN OCTOBER, NOVEMBER AND DECEMBER OF 2024. THERE WERE SIX PUBLIC MEETINGS IN ALL. THE VAST CHANGES AND EXHAUSTIVE ADDITIONS WERE APPROVED BY THE NEW NULU REVIEW OVERLAY DISTRICT 6 TO 0. FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO DON'T KNOW, OVERLAY DISTRICTS ARE FOCUSED ON DESIGN ELEMENTS AND ARE NOT FOR A PROPERTY'S USE, BUT ON DESIGN, AND ARE MAINTAINED WITHIN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. WHILE DESIGN GUIDELINES ARE INCLUDED IN CHAPTER 162 OF GOVERNING OVERLAY DISTRICTS, THERE ARE FOUR OVERLAY DISTRICTS IN LMCO WATERFRONT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION BARDSTOWN ROAD, BAXTER, DOWNTOWN CBD, AND NULU.

THE MAIN EMPHASIS OF AN OVERLAY DISTRICT IS TO PRESERVE THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD WITH NEW CONSTRUCTION. THIS NULU IS IN DISTRICT FOUR, SO I WILL ASK COUNCILMAN HERNDON TO SPEAK TO THIS. THANK YOU. AS COUNCILMAN OWENS SAID, THE OVERLAY COMMITTEE VOTED ON THIS SIX ZERO. THIS COULD NOT BE CLOSER TO THE PEOPLE. OVERLAY DISTRICTS ARE CREATED BY THE PEOPLE IN THOSE AREAS FOR THEMSELVES. AND I WOULD ASK FOR MY COLLEAGUES, ESPECIALLY THOSE WHO BELIEVE THAT LOCAL IS ALWAYS BETTER TO VOTE TO SUPPORT THIS. COUNCILMAN PICCININI, YOU'RE NEXT IN THE QUEUE. THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. I'M NOT GOING TO ENCOURAGE ANYBODY TO VOTE AGAINST IT. I AM GOING TO VOTE AGAINST IT ON PRINCIPLE RELATED TO OVERLAY DISTRICTS. NOT SO MUCH. THIS PARTICULAR PROCESS IN THE NEW OVERLAY DISTRICT. THE ISSUE HERE IS THERE ARE AS, AS JUST INDICATED FOR OVERLAY DISTRICTS. SO THESE FOUR DISTRICTS HAVE ADDITIONAL PROTECTIONS AND LOCAL REQUIREMENTS THAT SLOW DOWN AND IN MANY CASES PREVENT DEVELOPMENT FROM GOING OFF IN ORDER UNDER THE AUSPICES OF THINGS LIKE COMPORTING WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND COMPORTING WITH CERTAIN LOOK AND FEEL. WE'VE HAD THESE ISSUES, AND I LOOK AROUND THIS ROOM, THERE'S 26 COUNCIL MEMBERS OF WHICH 23 OF THEM, IF I'M DOING THE MATH RIGHT, BECAUSE I THINK TWO OF THOSE OVERLAY DISTRICTS ARE IN THE SAME DISTRICT. COUNCIL DISTRICT, DO NOT HAVE ANY OF THESE IN YOUR DISTRICTS. SO YOU ARE BEHOLDEN ONLY TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION.

AND WHEN WE HAVE ADVOCATED OR VOICED CONCERNS, AT LEAST I KNOW IN MY AREA, IN AREAS OF COLLEAGUES OF MINE ABOUT DEVELOPMENTS THAT VIOLATE A LOOK AND FEEL VIOLATE A NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN. I EVEN HAD THE PLANNING COMMISSION LITERALLY IGNORE A NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND VOTE. ACKNOWLEDGE OPENLY THAT THEY DIDN'T LIKE THAT PLAN, SO THEY VOTED TO VIOLATE IT AND PUT A DEVELOPMENT IN THERE THAT VIOLATED THAT NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT PLAN. SO IF WE'RE NOT AND AT THE SAME TIME, I HEAR COUNCIL MEMBERS, INCLUDING MANY OF THOSE WHO HAVE THESE DISTRICTS IN, HAVE THESE OVERLAY DISTRICTS IN THEIR COUNCIL DISTRICTS SAYING THAT WE NEED AN EASIER PROCESS TO DEVELOP PROPERTY. WE NEED MORE PROPERTY. WE NEED MORE HOUSING. SO WE CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS. WE CAN'T SAY ADVOCATE FOR EASIER AND MORE QUICKER WAYS TO DEVELOP AND THEN ADVOCATE AND CONTINUE A PROCESS OF HAVING THESE OVERLAY DISTRICTS IN SPECIFIC AREAS, WHICH IN SOME CASES NOT TO SAY NOT NEW IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, BUT IN OTHER CASES, SEE SOME OF THE SLOWEST AND MOST COSTLY AND DIFFICULT PROCESSES TO DEVELOP. SO WE EITHER HAVE TO DO IT FOR EVERYBODY AND START DOING THESE OVERLAY DISTRICTS ACROSS THE CITY AND ACKNOWLEDGE THERE ARE LOOKS AND FEELS AND LOCAL ISSUES THAT APPLY IN ALL 26 DISTRICTS. OR WE NEED TO STOP DOING THIS

[01:00:01]

THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. WHEN IT CAME OUT OF COMMITTEE, MY INITIAL THOUGHT WAS, YOU KNOW, THE COMMITTEE VOTED YES. AND TYPICALLY THEY DO THEIR DUE DILIGENCE AND YOU KNOW, BUT IN THIS PARTICULAR INSTANCE, WHEN IT CAME OUT, THE FIRST THING I FIRST QUESTION I ASKED WAS WAS, SO WHAT'S THE WHAT'S THE RUB? LIKE, WHAT'S THE BIG DEAL? AND THEN IT WAS LIKE, SO WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AN OVERLAY DISTRICT AND A DESIGN DEVELOPMENT? BECAUSE THERE WAS A SPECIFIC CASE IN MY DISTRICT WHERE THERE WAS A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT. IT WAS PRETTY CLEAR WHAT THE FOLKS, YOU KNOW, YOU TALK ABOUT LOCAL CONTROL IS PRETTY CLEAR THAT THE FOLKS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD IN 2017. SO IT'S NOT LIKE THEY JUST DID THIS YESTERDAY. IT PUT TOGETHER A DEVELOPMENT PLAN, BROUGHT THAT FORWARD, THE PLANNING COMMISSION. THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION AROUND THAT. WHEN IT GOT TO THE COUNCIL LEVEL, THERE WERE MEMBERS OF THIS BODY WHO WERE SAYING, OH, BUT WE NEED THIS OR THAT IN THAT PARTICULAR PLACE, REGARDLESS OF WHAT THE DESIGN DESIGN DEVELOPMENT SAID. AND IT WAS LIKE, WELL, YOU KNOW. SO I STOOD UP FOR THAT. I SAID, NO, IF IT'S IF THERE'S A DESIGN ELEMENT IN PLACE THAT, YOU KNOW, WE SHOULD BE RESPECTFUL OF THAT.

SO WHEN IT CAME TO THIS ONE, I WAS LIKE, OKAY, SO WHY WOULD I WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE? AND THE DIFFERENCE IS THIS ISN'T A DESIGN DEVELOPMENT PLAN. THIS IS AN OVERLAY DISTRICT. AND THAT'S A VERY, VERY DIFFERENT THING. THIS SETS UP A WHOLE NEW BOARD. IT SETS UP A WHOLE NEW GROUP OF PEOPLE. AND TO COUNCILMAN PIAGENTINI POINT, IT CREATES ADVANTAGES. IT IT CREATES WINNERS AND LOSERS IN LOUISVILLE, WHICH I THINK IS INCREDIBLY UNFORTUNATE THAT SOME DISTRICTS WILL HAVE BETTER PROTECTIONS. SOME DISTRICTS WILL BE BETTER ABLE TO PROTECT THEIR OWN DESIGN DEVELOPMENT PLANS THAN OTHER DISTRICTS. AND I JUST I'M STRUGGLING. I THINK COUNCILMAN PIAGENTINI IS ON TO SOMETHING. IF WE'RE GOING TO DO THIS, THEN WE SHOULD DO IT METRO WIDE, WHICH IS PRECISELY WHAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION IS SUPPOSED TO BE DOING IN THE FIRST PLACE. I MEAN, HAPHAZARDLY CREATING THESE, I THINK, IS A BIT PROBLEMATIC. SO I'M AFRAID I'VE MOVED TO A NO COUNCILMAN WINKLER NEXT TO YOU, AND MAYBE YOU COULD ADDRESS I WILL ADDRESS THIS SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT WE PREVIOUSLY THAT WE DID PREVIOUSLY. CORRECT.

SO, COUNCILMAN KRAMER, THIS OVERLAY DISTRICT EXISTS ALREADY. SO WE'RE NOT CREATING A NEW LAYER HERE. WE'RE NOT LIKE ANY VOTE AGAINST. THIS DOESN'T DO ANYTHING TO ELIMINATE. SEND A SIGNAL, DO ANYTHING TO OVERLAY DISTRICT THAT WAS PREVIOUSLY APPROVED. ALL WE'RE APPROVING HERE IS UPDATED GUIDELINES THAT COINCIDE WITH PLAN 2040. SO, I MEAN, A NO VOTE IS I MEAN, NOT ONLY IS NOT EVEN A PROTEST VOTE, IT'S SORT OF CREATES A POLICY THAT'S INCONGRUENT WITH PLAN 2040. SO I THINK IF WE WANT TO HAVE A BROADER DISCUSSION ABOUT OVERLAY DISTRICTS, THAT'S PERFECTLY FINE. WE SHOULD HAVE THAT. BUT THIS IS NOT THE PIECE OF LEGISLATION TO DO THAT ON. I MEAN, IT'S JUST IT'S JUST WRONG. THANK YOU. COUNCILMAN HERNDON. YOU'RE NEXT. THANK YOU. TWO OF THE FOUR DISTRICTS OVERLAY DISTRICTS ARE IN MY ARE IN MY DISTRICT. I WOULD ASK I KNOW THAT HOME RULE CITIES AND HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATIONS HAVE SIMILAR RESTRICTIVE GUIDELINES.

OR THE NO VOTES ALSO IN FAVOR OF NOT HAVING THOSE AS WELL. IT HAS BEEN SUGGESTED THAT NOT ONLY ARE FOLKS NOT WANTING TO AMEND THIS ONE, BUT THEY WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THEM GOTTEN RID OF ENTIRELY. IS THAT CORRECT? WOULD THAT BE CORRECT? THAT WE JUST THAT IS THAT PART OF THE PHILOSOPHY? I DON'T THINK THERE'S AN ANSWER TO THAT. THAT WAS A JAB. AND I DON'T THINK, YOU KNOW, IF SOMEONE WANTS TO CHIME IN ON THAT, THEY CAN CHIME IN ON IT. BUT FIRST EXECUTES COUNCILMAN OWEN. SO I HAVE BEEN EXTREMELY VOCAL ABOUT TRYING TO REDUCE THE DEVELOPMENT TIMELINE, AND I AM 100% COMMITTED TO DOING THAT. I THINK WE'RE WELL ON OUR WAY TO IDENTIFYING MANY OF THE THINGS THAT WE CAN DO TO MAKE THAT PROCESS QUICKER. I THINK OF ALL THE THINGS THAT WE CAN FOCUS ON TO TRY TO SLOW DOWN OR SPEED UP DEVELOPMENT. THIS IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT INCREMENTAL AT BEST. AND SO FOR ME, I AGAIN, I'VE SPOKEN ABOUT TRYING TO REDUCE THAT DEVELOPMENT TIMELINE ALMOST AD NAUSEAM SINCE I'VE BEEN HERE. AND TO ME, THIS IS NOT IT. THAT WOULD BE SO INCREMENTAL IN THAT PROCESS THAT THAT'S THAT'S NOT THE WAY TO FOCUS ON THIS PARTICULAR THESE OVERLAY DISTRICTS. THANK YOU. COUNCILMAN PIAGENTINI, YOU'RE NEXT IN THE QUEUE. THANK YOU.

ALLOW ME TO DIFFERENTIATE. FIRST OF ALL, HOA'S ONLY APPLY TO THE LAND THAT THE HOMEOWNERS IN THAT HOA OWN. OVERLAY DISTRICTS APPLY TO AND GIVE CONTROL OF PEOPLE THAT ARE ON THOSE BOARDS PROPERTIES THEY DO NOT OWN. SO FOR EXAMPLE, I LIVE IN AN HOA. WE ARE ONLY REGULATING OURSELVES. THE SECOND YOU STEP OUTSIDE OF THE PROPERTY THAT WE OWN, WE ARE SUBJECT TO THE

[01:05:05]

MANY OF THE DISTRICTS THAT HAVE THIS HAVE SOME OF THE LOWEST LEVELS OF DEVELOPMENT, ALSO OF RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. SO NOT ALL OF THEM. NOT ALL OF THEM. SO AND AGAIN, I'M NOT ENCOURAGING ANYBODY ELSE TO VOTE. NO. BECAUSE I DO THINK PROCEDURALLY THIS THE PROCEDURE IS FINE. I'M JUST MORE BRINGING UP THE ISSUE OF OVERLAY DISTRICTS. THANK YOU. COUNCILMAN HERNDON. I WANT TO AGREE WITH COUNCILMAN OWEN. I'M ALSO VERY MUCH AND ALSO OTHER SIDEBAR CONVERSATIONS RECENTLY ABOUT THIS. I'M ALSO VERY MUCH IN FAVOR OF HASTENING THE PROCESS TO GET THINGS DONE. I'VE SAID BEFORE, I WANT NICE THINGS FASTER, AND IF THERE ARE THINGS THAT WE CAN DO TO CHANGE OTHER ORDINANCES OR OTHER PROCEDURES TO MAKE THAT HAPPEN, TO HAVE EVERYBODY HAVE THEIR SAY AND TO HAVE DEVELOPERS, PRESERVATIONISTS, NEIGHBORS, EVERYTHING, I WANT TO HAVE THAT FASTER. I THINK WE ALL WANT NICER THINGS FASTER. SO I WILL WORK WITH ANYONE HERE TO HELP MAKE THAT POSSIBLE. SEEING NO ONE ELSE IN THE QUEUE. THIS IS A ORDINANCE THAT REQUIRES A ROLL CALL. VOTE. MADAM CLERK, OPEN THE ROLL. COUNCIL MEMBER. MULVEY. WOOLRIDGE. SO YOU'RE SAYING NO. ALL RIGHT. OH, NOW I CAN HEAR YOU. WHAT ARE YOU SAYING? YEAH. NO. THANK YOU.

COUNCIL MEMBER. SEAN, I'VE GOT THE CIRCLE OF DEATH OVER HERE ON MY COMPUTER. SO I SAY NO. YOU'RE GOING TO SAY NO. THANK YOU. COUNCIL MEMBER ROE. YES. YES, MA'AM. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER.

REED. ALL RIGHT. ONE MOMENT. ONE SECOND. OKAY. OKAY. MR. PRESIDENT, YOU HAVE 15 YES VOTES AND NINE NO VOTES. THE ORDINANCE IS ADOPTED. MADAM CLERK, GIVE ME ONE. THE ORDINANCE PASSES AND IS ADOPTED. MADAM. CLERK. ITEM NUMBER 51. IN ORDER TO AMENDING CHAPTER 156, THE METRO CODE OF ORDINANCES TO MAKE THE VIOLATIONS OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE LDC WITH RESPECT TO EXTERIOR PROPERTY AREAS, CODE ENFORCEMENT, PROPERTY MAINTENANCE, CODE VIOLATIONS READ IN FULL. THE ITEMS BROUGHT BEFORE US. COUNCILMAN OWEN, THIS ALSO CAME OUT OF COMMITTEE. YEAH. I'M NOT GOING TO SPEAK TOO MUCH TO THIS. I'M GOING TO TURN IT OVER TO COUNCILMAN HUDSON. BUT THIS IS AN ORDINANCE ALL ABOUT EFFICIENCY, ALLOWING OUR DEPARTMENTS TO MORE EFFICIENTLY DO THEIR JOBS. SO, COUNCILMAN HUDSON, IF YOU'D LIKE TO TALK ABOUT. YES, I'LL START OFF WITH IT'S NOT DOGE, BUT IT IS EFFICIENT. SO. IN A MATTER OF AN EXAMPLE, MIGHT BE THE BEST WAY TO DESCRIBE WHAT THIS DOES. LET LET'S SAY ONE OF THESE FINE PEOPLE CALL METRO 311 AND SAY MY NEIGHBOR HAS A BOAT PARKED IN THE YARD. THE GRASS IS THREE FEET TALL. CAN YOU DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT? METRO SENDS A CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER OUT AND THEY CITE THE HOMEOWNER FOR THE THREE FOOT TALL GRASS. AND THEN TELL THE HOMEOWNER, I CAN'T DO ANYTHING ABOUT THE BOAT IN THE FRONT YARD. THAT'S A ZONING VIOLATION. YOU'LL HAVE TO HAVE A ZONING ENFORCEMENT OFFICER COME OUT FOR THAT. WHAT THIS ORDINANCE DOES IS ALLOW CROSS-POLLINATION BETWEEN CODE ENFORCEMENT AND ZONING ENFORCEMENT, AND ALLOW THEM TO EACH DO THE OTHERS ENFORCEMENT. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? SO THERE'S ABOUT 50 CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS. THERE ARE FOUR ZONING OFFICERS. WE HAD A GREAT CONVERSATION IN COMMITTEE ABOUT THIS BIPARTISAN CONVERSATION. WE'VE GOT BIPARTISAN SPONSORS ON THIS, AND I WOULD APPRECIATE YOUR SUPPORT. THANK YOU. COUNCILMAN OWEN. THAT WAS AN EXCELLENT EXPLANATION. THE ONLY THING I WANTED TO ADD TO THAT IS I WANTED TO CALL OUT CODES AND REGULATIONS. MANAGER WESLEY

[01:10:02]

[52. O-049-25     AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE ZONING OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1300 BELMAR DRIVE CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 0.29 ACRES AND BEING IN LOUISVILLE METRO (CASE NO. 24ZONE0080). 2/18/25 Planning and Zoning Committee Recommended for Approval Action Required By April 16, 2025 Sponsors: Andrew Owen (D-9) ]

THANK YOU. PRESIDENT. THIS IS LOCATED IN DISTRICT TEN, AND I'LL TURN IT OVER TO COUNCILWOMAN RAYMOND IN JUST A MINUTE TO SPEAK TO IT. REZONE A PORTION OF THE EXISTING ONE STORY BUILDING BETWEEN CAR SALES AND STORAGE. IT'S IN NEIGHBORHOOD FORM. DISTRICT. THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED THE CHANGE IN ZONING AND THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN EIGHT TO NOTHING. THE ORDINANCE CAME OUT OF COMMITTEE SEVEN TO NOTHING. I'LL TURN IT OVER TO COUNCILWOMAN RAYMOND. THANK YOU. YES. THIS IS ALREADY BORDERED BY A GOLF COURSE AND RAILROAD TRACKS. THERE'S NO OPPOSITION IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD TO THIS. AND WE CONGRATULATE THE BUSINESS ON THEIR NEXT PHASE. THANK YOU, COUNCILMAN REED, YOU'RE IN THE QUEUE. YES. SORRY. SEEING NO ONE ELSE IN THE QUEUE, THERE'S AN ORDINANCE THAT REQUIRES A ROLL CALL. VOTE. MADAM CLERK, PLEASE OPEN THE VOTING. COUNCIL MEMBER WOOLRIDGE. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. BET SHAN. YEP. COUNCIL MEMBER.

PARKER. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. WINKLER. COUNCIL MEMBER. BASS. I'M A YES. THANK YOU. I'M SORRY.

MR. PRESIDENT. YOU HAVE 25 YES VOTES. THE ORDINANCE IS ADOPTED NEXT ON OUR AGENDA. ITEM NUMBER

[53. O-050-25     AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE ZONING OF PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 4603 EAST MANSLICK ROAD AND PARCEL ID NOS. 079100620000 AND 079100640000 CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 0.562 ACRES AND BEING IN LOUISVILLE METRO (CASE NO. 24ZONE0102). 2/18/25 Planning and Zoning Committee Recommended for Approval Action Required By April 16, 2025 Sponsors: Andrew Owen (D-9) ]

MULVEY. WOOLRIDGE. YES. COUNCILMAN. BECKHAM? YES, PLEASE. COUNCILWOMAN. RUBY. YES.

AND COUNCILMAN HEARN. HERNDON. OH. THANK YOU. SORRY, MR. PRESIDENT, YOU HAVE 25 YES VOTES. THE ORDINANCE IS ADOPTED, MADAM CLERK, A READING OF ITEM 54 RELATING TO THE ZONING OF

[54. O-052-25     AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE ZONING OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1600 KURZ WAY CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 34.56 ACRES AND BEING IN LOUISVILLE METRO (CASE NO. 24ZONE0003). 2/18/25 Planning and Zoning Committee Recommended for Approval Action Required By April 21, 2025 Sponsors: Andrew Owen (D-9) ]

[01:15:04]

THANK YOU. I JUST WANTED THIS IS ALWAYS COMPLICATED. SO THIS IS A DENIAL. SO A YES VOTE UPHOLDS THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL. THANK SEE NO ONE ELSE IN THE QUEUE. THIS IS AN ORDINANCE. REQUIRES A ROLL CALL. VOTE. MADAM CLERK, PLEASE OPEN THE ROLL. COUNCILWOMAN MULVEY.

WOOLRIDGE. YES. COUNCILMEMBER. PARKER. I'M READY. YES, MR. PRESIDENT, YOU HAVE 25 YES VOTES. THE ORDINANCE IS ADOPTED. MADAM CLERK, A READING OF ITEM NUMBER 55. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING

[55. O-055-25     AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 119.01, 119.02, and 119.03 OF THE LOUISVILLE METRO CODE OF ORDINANCES (“LMCO”) REGARDING THE REGISTRATION OF RENTAL HOUSING UNITS. (AMENDMENT BY SUBSTITUTION) (AS AMENDED) 2/18/25 Government Oversight/Audit and Appointments Committee  Amended; Recommended for Approval Action Required By: August 13, 2025 Sponsors: Anthony Piagentini (R-19), Jonathan “JJ” Joseph (R-12)]

THOSE AMENDMENTS ARE IN THERE SO YOU CAN PULL THEM UP, BUT I'LL READ THEM IN MOST OF THEM, CLEANING UP CERTAIN LANGUAGE. BUT I'LL I'LL MAKE SURE TO BE DETAILED IN ANYTHING THAT WAS AMENDED SINCE THE COMMITTEE MEETING. SO FIRST OF ALL, OVERALL, WHAT DO BOTH OF THESE PIECES OF LEGISLATION DO? THEY ESSENTIALLY HAVE US FOCUS, OKAY. IN BOTH CIRCUMSTANCES YOU HAD AND AGAIN, I WILL NOT. BEGRUDGE OR SAY ANYTHING NEGATIVE ABOUT MY COLLEAGUES, FORMER COLLEAGUES AT THIS POINT WHO PASSED THESE INITIAL PIECES OF LEGISLATION. THEY'RE DOING WHAT THEY BELIEVE TO BE RIGHT. AND THAT'S THE END OF THE CONVERSATION. AFTER LOOKING AT THIS, LOOKING AT THE IMPACTS IT HAS AS AS BOTH BEEN TRYING TO BE IMPLEMENTED, I THINK ADJUSTMENT IS REASONABLE.

IN BOTH CASES. WE STILL HAVE ALL OF THE FUNCTIONALITY. I WOULD ARGUE THAT WE HAD IN THE INITIAL LEGISLATION, FOR EXAMPLE, IN THE RENTAL REGISTRY, WE WILL STILL BE ABLE TO CONTACT AND KNOW WHO OWNS WHAT PROPERTIES. AND THEN I'LL SPEAK SEPARATELY ABOUT THE LEAD REGISTRY. I WANT TO BROADLY SAY I GET CONCERNED ABOUT SOME OF THE LANGUAGE BEING USED WHEN WE DEBATE THIS. LANDLORDS ARE NOT THE ENEMY AND EVEN ALL THE DATA, AND I HAVE A TON OF IT FROM PUBLIC HEALTH ON THE

[01:20:03]

WE'RE LOOKING AT ABOUT 1% MAYBE OF PROPERTIES, 2%, MAYBE THAT COULD HAVE AN ISSUE. AND IN MANY CASES IT TURNS OUT TO BE NOT THE RESIDENTS. WHEN THEY DO THE INSPECTIONS, IT TURNS OUT TO BE SOMETHING ELSE. AND PUBLIC HEALTH HAS TO FIGHT THROUGH THOSE BATTLES. SO MY FOCUS HERE IS MAKING SURE WE ARE BALANCING MANY INTERESTS PUBLIC HEALTH INTERESTS, PUBLIC TRANSPARENCY INTERESTS, AS WELL AS MAKING SURE THAT PARTICULARLY OUR SMALL LOCAL PROPERTY OWNERS, PEOPLE THAT OWN 2 OR 4 PROPERTIES, THAT THEY ARE NOT BEING RUN OUT OF TOWN DUE TO A MOUNTAIN OF REGULATIONS AND EXPENSES THAT ARE BEING ADDED TO THEM BY GOVERNMENT REGULATION. AND THAT IS PRECISELY WHO WAS GOING TO BE THE MOST AFFECTED. I DID NOT TALK TO BLACKROCK OR ANY OTHER OUT OF STATE INVESTOR IN PROPERTIES. I ONLY SPOKE TO DIFFERENT CONSTITUENCIES, BOTH ADVOCATES AS WELL AS LOCAL SMALL LANDLORDS WHO WERE GOING TO BE THE ONES THE MOST ADVERSELY AFFECTED, AND MANY OF WHICH WERE LOOKING TO DO WHOLE FIRE SALES TO GET RID OF THEIR PROPERTY AND SELL TO OUT-OF-STATE INVESTORS. I KNOW THERE'S SOME TALK ABOUT THE PRESSURE FROM THE STATE LEGISLATURE. THE STATE LEGISLATURE GOT PRESSURE FROM MUTUAL CONSTITUENTS TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT THE EXISTING LAW. THESE ARE OUR CONSTITUENTS, TOO. MANY OF THEM HAVE CONCERNS.

MAYBE THEY FELT THEY DIDN'T HAVE A VOICE HERE AT METRO COUNCIL, BUT THEY WENT TO THE STATE LEGISLATURE INSTEAD. FIRST, I THINK IT'S MORE ACCURATE TO SAY THAT WE WERE PRESSURED BY THESE SHARED CONSTITUENTS TO DO SOMETHING AND TAKE A LOOK AT THESE, THIS LEGISLATION. SECOND, I CAN'T REMEMBER THE LAST TIME THE STATE CONTEMPLATED A POTENTIAL PREEMPTION ACTION AND THEN STOPPED AND SAID, HOLD ON, LET'S GO TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT. LET'S GO TO LOUISVILLE AND SEE IF THEY CAN'T WORK OUT SOMETHING THAT MAKES SENSE LOCALLY AND GET THAT PASSED INSTEAD. I THINK THAT SHOWS AN INCREDIBLE SHIFT, AS WE'VE SEEN WITH THIS NEW MAYOR AND HIS RELATIONSHIP WITH THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY ON OUR RELATIONSHIP AND BODES WELL FOR OUR FUTURE IN WORKING WITH THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY AND WORKING WITH MUTUAL CONSTITUENTS TO ENSURE THAT WE'RE HEARING ALL VOICES AND REACTING LOCALLY, AND HOPEFULLY RETAINING CONTROL LOCALLY. AND THAT IS ALSO VERY MUCH MY GOAL HERE. I KNOW THAT SOME HAVE ARGUED THAT THE VOICE OF TENANTS OR THE BROADER POPULATION IS NOT HEARD. I REJECT THAT WHOLESALE. IF THAT WERE THE CASE, I WOULDN'T BE FIGHTING FOR THIS LEGISLATION AT ALL. I WOULD JUST LET. 173 PASS AND WE WOULD AND THERE WOULD BE LITERALLY NO VOICE LEFT FOR ANYTHING THAT ADVOCATES, TENANTS AND OTHERS IN THAT COMMUNITY WERE FIGHTING FOR. SO I'M VERY MUCH FIGHTING TO ENSURE THAT WE HAVE SOME LOCAL CONTROL THAT ENSURES THAT THEIR CONCERNS ARE DEALT WITH AS WELL. I BELIEVE THESE AMENDMENTS ACHIEVE THESE OVERALL GOALS, AND NOW I'M GOING TO GO THROUGH THE RENTAL REGISTRY FIRST. WE'LL AND THEN I'LL PRESENT MY AMENDMENT. AND THEN WE CAN VOTE ON THAT. AND THEN WE'LL GO TO THE LEAD REGISTRY. SO I'LL TALK ABOUT THESE SEPARATELY. YOU CAN SEE THE AMENDMENTS THAT PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE. I WON'T SPEND A WHOLE LOT OF TIME ON THOSE. I THINK THOSE HAVE BEEN CIRCULATED WIDELY. SO WHAT I'M GOING TO DO IS GO RIGHT INTO MY PROPOSED AMENDMENT NOW. SO I'M GOING TO MAKE A MOTION TO AMEND, AND I'M GOING TO READ THE AMENDMENTS.

FIRST, LET ME SAY THANK YOU TO THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, SPECIFICALLY ALEX LYONS ON THIS PARTICULAR LEGISLATION. I'M GOING TO READ THE AMENDMENTS INTO THE RECORD. I'LL ASK FOR A SECOND. AND BUT IF I MISS ANYTHING, I'M GOING TO ASK THE COUNTY ATTORNEY TO STEP IN AND CLARIFY IF I MISSED SOMETHING. SO, FIRST OF ALL, ON PAGE THE BOTTOM OF PAGE TWO UNDER LETTER G, WE STRUCK THE WORD AND WE ADDED IT TO LETTER H BECAUSE WE ADDED A LETTER I ON EXEMPTIONS, WHICH ARGUABLY THE EXEMPTION ALREADY EXISTED. BUT WE WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT HOUSING UNITS OCCUPIED BY A TENANT WHO DOES NOT PROVIDE ANY CONSIDERATION IN EXCHANGE FOR THAT HOUSING IS EXEMPT FROM THE RENTAL REGISTRY. WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? THAT MEANS THAT PEOPLE THAT HAVE THEIR PROPERTY IN A TRUST FOR ESTATE PLANNING PURPOSES, WE'RE NOT MAKING THAT LIVE IN THEIR OWN PROPERTY THAT THEY ARE THE TRUSTEE OF IN THAT TRUST, ARE NOT REGISTERING ON THE RENTAL

[01:25:04]

THEY CAN'T HEAR YOU SPEAK. SORRY. LET ME GET AND LET ME IDENTIFY MYSELF. FOR THE RECORD, ALICE LION WITH THE JEFFERSON COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AND THE PRESUMPTION THAT'S NAMED IN LMCO IS ALSO NAMED IN KERAS 383 705, BUT IT'S DEFINED IN CRS AS APPLYING TO THOSE SITUATIONS WHERE THERE'S A ONE YEAR GAP BETWEEN THE COMPLAINT AND ANY POTENTIAL RETALIATORY CONDUCT, AND THE LANGUAGE THAT'S IN LMCO COULD BE INTERPRETED AS EXPANDING THE RANGE OF THAT PRESUMPTION. AND WE AS A CITY, CANNOT AMEND THE REALTOR PROTECTIONS THAT ARE IN CRS. WE CAN'T EXPAND THEM AND WE CAN'T CONTRACT THEM. SO SINCE I THOUGHT THAT LANGUAGE COULD POSSIBLY IMPLY THAT THERE WAS MORE TO THE PRESUMPTION, THAT'S WHY WE STRUCK THAT AGAIN AFTER COMMITTEE. THANK YOU. ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS ON THE AMENDMENT? I'M SORRY. WE FORGOT A PORTION OF THE AMENDMENT. I FORGOT ONE OKAY. SORRY. JUST WANT TO ADD TO IT'S ALREADY IN THE RECORD. IT'S ALREADY THERE. I FORGOT TO READ THIS PORTION OF IT UNDER SECTION FOUR, LETTER D.

I'M JUST GOING TO READ THE WHOLE SECTION, BUT I'LL TELL YOU WHAT WAS AMENDED. THE NAME, MAILING AND PHYSICAL ADDRESSES, TELEPHONE NUMBER AND EMAIL ADDRESS OF THE RESPONSIBLE MANAGING OPERATOR. THAT'S PART OF THE THAT'S UNDER THE SECTION UNDER PUBLICLY AVAILABLE INFORMATION. IF THE RESPONSIBLE MANAGING OPERATOR IS ALSO THE OWNER AND THE OWNER IS NOT A CORPORATION, PARTNERSHIP OR TRUST THE PHYSICAL ADDRESS. AND THIS IS WHAT WE ADDED. AND TELEPHONE NUMBER THAT'S THE AMENDMENT OKAY OF THE OWNER SHALL BE EXCLUDED FROM THE PUBLICLY AVAILABLE ONLINE REGISTRY. SORRY, JUST THOSE THREE WORDS. MY DAD THANK YOU.

THANK YOU MADE A MOTION A SECOND TO. SO IT'S BEFORE US. ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS COUNCILMAN KRAMER ABOUT THE AMENDMENT IN GENERAL? YES, YES. AND IT'S JUST A CLARIFICATION. I JUST WANT TO BE CERTAIN IN YOUR DESCRIPTION, YOU MENTIONED THAT SINCE THERE ISN'T A. A REGISTRY, THAT

[01:30:05]

YEAH. WE'RE NOT. LET'S PUT IT THIS WAY. WE HAVE NO COST. JUST BECAUSE YOU BUILD AN APARTMENT COMPLEX IN THE CITY, WE'RE NOT ADDING COSTS BY MAKING YOU. IT'S A IT'S A WEBSITE. LIKE, IT REALLY IS FAIRLY SIMPLE TO REGISTER. THERE REALLY IS NO COST. THE WITH THAT SAID, THE ALL THE ENFORCEMENT STILL STAYS IN PLACE, RIGHT. COUNCILMAN PURVIS THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT.

COUNCILMAN, I'M LOOKING AT ONE OF THE ORDINANCES, THE SIGNS HELD UP BY ONE OF OUR ORDINANCE THIS EVENING AND THE CONCERNED ABOUT THE RUSH. IT. IS IT POSSIBLE FOR YOU TO EXPLAIN THE TIMEFRAME? YES. THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION. SO THE STATE SUBMITTED HOUSE BILL 173. THAT WAS WHAT I WAS TALKING ABOUT, ABOUT MUTUAL CONSTITUENTS THAT WERE THAT WENT TO SOME GENERAL ASSEMBLY MEMBERS TO MOVE LEGISLATION THAT WOULD BAN ALL REGISTRIES, WHICH WOULD IMPACT THREE REGISTRIES, ACTUALLY, OUR RENTAL REGISTRY, THE LEAD REGISTRY, AS WELL AS THE SHORT TERM RENTAL REGISTRY. IT WOULD ELIMINATE ALL THREE. AND THEN SO WE YOU KNOW, I WENT TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY AS WELL AS OTHERS TO SAY, LOOK, CAN WE TALK AND SEE IF THERE'S SOME LOCAL SOLUTIONS? WE UNDERSTAND THE CONCERNS. HOUSE BILL 173 IS UP FOR COMMITTEE NEXT TUESDAY MORNING. IT'S BEEN FILED TO BE HEARD IN THE HOUSE. MY HOPE IS THAT BY GETTING THESE PASSED IN THIS TIME FRAME, THAT THAT WILL SEND THE SIGNAL THAT WE ADDRESS SOME OF THE BIGGEST CONCERNS, RIGHT, THAT WERE IN THE ORIGINAL, THAT WERE IN THE ORIGINAL REGISTRIES. AND THEN THEY WILL HOPEFULLY NOT MOVE FORWARD WITH THOSE PIECES WITH THAT PIECE OF LEGISLATION, SO THAT WE CAN RETAIN THIS LOCAL CONTROL. CAN YOU ALSO EXPLAIN IF HOUSE BILL 173 PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE, WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? YES. IF IT PASSES OUT OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE, IT WILL GO TO THE HOUSE FLOOR. IT'LL GET A VOTE. AND THEN IT STILL HAS TO GO TO THE SENATE, AND THE SENATE HAS TO VOTE ON IT AFTER THAT. BUT SO CAN YOU TALK ABOUT THE CONSEQUENCES IF IT PASSES? YEAH.

IF IT PASSES ALL THREE REGISTRIES THAT I MENTIONED, THE RENTAL REGISTRY, LED REGISTRY AND SHORT TERM RENTAL REGISTRY WOULD BE ILLEGAL. THEY WOULD NOT BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH STATE LAW.

AND THE WAY IT'S WRITTEN, WE WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO RESURRECT IT LIKE IT'S NOT AS THOUGH IT GETS RID OF THEM. WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING NEW. IT WOULD BAN IN PERPETUITY, RENT ANY REGISTRIES RELATED TO RENTAL PROPERTY. SO, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, WE'RE TRYING TO PART OF THE PART OF THE GOAL HERE IS TO, OF COURSE, RETAIN LOCAL CONTROL AND GET IN FRONT OF THAT. SO THAT DOES NOT HAPPEN. AND WHAT DOES THAT SAY ABOUT LANDLORD ACCOUNTABILITY? I'M SORRY. WHAT DO YOU MEAN THE MAIN MOTION? I THINK. THAT CAN YOU PLEASE BRIEFLY EXPLAIN WHAT DOES THAT DO FOR LANDLORD ACCOUNTABILITY? LET'S LET'S DEAL WITH THE AMENDMENT. WE'RE GOING TO COME BACK TO THAT QUESTION, OKAY. BECAUSE RIGHT NOW THE QUESTION BEFORE US IS THE AMENDMENT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ABOUT THE AMENDMENT, COUNCILMAN WINKLER? I'M SORRY, I DIDN'T HAVE SOMEBODY AHEAD OF ME HAD QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT. IF SOMEBODY HAS QUESTIONS ABOUT THE AMENDMENT. NO, MY QUESTIONS IS ABOUT THE GENERAL. I UNDERSTAND WE'RE GOING TO HOLD OFF ON THAT UNTIL WE DEAL WITH THE AMENDMENT. THANK YOU. YEAH. WINKLER, TO THE POINT THAT COUNCILMAN KRAMER MADE ABOUT ELIMINATING THE FEE FOR PEOPLE'S SORT OF I WON'T CALL IT THE ORIGINAL REGISTRANTS BECAUSE WE'RE SORT OF MIXED TERMS HERE. BUT THE FIRST TIME I REGISTER, YOU KNOW, I KNOW, COUNCILMAN PIAGENTINI, YOU MADE THE POINT THAT YOU. IT'S REALLY JUST REGISTERING ON THE ON THE WEBSITE. THERE'S NOT REALLY ANY COST ASSOCIATED WITH THAT. BUT I THINK THE PURPOSE OF THE FEE AND WE DO THIS WITH LOTS OF ORDINANCES, IS THAT WHAT PARTIALLY GOES AND THEN FUNDS THE SUBSEQUENT ADMINISTRATION AND INSPECTION. AND SO I'M CURIOUS ONE, WHY WE WOULD ELIMINATE THE SORT OF THE ORIGINATION FEE, IF YOU WILL. AND TWO, YOU KNOW, HOW THAT'S

[01:35:06]

BUT AGAIN, I'M OPEN TO MORE DISCUSSION ON THAT. BUT THAT'S THE PHILOSOPHICAL ISSUE.

COUNCILMAN HUDSON, YOUR NEXT IN THE QUEUE FOR THE AMENDMENT. IT IS FOR THE AMENDMENT. MR. PRESIDENT, THANK YOU FOR RECOGNIZING ME. AND I APPRECIATE MY COLLEAGUE'S CLARIFICATION ON PARAGRAPH FOUR. WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO ADD WITH WITH THIS SPONSOR'S PERMISSION IS WHERE IT WHERE IT INCLUDES THE EXCLUSIONS OF PHYSICAL ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER. ALSO ADD EMAIL ADDRESS AS AN EXCLUSION. SO I DON'T KNOW IF I NEED TO MAKE THAT IN THE FORM OF AN AMENDMENT, OR IT CAN JUST BE ADDED TO THE CURRENT AMENDMENT. SO IT WOULD READ PARTNERSHIP OR TRUST THE PHYSICAL ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER AND EMAIL ADDRESS OF THE OWNER SHALL BE EXCLUDED. IF NOT, WE CAN PASS AS IS OR OR NOT AND THEN ADDRESS AT A FUTURE DATE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

HE'S HE'S REQUESTED THAT IT BE ADDED AS A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT, I BELIEVE. SO. AGAIN GLAD TO DISCUSS IT MORE HERE. I WOULD I WOULD ARGUE THAT THE ISSUE THAT CAME UP PARTICULARLY WITH SMALL LOCAL LANDLORDS WHO ARE NOT CORPORATIONS AND ALL THIS STUFF EMAILS, YOU CAN MAKE UP AN EMAIL FOR FREE KIND OF ANYWHERE. YOU CAN'T REALLY LIKE DOX SOMEBODY WITH THEIR EMAIL, BUT THEIR PHONE NUMBER, THEY DON'T HAVE BUSINESS PHONE NUMBERS AND THEIR ADDRESS WAS THEIR HOME ADDRESS.

SO PEOPLE WERE LITERALLY SHOWING UP AT THEIR AT THEIR FRONT DOOR SO THAT THERE WASN'T LET ME JUST PUT IT THIS WAY. I DIDN'T HAVE IT EXPRESSED TO ME THAT SHARING THE EMAIL ADDRESS WAS A PARTICULAR ISSUE. SO AGAIN, I'M NOT AGAINST IT. I'M NOT. I'M GLAD FOR THE REST OF MY COLLEAGUES TO WEIGH IN ON THAT, BUT I'M JUST SAYING IT WASN'T EXPRESSED AS A PARTICULAR ISSUE LIKE THE ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER WAS. SO WHAT WE'VE GOT NOW IS WE'VE GOT AN AMENDMENT BEFORE US. YOU KNOW, WE DO HAVE WE HAVE AN AMENDMENT BEFORE US. IF THAT PASSES, YOU CAN THEN MOVE TO AMEND IT FURTHER. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON THE AMENDMENT THAT'S PRESENTLY

[01:40:01]

AND SO AGAIN, YOU KNOW, IF, IF, IF THE COUNCIL THINKS DIFFERENTLY THAT'S THAT'S FINE.

AND WE CAN VOTE ON THAT AMENDMENT. BUT I WOULD ARGUE ALL WE'RE DOING IS EITHER TREATING THESE THINGS AS REVENUE CENTERS OR MAKING IT PUTTING UP BARRIERS TO PEOPLE GETTING ONLINE, REGISTERING, WHICH IS WHAT WE WANT THEM TO DO. THERE IS A MOUNTAIN OF REGULATION THAT WE PUT ON LANDLORDS. LANDLORDS OFFER A TREMENDOUS SERVICE TO OUR COMMUNITY. THEY PROVIDE THE HOUSING THAT WE ALL DESPERATELY WANT MORE OF. RIGHT. THE GOVERNMENT SOURCE STINKS AT IT, AND SO WE WANT MORE PRIVATE LANDLORDS TO DO IT. AND I THINK CONTINUING TO INCREASE COSTS AND INCREASE DIFFICULTIES FOR THEM TO COMPLY WITH THE LAW, PARTICULARLY THE ONES THAT ARE COMPLYING, IS NOT THE WAY WE SHOULD GO. COUNCILMAN HENNINGER. SO AS A FOLLOW UP, WHAT COUNCILMAN OWEN HAS POINTED OUT ABOUT THAT WE'RE REWARDING SCOFFLAWS AND, YOU KNOW, YOUR ARGUMENTS AGAINST IN TERMS OF, YOU KNOW WHAT, WHETHER THIS IS MEANT TO BE A REVENUE STREAM, IS ANY OF THAT GERMANE TO THE THREAT FROM FRANKFURT, OR IS THAT IS THAT A REQUIREMENT OF THE DEAL THAT YOU'VE STRUCK THAT WE HAVE WE ELIMINATE THESE FEES, OR IS THAT SOMETHING THAT'S UP TO US? THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. SO WHEN YOU SAY DEAL STRUCK, THERE'S NO DEAL STRUCK, RIGHT? THIS IS ME DOING MY BEST TO BALANCE COMPETING INTERESTS AND GET SOMETHING THAT ACCOMPLISHES THE GOAL. AND ALSO, YOU KNOW, BALANCES, YOU KNOW, DIFFERENT VOICES FROM ACROSS THE COMMUNITY. YOU KNOW, I AGAIN, IF 14 MEMBERS OF THIS COUNCIL THINK WE NEED TO REINSTATE THE FEES, FEEL FREE TO AMEND IT AND REINSTATE THE FEES. I'M NOT GOING TO SUPPORT THAT. AND I'VE EXPLAINED PHILOSOPHICALLY WHY I WOULDN'T SUPPORT IT. BUT, YOU KNOW, I DON'T WANT ANYBODY TO THINK THAT THERE'S, YOU KNOW, LIKE, IF YOU DO THIS, WE WILL DO THAT. RIGHT? LIKE, THIS IS THIS IS US TRYING TO THIS IS ME TRYING TO PUT FORTH THE BEST PIECE OF LEGISLATION THAT I THINK MAKES SENSE, GIVEN ALL THE COMPETING INTERESTS. AND THAT WILL ALSO STOP ANY MOVEMENT FORWARD ON THIS POTENTIAL PREEMPTION BILL PENDING IN IN THE STATE GENERAL ASSEMBLY.

THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. THANK COUNCILMAN REED ON THE AMENDMENT. THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. SO WITH REGARD TO THE FEES, WAS THERE A STATED PURPOSE FOR THE FEES IN THE BEGINNING, LIKE FIXED COSTS THAT HAD TO BE COVERED? AND WAS THAT FIXED COST COVERED, SUCH AS THE DESIGN OF A WEBSITE? I WILL ASSUME THE PRESIDENT IS MOTIONING TO ME. YES, I'M ASKING YOU THE QUESTION. THANK YOU. THE I CAN'T SPEAK TO THE ORIGINAL RENTAL REGISTRY THAT GOES BACK TO, I THINK WAS 2017 OR MAYBE EARLIER. I CANNOT REMEMBER WHAT THE I CANNOT COMMENT ON WHAT THE PURPOSE OF THAT WAS, WHAT THE PURPOSE OF THIS FEE STRUCTURE WAS. THE UPDATED ONE THAT WAS PASSED MAYBE A YEAR OR TWO AGO, HAD ADDED MUCH MORE COMPLEXITY, INCLUDING ALL OF THE RANDOM

[01:45:08]

SO EVERY YEAR EVERY LANDLORD HAD TO INCUR THIS COST. SO THERE THAT BILL WAS USING IT AS A REVENUE STREAM TO OFFSET COSTS. BUT THE COST THAT WAS LOOKING TO OFFSET HAVE BEEN LARGELY ELIMINATED AS WELL. RIGHT. SO IN OTHER WORDS, SPEAK TO THE ORIGINAL ORIGINAL ONE. BUT THE WEBSITE AND THE REGISTRY IS BUILT. IT DOESN'T COST A TON OF MONEY TO UPDATE IT. SO IN OTHER WORDS, WE IT WAS BEING USED AS A REVENUE STREAM, BUT THOSE COSTS HAVE BEEN OFFSET BY OTHER REVENUE STREAMS. NO, THE RANDOM INSPECTIONS ARE OUT. OKAY. YEAH. SO THERE THERE ARE NO MORE COSTS FOR THE. CORRECT. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON THE AMENDMENT SEEING NONE THIS AMENDMENT THAT REQUIRES A VOICE VOTE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE I ANY OPPOSITION? NO. THE EYES HAVE IT. ALL RIGHT. THE AMENDED VERSION IS PROBABLY BEFORE US.

WE'RE GOING TO BEGIN DISCUSSION ON THAT. COUNCILMAN LINENGER, YOU ARE FIRST IN THE QUEUE.

THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. AND I HOPE EVERYONE'S EXCITED FOR WHAT THEY'RE ACTUALLY HERE FOR. I REPRESENT A DISTRICT THAT IS WHERE A MAJORITY OF MY RESIDENTS ARE RENTERS. THE REMOVAL OF INSPECTIONS IN HIGH DENSITY RENTAL AREAS AFFECTS MY ENTIRE DISTRICT. WE ALREADY STRUGGLE HERE IN THE CITY OF LOUISVILLE WITH HOLDING LANDLORDS, ESPECIALLY OUT OF STATE LANDLORDS ACCOUNTABLE TO THE CITY AND TO THE TO THEIR TENANTS. THIS ORDINANCE PROPOSES TO WEAKEN AN IMPORTANT TOOL OF ACCOUNTABILITY BESIDES REMOVING ALL FEES ASSOCIATED WITH PROPERTIES, WITH THE RENTAL REGISTRY AND REWARDING SCOFFLAWS. THIS ORDINANCE REMOVES THE SIGNED AFFIDAVIT REQUIRED OF LANDLORDS TO STATE THAT THEIR PROPERTIES ARE SAFE AND UP TO CODE. AGAIN, THIS IS A MATTER OF LESS ACCOUNTABILITY, LESS RESPONSIBILITY FOR PEOPLE WHO OWN MULTIPLE FORMS OF PROPERTY. IN OUR CITY, TENANTS ARE BY DEFINITION AND BY THE UNFORTUNATE LAWS OF OUR STATE ON THE WRONG SIDE OF AN ALL ENTIRELY UNEQUAL RELATIONSHIP TO THEIR LANDLORDS. THIS PROPOSAL BEFORE US TODAY FURTHERS THAT IMBALANCE WHEN WE SHOULD BE WORKING TO CORRECT IT. I WAS ELECTED TO SERVE THE NEEDS OF THE WORKING CLASS IN THIS CITY.

THIS DOES NOT DO THAT. I CANNOT IN GOOD CONSCIENCE SUPPORT IT. NEXT ACCUSED COUNCILWOMAN PARRISH. RIGHT. THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. I'M CONCERNED BECAUSE A GREAT DEAL OF OUR ELECTEDS BOTH AT THE STATE LEVEL AND LOCAL LEVEL, OWN PROPERTY ARE LANDLORDS, AND THAT'S THEIR BUSINESS. THAT'S THE AMERICAN DREAM. BUT THE MAJORITY OF OUR STATE OF KENTUCKY AND OUR CITY RENT, INCLUDING PEOPLE WHO ARE WORKING FOR METRO GOVERNMENT, PEOPLE WHO ARE ELECTED. AND I DON'T HEAR THE TENANTS OR THE RENTERS VOICE IN ANY OF THESE AMENDMENTS. FURTHERMORE, IT'S THE COST OF BUSINESS AS AN ELECTED OFFICIAL. MY NUMBER, MY ADDRESS. I'VE GOTTEN RACIST THREATS. I'VE HAD TO HIRE SECURITY FOR ALL THE THREATS THAT I'VE GOTTEN FOR STANDING UP FOR SOCIAL JUSTICE, BUT THAT WHEN YOU PUT YOURSELF OUT THERE IN BUSINESS AND IN A PUBLIC WAY, PEOPLE ARE GOING TO ADDRESS YOU AND TRY TO CONTACT YOU. WE ARE TRYING TO LEGISLATE BASED ON LESS THAN 1% OF OUR STATE, TO CHANGE THINGS THAT CAN IMPACT FAMILIES, IMPACT RENTERS, WORKING CLASS, POOR PEOPLE, AND PEOPLE WHO ARE TRYING TO OBTAIN HOUSING. THAT IS THE COST OF BUSINESS. AND THIS THIS POWERFUL LEGISLATION WAS SO IMPORTANT. THIS FEELS VERY RUSHED. I REALLY WOULD LIKE US TO TABLE THIS AND REALLY GET TO THE NITTY GRITTY, THE NITTY GRITTY OF IT, BECAUSE WE HAVE TIME. WE DON'T HAVE TO RUSH THIS. AS SOMEONE WHO'S HAD TO BE IN FRANKFORT LOBBYING, THEY'RE RUSHING THIS AND THEY'RE TRYING TO MAKE US MAKE THE FIRST MOVE. THIS FEELS LIKE A BULLY MOVE. NO DEALS WERE MADE WITH ANY WITH ME OR ANYBODY THAT I KNOW. SO WE'RE WE'RE IN THE REPUBLICANS ARE NOT AT A MAJORITY HERE. AND SO WE NEED TO DO WHAT'S BEST FOR THE LOUISVILLIANS THAT HAVE ENTRUSTED US TO MAKE THOSE DECISIONS. TENANTS VOICES ARE LOST IN THIS. WE SHOULD NOT BE BULLIED BY FRANKFORT. THIS OVERREACH IS DISRESPECTFUL, AND WE HAVE TOO MANY PEOPLE WHO ARE SHOWN UP AND WHO ARE REACHING OUT TO US TO DO WHAT'S RIGHT BY THEM. WE KNOW THAT THEY WORKED AT STATE WITH ONE REPUBLICAN HERE, BUT THEY DID NOT CONTACT ALL OF US, AND WE GOT TO DO WHAT'S RIGHT BY THE PEOPLE. UNLIKE MY COLLEAGUE, I DON'T WORK FOR FRANKFORT OVERREACH, AND I AM A SOLID NO. BECAUSE OF MY DISTRICT, DISTRICT THREE.

HALF OF MY CONSTITUENTS ARE RENTERS AND HALF OF THEM ARE HOMEOWNERS. AND WE NEED TO PROTECT ALL OF LOUISVILLE BECAUSE THIS CONSTANT OVERREACH WILL SEND US DOWN A TERRIBLE PATH. WE WILL NOT BE ABLE TO RECOVER FROM LOUISVILLE METRO GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES AND LOUISVILLE METRO PEOPLE DESERVE US TO MAKE THE DECISIONS THAT ARE BEST FOR THEM. WE JUST LIKE

[01:50:01]

I CANNOT IMAGINE WHY THEY WOULDN'T WANT TO DO THAT. BUT I GUESS IT ALL FALLS ON THE POOR TENANT WHEN THERE'S NOT ENOUGH HOUSING OUT THERE TO ACCEPT WHATEVER IS THERE. THE RULES WERE PUT IN PLACE TO MAKE HOUSING SAFE FOR PEOPLE TO LIVE IN. OUR WHOLE DISCUSSION HERE IS ABOUT WHOSE INTERESTS TAKE PRIMACY RIGHT NOW, AND IT SEEMS LIKE BASED ON WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE, IT'S THE LANDLORDS AND THEIR INTEREST IN MAKING MONEY OVER THE PEOPLE WHOSE VOICES ARE THE LEAST HEARD, WHO NEED SAFE AND SECURE HOUSING. SO I WILL BE VOTING NO ON THIS.

THANK YOU. COUNCILOR WINKLER. THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. AND FIRST OF ALL, LET ME JUST SAY I DO AGREE WITH COUNCILMAN PIAGENTINI COMMENTS THAT, YOU KNOW, VILIFYING BUSINESS OWNERS, VILIFYING LANDLORDS IS PROBABLY NOT THE. THERE CERTAINLY ARE SOME BAD ACTORS IN SLUMLORDS AND THEY ARE A PROBLEM. BUT IN GENERAL, I THINK MANY ARE SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS. AND SO I DON'T THINK VILIFYING THEM IS PROPER. I DO WANT TO MAKE A MOTION THOUGH, BECAUSE I DO THINK BEYOND AND I DON'T THINK IT'S A REVENUE CENTER, BUT I DO THINK THERE IS ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS REQUIRED AROUND MAINTAINING THE RENTAL REGISTRY. I THINK IT IS STANDARD FOR GOVERNMENT TO HAVE A FEE STRUCTURE SET UP WITH ANYTHING, ANYTIME THAT YOU'RE ASKING OR YOU HAVE SOME SORT OF COMPLIANCE COMPONENT, THERE IS A FEE STRUCTURE TYPICALLY ASSOCIATED WITH IT. SO ON PAGE SEVEN, SECTION D, I WOULD MAKE A MOTION TO RESTORE SORT OF. THIS FIRST SECTION NONREFUNDABLE FEE SHALL ACCOMPANY THE INITIAL REGISTRATION FORM. THE FEE STRUCTURE IS $25.20 $5 THROUGH BASICALLY THROUGH THAT FEE STRUCTURE, IT WOULD RETAIN THE FIRST SENTENCE. THE DIRECTOR SHALL PROVIDE MEANS OF ACCEPTING PAYMENT ON LINE, CONCURRENT WITH THE SUBMISSION OF THE ANNUAL REGISTRATION FORM. THEN THE REMAINDER WOULD BE STRUCK RIGHT AFTER. BECAUSE THERE IS NO ONGOING REGISTRATION FEE. SO YOU'D REMOVE YOU'D KEEP SORT OF ALL THAT NEXT SECTION STRUCK ALL THE WAY UNTIL THE LAST SENTENCE, WHICH IS RENTAL HOUSING UNITS REGISTERED AT THE TIME OF THIS CHAPTER TAKES EFFECT, SHALL NOT BE REQUIRED TO REREGISTER AS LONG AS THEY DO NOT HAVE ANY VIOLATIONS THROUGH THE REST. SO THAT WOULD BE MY MOTION. IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND? THE MOTION IS PROPERLY BEFORE US, COUNCILMAN OWEN, YOU'RE NEXT IN THE QUEUE. BUT ARE YOU SPEAKING TO THE ORDINANCE AS A WHOLE OR TO THIS AMENDMENT? OKAY. ANY DISCUSSION ON THIS AMENDMENT? COUNCILMAN KRAMER? THANK YOU. I JUST WANT TO BE POSITIVE OF THE LANGUAGE BECAUSE IT SOUNDED LIKE IT STILL INCLUDED SOMETHING ABOUT ANNUAL. AND I KNOW YOU SAID AFTER IT SAYS ANNUAL, BUT STILL JUST WANT TO BE POSITIVE THAT IF WE PUT A FEE ON AND FOR THE RECORD, COUNCILMAN PIAGENTINI AND I AGREE ON THE PHILOSOPHICALLY ON THIS. I DON'T BELIEVE THAT WE SHOULD USE FEES AND LICENSE FEES AND THINGS LIKE THAT TO GENERATE REVENUE. I AM TOHA I'M PRETTY WELL ONY OPPED RECORD FOR BEING OPPOSED TO THAT. YOU CAN GO BACK OVER THE LENGTH OF MY TENURE HERE. AT THE SAME TIME, I WOULD POINT OUT THAT THE REASON THAT FEES EXIST WHEN WE, WHEN WE REQUIRE A REGISTRATION IS BECAUSE THERE IS SOME EXPENSE TO, TO ENFORCING OR MANAGING THAT REGISTRATION. OUR GOAL HERE IS TO MAKE SURE THAT FOLKS IN FACT REGISTER. RIGHT. AND TO COUNCILMAN OWEN'S POINT IT IF WE DON'T HAVE A FEE IN PLACE, WE BASICALLY SAID, WE'RE GOING TO REWARD YOU FOR BREAKING THE LAW. THE LAW SAID YOU HAD TO REGISTER. YOU CHOSE TO NOT. AND NOW WE'RE GOING TO DO AWAY WITH FEE, WHAT THE FEE IS SUPPOSED TO DO, NOT GENERATE REVENUE. I, I WANT TO SAY THAT AS PLAINLY AS I CAN. THIS FEE IS NOT TO GENERATE REVENUE. THIS FEE IS TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE THE RESOURCES NECESSARY TO GO AFTER THE PEOPLE WHO DID NOT REGISTER. THAT'S WHAT THE FEES FOR. IT GIVES US THE RESOURCES TO GO AFTER THE PEOPLE WHO ARE BREAKING THE LAW. RIGHT. SO IT SIMPLY SAYS FOLLOW

[01:55:07]

THIS IS NOT AN ANNUAL THING. IT'S NOT A REVENUE GENERATOR. IT DOESN'T GO ON AND ON AND ON ON INFINITUM. IT SIMPLY SAYS, WE HAVE THIS REGISTRY. WE'RE SERIOUS ABOUT IT. WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT YOU FOLLOW THE LAW AND WE'VE WE'VE PUT IN A SMALL FEE AND IT'S A SMALL FEE.

WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS HERE. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A SMALL FEE THAT MAKES IT POSSIBLE FOR US TO MAKE SURE THAT PEOPLE ARE ACTUALLY REGISTERING. THAT'S IT.

AND IN THAT REGARD, I'M NOT OPPOSED TO THIS, ACTUALLY, I, I KIND OF FEEL LIKE IF WE'RE GOING TO IF WE'RE GOING TO CREATE A NEW PIECE OF GOVERNMENT, WHICH THIS REGISTRY DID IN 2017, WHATEVER WE CREATED, WE HAVE TO PAY FOR. AND IF WE'RE GOING TO USE THIS REGISTRY GOING FORWARD, WE HAVE TO PAY FOR IT. AND THE WAY TO PAY FOR IT IS WHEN YOU REGISTER ONCE ONCE YOU PAY A FEE. AND IF THAT'S AS LONG AS THE COUNTY ATTORNEY IS CERTAIN, THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT OUR LANGUAGE SAYS. AND I'M NOT CHALLENGING. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT'S I'M FINE WITH THAT. ELSE. THE ONLY TIME I WAS ABOUT TO AGREE THAT IF DEED CAME BACK IN THE TWO SENTENCES THAT WOULD NEED TO STILL BE REMOVED ARE THE ONES THAT BEGIN WITH AFTER PAYMENT OF INITIAL REGISTRATION AND ANNUAL REGISTRATION SHALL. AND THEN THE SENTENCE RIGHT AFTER THAT. THAT BEGINS WITH FOR THOSE WITH NO VIOLATIONS, THOSE WOULD BE THE ONLY TWO THAT WOULD STILL NEED TO COME OUT TO CAPTURE YOUR INTENT. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON COUNCILMAN WINKLER'S AMENDMENT HEARING? NONE. THIS AMENDMENT THAT REQUIRES A VOICE VOTE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE, AYE. ANY AN OPPOSITION? NO. THE AYES HAVE IT. WE DO HAVE THE NEW AMENDED VERSION BEFORE US NOW. AND I BELIEVE COUNCILMAN OWEN, YOU ARE NEXT IN THE QUEUE. OH, WITHDRAW. ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE THE FINAL AMENDED VERSION BEFORE US. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS ORDINANCE? COUNCILMAN BENSON, JUST TO MAKE SURE NOW WE'RE VOTING THAT WHAT WE'RE GOING TO PASS, THAT THERE'S A FEE FOR EVERYBODY WHO HAS RENTAL PROPERTY. IS THAT WHAT WE'RE. IS THAT RIGHT? THAT WHAT YOU SAID? THERE'S AN INITIAL REGISTRATION FEE, INITIAL REGISTRATION, A ONE TIME REGISTRATION. OKAY. BUT EVERYBODY WHO HAS RENTAL PROPERTY PAYS IT, RIGHT? SOME HAVE ALREADY PAID IT, SOME HAVE ALREADY PAID IT. BUT NOW EVERYBODY PAYS IT. EVERYONE WILL BE REQUIRED THAT HAS NOT PAID IT OR HAS A NEW PROPERTY WILL BE REQUIRED TO PAY THE ONE TIME INITIATION FEE. NO ANNUAL FEES, JUST A ONE TIME. SO IF YOU OWN RENTAL PROPERTY, YOU'VE ALREADY PAID YOUR INITIAL FEE. YOU WOULD NOT HAVE TO PAY IT ANYMORE. LIKE I ONCE ONCE TOLD SOMEBODY, YOU KNOW, I COULDN'T VOTE ON IT BEFORE BECAUSE I HAVE RENTAL PROPERTY. AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT THAT I SAID, IT'S THE EASIEST THING TO DO, IS VOTE ON SOMETHING THAT DON'T AFFECT YOU NOW. AND SO IT'S EASY. WHY DON'T WE JUST VOTE THEM, HAVE EVERYBODY IN THE COUNTY PAY SOMETHING SO WE HAVE MORE MONEY? WE CAN HAVE MORE MONEY IF WE JUST GET EVERYBODY TO PAY MORE. THAT'S WHAT YOU THINK, DON'T YOU? ANYTHING ELSE, COUNCILMAN BENSON? NO, THANKS. ANYONE ELSE ON THE FINAL, AMENDED VERSION OF THIS ORDINANCE? SEEING NONE. THIS IS. ORDINANCE REQUIRES A ROLL CALL. VOTE. MADAM CLERK, OPEN THE ROLL. COUNCIL MEMBER. MULVEY. WOOLRIDGE. YES. I'M READY, I'M READY. MR. PRESIDENT, YOU HAVE 21 YES VOTES AND FOUR NO VOTES. THE ORDINANCE IS ADOPTED. MADAM CLERK, A READING

[56. O-056-25     AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 156 OF THE LOUISVILLE METRO CODE OF ORDINANCES (“LMCO”) REGARDING THE LEAD-BASED HAZARDS AND REPEALING LMCO CHAPTER 167 (AMENDMENT BY SUBSTITUTION). 2/18/25 Government Oversight/Audit and Appointments Committee  Amended; Recommended for Approval Action Required By: August 13, 2025 Sponsors: Anthony Piagentini (R-19) ]

THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. AGAIN, I'M GOING TO YIELD THIS TO COUNCILMAN PIAGENTINI, THE CO-CHAIR OF THE COMMITTEE. COUNCILMAN, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. SO AGAIN, JUST ONE COMMENT BRIEFLY ON THIS, AND THEN I'M GOING TO DIVE AGAIN RIGHT INTO THE AMENDMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN PROPOSED. AND I'LL EXPLAIN THE AMENDMENTS AS I GO THROUGH. BUT I'M GOING TO MAKE IT AS ONE MOTION ON ALL THE AMENDMENTS. AND AGAIN, WANT TO THANK ROBBIE FROM THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, WHO HAS BEEN DOING YEOMAN'S WORK ON MAKING SURE ALL OF THIS IS ACCOUNTED FOR PROPERLY. ALL I WANT TO SAY, AS A GENERAL COMMENT, IS THAT WE HAVE AN EXECUTION PROBLEM IN HOW

[02:00:03]

AND BOTH PUBLIC HEALTH AND CODES AND REGS HAVE EVERY TOOL THEY NEED TO BE SUCCESSFUL IN THIS AMENDED LEGISLATION. WITH THAT SAID, I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO AMEND THE FOLLOWING AREAS. BEAR WITH ME AS I TRY TO EXPLAIN A FEW OF THESE THINGS ON PAGE TWO. IN DEFINITIONS, THERE'S A DEFINITION OF DIRECTOR. THE DIRECTOR OF LOUISVILLE JEFFERSON COUNTY METRO DEPARTMENT OF CODES AND REGULATIONS. PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD ON PAGE. FOUR, WE AMENDED THE DEFINITION OF SECONDARY RESIDENCE TO BETTER ALIGN WITH STATE LAW, WHICH ACTUALLY IMPROVES THE ABILITY TO COUNT MORE THINGS AS SECONDARY RESIDENCE. THE EXISTING LANGUAGE TALKED ABOUT WHERE A PERSON SPENDS MINOR'S PRIMARY RESIDENCE, WHERE THEY SPEND AT LEAST 20% OF THEIR TIME. NOW IT WILL READ SECONDARY RESIDENCE A HOME OTHER THAN THE MINOR'S PRIMARY RESIDENCE WERE SCRATCHING WHERE HE OR SHE SPENDS LEAST 20% OF TIME. AND WE'RE ADDING IN WHICH A CHILD SIX YEARS OF AGE OR UNDER SPENDS AT LEAST THREE HOURS A DAY, TWO DAYS A WEEK. SO SIX TOTAL HOURS A WEEK. AND THAT CAN BE CONSIDERED A SECONDARY RESIDENCE. SO ACTUALLY IT EXPANDS OUR DEFINITION OF SECONDARY RESIDENCE AND ALIGNS WITH THE STATE UNDER INSPECTIONS ON SECTION 156 302 B, WE CHANGED THE WORD SHALL TO MAY. WE DID ADD A SECTION UNDER LETTER D OF THAT SAME SECTION RELATED TO INSPECTIONS. QUOTE APPROVAL BY DIRECTOR BEFORE ANY ORDER BY LOUISVILLE METRO CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER FOR LEAD HAZARD RISK ASSESSMENT BASED UPON A REASONABLE SUSPICION OF A LEAD BASED HAZARD. FOLLOWING AN INSPECTION, THE DIRECTOR MUST FIRST REVIEW AND APPROVE OF SUCH ORDER PRIOR TO ITS ISSUANCE. WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? ONE OF THE PROACTIVE TOOLS THAT ARE IN HERE IS IF A CODE AND REGS OFFICER IS DOING AN INSPECTION OF ANYTHING, IF THEY'RE JUST IN A PROPERTY THAT WAS BUILT BEFORE 1978. AND BY THE WAY, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU CAUGHT THIS, BUT IN THE RENTAL REGISTRY, I ADDED THAT PROPERTY OWNERS MUST ADD THE DATE OF WHICH THE PROPERTY WAS CREATED OR IT WAS BUILT. SO THAT CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER HAS AN EFFICIENT WAY OF IDENTIFYING THESE PROPERTIES. IF THEY'RE IN THERE AND THEY SEE EVIDENCE AND THERE ARE WAYS TO DO THIS, MANY OF OUR CODE OFFICERS ARE GOING THROUGH THIS TRAINING RIGHT NOW, AND THEY SEE EVIDENCE OF THE ISSUE. THEY CAN THEY HAVE THE AUTHORITY, RIGHT. THEY HAVE TO HAVE EVIDENCE TO ORDER A LEAD HAZARD RISK ASSESSMENT. A LEAD HAZARD RISK ASSESSMENT COSTS THE PROPERTY OWNER HUNDREDS OF DOLLARS AND NOT LIKE 150. IT'S SOMEWHERE BETWEEN 500 AND $800 EACH TIME THIS IS ORDERED, WHICH AND THAT'S BEFORE WE HAVE PROVEN BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT THAT THERE IS LEAD IN THE PROPERTY. IT'S JUST THIS, THIS SUSPICION. SO IN ORDER TO ENSURE THAT WE DON'T WE'RE NOT INCURRING THESE COSTS FOR LANDLORDS, ENSURING THAT WE'VE GOT SOMEBODY WITH OVERSIGHT, ENSURING THAT WE DON'T HAVE A ROGUE OFFICER, JUST ORDERING THESE EVERY SINGLE MINUTE OF EVERY SINGLE DAY, THE DIRECTOR WILL SIGN OFF ON THEM. SO OUR CODES AND REGS OFFICERS CAN ORDER THEM. THAT WILL THAT THAT LED LED HAZARD RISK ASSESSMENT IS WHAT PROVES IF THE LEAD IS ON THE PROPERTY OR NOT, THAT COST IS BORNE BY THE LANDLORD. AND TO ENSURE THAT IT

[02:05:05]

SO ONCE YOU DO THE INSPECTION, YOU HAVE THAT THE DATE FOR COMPLETION. AND THIS IS WHAT WE ADDED SHALL NOT EXCEED 90 DAYS INSTEAD OF 60 DAYS. AGAIN, IT'S HARD TO GET THESE CONTRACTORS.

AND THEN WE ADDED FROM THE DATE OF THE INTRODUCTION OF THE REMEDIATION PLAN UNLESS FOR GOOD CAUSE SHOWN. AT THE BOTTOM OF PAGE SIX UNDER REINSPECTION. SO THERE'S TWO TYPES OF REMEDIATION. THERE'S INTERIM REMEDIATION. THERE'S PERMANENT REMEDIATION. IF A LANDLORD DOES PERMIT REMEDIATION, THAT MEANS THEY REMOVED ALL LEAD FROM THE PROPERTY. IF THEY DO THAT, RE INSPECTIONS ARE NOT REQUIRED BECAUSE THEY REMOVED ALL THE LEAD FROM THE PROPERTY. IF THEY USE INTERMEDIATE STEPS, THAT'S LIKE PAINTING OVER THE LEAD OR OTHER MEASURES THAT ENCAPSULATE IT. THERE IS THEY CAN HAVE A REINSPECTION AFTER THREE YEARS TO ENSURE THAT THAT WAS PROPERLY DONE. SO WE SAY. SO WE JUST AMENDED THE LANGUAGE TO SAY AFTER THREE YEARS THEY'LL HAVE A RE INSPECTION. AGAIN, WE CLARIFIED WE ADDED LANGUAGE AT THE TOP OF PAGE SEVEN. RE INSPECTIONS WILL NOT BE REQUIRED WHEN LEAD HAZARD ABATEMENT HAS BEEN UTILIZED FOR ALL LEAD BASED HAZARDS. IN OTHER WORDS, THEY PERMANENTLY REMOVED IT. THERE'S NO NEED FOR A RE INSPECTION. AND THEN FINALLY WE CLARIFIED THE LANGUAGE IN THE PENALTIES. WE ADDED THE LANGUAGE. ALL FINES SHALL BE DOUBLED FOR VIOLATIONS INVOLVING AN EBL. THAT'S AN ELEVATED BLOOD LEAD LEVEL UP TO A MAXIMUM OF $4,000 PER CITATION. I WANT TO BE CLEAR ABOUT THE CITATION SECTION.

CITATIONS ARE FOR NONCOMPLIANCE WITH THE LAW. SO IF PROPERTY OWNERS EITHER THROUGH A CODE INSPECTOR OR THROUGH OTHER MEANS LIKE RIGHT NOW, FOR EXAMPLE, PUBLIC HEALTH CAN ONLY TAKE MANDATE ACTION IF THE EBL LEVEL IS TOXIC. THIS ALLOWS THEM TO MANDATE ACTION AFTER AN AFTER PROVING THAT LEAD IS IN THE PROPERTY, EVEN WITH WITH ANY ELEVATED BLOOD LEAD LEVEL. OKAY, WHAT THEY STILL HAVE TO PROVE IT'S ON THE PROPERTY. AND THEN ONCE THEY'VE PROVEN IT, THEY CAN THEN REMEDIATE. IF THE PROPERTY OWNER IS ACTING IN GOOD FAITH AND MEETING ALL THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE LAW TO REMEDIATE, THEY ARE NOT CITED. THEY ARE ONLY CITED IF THEY GAF OFF ANY PORTION OF THE COMPLIANCE OF THE LAW. BUT WE CLARIFIED THAT THEY CAN GET UP TO $4,000 PER CITATION IN FINES. AND ACTUALLY THE FINES ARE QUITE AGGRESSIVE IN HERE. SO THAT'S ALL OF THAT.

AND I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO AMEND. IS THERE A SECOND SECOND. ALL RIGHT. WE'VE GOT AN AMENDMENT BEFORE US. I'VE GOT FOLKS IN THE QUEUE. BUT LET'S DO THIS. THE QUESTION IS ANYONE IN THE QUEUE SPEAKING TO THE AMENDMENT? ANYONE TO THE AMENDMENT? ALL RIGHT. WE'VE GOT AN AMENDMENT BEFORE US, BUT PROBABLY SECONDED. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY I, I IN OPPOSITION HERE IN OPPOSITION. THAT AMENDMENT PASSES. NOW WE HAVE THE AMENDMENT ORDINANCE BEFORE US.

AND FIRST IN THE QUEUE IS COUNCILWOMAN CHAPEL. THANK YOU SO VERY MUCH. WE JUST HEARD 15 MINUTES GOING OVER AMENDMENTS THAT WERE MADE TO THIS. OBVIOUSLY IT'S NOT FULLY COOKED.

AND THESE ARE A LOT OF AMENDMENTS TO CONSIDER. I ALSO SEE NO RUSH IN VOTING THIS FOR THIS TONIGHT. SO I WOULD MAKE THE MOTION THAT WE TABLE THIS BECAUSE WE'RE IN SESSION ALL YEAR LONG. FOLKS. LET'S TALK ABOUT THIS A LITTLE BIT MORE. IS THERE A SECOND ON THE MOTION.

SECOND. ALL RIGHT. MOTION IS NOT DEBATABLE. SO ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF TABLE AND SAY AYE. I ALL THOSE IN OPPOSITION? NO, NO, IN THE OPINION OF THE CHAIR IS THE NOES HAVE IT THE DIVISION OF THE HOUSE. WANT A ROLL CALL VOTE. YES, MADAM CLERK, A ROLL CALL VOTE. COUNCIL MEMBER. MULVEY.

WOOLRIDGE. JUST SO WE'RE CLEAR, FOLKS, A YES IS TO TABLE A NO IS TO NOT TABLE NO. I THINK I'M

[02:10:02]

THE MOTION FAILS. NEXT TO SPEAK IS COUNCILMAN LINENGER. THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. AGAIN, I REPRESENT A MAJORITY RENTER DISTRICT WITH THE OLDEST HOMES IN THE CITY, PARTICULARLY IN OLD LOUISVILLE, PARK HILL AND ALGONQUIN AREAS WITH ACUTE RISK FOR LEAD POISONING FOR CHILDREN.

MY WIFE IS A SECOND YEAR MEDICAL STUDENT AT THE UNIVERSITY OF LOUISVILLE SCHOOL OF MEDICINE, AND SHE'S THERE BECAUSE SHE'S BEEN CALLED TO SERVE AS A PEDIATRIC SPECIALIST FOR THE MOST AT RISK AND DISADVANTAGED CHILDREN IN OUR STATE. IN LOUISVILLE, THAT MEANS CHILDREN IN THE WEST END, CHILDREN IN THE WEST END AND OLD LOUISVILLE ARE ASTRONOMICALLY MORE LIKELY TO BE IMPACTED BY LEAD POISONING. THE DAMAGE CAUSED BY LEAD IN CHILDREN IS DEVASTATING AND IRREVERSIBLE. IT IMPACTS EVERY ASPECT OF THEIR LIVES, HOW THEY PERFORM IN SCHOOL, HOW THEY RELATE TO THEIR PEERS AND THEIR TEACHERS. CHILDREN WITH LEAD POISONING ARE MUCH, MUCH MORE LIKELY TO MAKE POOR LIFE DECISIONS AND MUCH MORE LIKELY TO BECOME ADULTS WHO ARE ARRESTED AND INCARCERATED. THEY'RE MORE LIKELY TO BE VIOLENT WITH THEIR LOVED ONES AND OTHERS, AND THEY'RE MORE LIKELY TO BE VICTIMS OF VIOLENCE. LEAD POISONING STEALS FUTURES FROM THESE CHILDREN AND HARMS THE ENTIRE COMMUNITY, HARMS US FOREVER. THE REPUBLICAN CAUCUS IN FRANKFORT KNOWS ALL OF THIS IN COMMITTEE, COUNCILMAN PIAGENTINI POINTED OUT THAT THIS IS THE FIRST TIME THAT THERE'S BEEN A PREEMPTION FIGHT BETWEEN OUR BODY AND THE STATE LEGISLATURE, WITH THE MAJORITY IN FRANKFORT REACHED OUT TO PAUSE THE EFFORT. HE REPEATED THAT TONIGHT I WILL REPEAT WHAT I SAID IN COMMITTEE. IT IS NO COINCIDENCE THAT REPUBLICANS IN FRANKFORT ARE EAGER FOR US TO TAKE THIS OFF THEIR PLATE, THAT THEY WOULD RATHER WE WEAKEN OUR LEAD ABATEMENT ORDINANCE OURSELVES, RATHER THAN HAVING HEARINGS IN FRANKFORT, PASSING A BILL, AND BEING FORCED TO ANSWER QUESTIONS ABOUT BEING THE PARTY OF LEAD POISONING CHILDREN, I CAN UNDERSTAND THAT WE SHOULD HAVE THE SAME MISGIVINGS. I URGE MY COLLEAGUES TO CONSIDER THE HARM THAT MAKING OUR LEAD ABATEMENT REACTIVE RATHER THAN PROACTIVE, WHICH I MAINTAIN THIS DOES, WILL CAUSE. I URGE MY COLLEAGUES TO CONSIDER WHETHER WE CAN TRUST FRANKFORT TO LEAVE THE CITY ALONE. AFTER THIS VOTE, FOR EXAMPLE, THERE WAS A NEW PREEMPTION FILED TODAY. FOR CONVERSION THERAPY, ABUSIVE CONVERSION THERAPY. I DON'T TRUST FRANKFORT, A FRANKFORT THAT WOULD VOTE FOR CONVERSION THERAPY TO LEAVE OUR CITY ALONE. I URGE MY COLLEAGUES TO CONSIDER WHERE WE ARE BEING PLAYED BY LEADERSHIP IN FRANKFORT WHO DO NOT WANT THEIR BILL TO ADVANCE WITH THEIR FINGERPRINTS ALL OVER IT, BUT STILL WANT TO DELIVER A WIN TO THEIR DONORS AT THE EXPENSE OF CHILDREN, DISPROPORTIONATELY AT THE EXPENSE OF POOR BLACK CHILDREN IN THE WEST END, SOME OF WHOM I REPRESENT, SOME OF WHOM OTHERS HERE REPRESENT. BUT ALL OF US HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT. I URGE MY COLLEAGUES TO THINK ABOUT THE FACT THAT THE LEGISLATION TARGETS THE ENTIRE STATE, NOT JUST LOUISVILLE, AND IS UNPOPULAR ACROSS THE STATE, OPPOSED BY THE KENTUCKY LEAGUE OF CITIES. I URGE MY COLLEAGUES TO CONSIDER THAT THE FIGHT MATTERS. AND IF WE EVER WANT TO CHANGE THE DYNAMIC BETWEEN THIS CITY AND THE MAJORITY CAUCUS IN FRANKFORT, THE ONLY PATH FORWARD IS TO NOT COMPLY IN ADVANCE. I URGE MY COLLEAGUES TO JOIN ME IN VOTING NO TO THIS ORDINANCE, WHICH IS BOTH BAD POLICY AND BAD POLITICS. THANK YOU.

COUNCILWOMAN PURVIS. YOU'RE NEXT IN THE QUEUE. THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. I'M GOING TO EXPLAIN WHY I SUPPORT THIS LEGISLATION. I SUPPORT THIS LEGISLATION BECAUSE I AM BLACK AND I AM FROM THE WEST END, AND I STILL LIVE IN THE WEST END. NO ONE WOULD KNOW THAT BETTER THAN ANYONE THAT IS BLACK AND LIVES IN THE WEST END. I CAN SPEAK FOR THOSE PEOPLE. I CAN'T SPEAK FOR WHAT SOMEONE ELSE'S VISION IS. I SUPPORT THIS LEGISLATION BECAUSE I REPRESENT 30,000 PEOPLE, AND THE MAJORITY OF THOSE PEOPLE ARE LOW INCOME PEOPLE WHO DO LIVE IN HOUSES THAT WERE BUILT BEFORE 1978. I, I SUPPORT THIS LEGISLATION BECAUSE WITHOUT WITHOUT THIS, WE HAVE ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. I AM NOT GOING TO PLAY AROUND WITH THE LIVES OF MY CONSTITUENTS, THE LIVES OF CHILDREN. AND I ALSO ALSO RESENT THE FACT OF BEING TOLD THAT BLACK RESIDENTS ARE VIOLENT BECAUSE OF LEAD POISONING. I REALLY, I REALLY AM JUST UPSET ABOUT THE COMMENT THAT MY COLLEAGUE JUST MADE. I DON'T THINK IT WAS FAIR. AND THE LAST TIME I CHECKED, MY COLLEAGUE THAT MADE THE COMMENT IS NOT BLACK AND IS NOT A PROFESSIONAL LIKE HIS. HIS WIFE IS TO ME.

THANK YOU. NEXT IS COUNCILWOMAN PARISH. RIGHT. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. I FIRST WANT TO ASK MY COLLEAGUE, MR. PIAGENTINI, TO CONSIDER THAT THE CDC, IF YOU LOOK THAT UP, SAYS ANY LEVEL OF

[02:15:03]

I'M STILL MAKING MONEY. I DIDN'T LOSE MONEY. THAT'S THE COST OF BUSINESS. AND IF ANY OF YOU UNDERSTAND BUSINESS LIKE YOU ALWAYS SAY YOU DO, THEN YOU UNDERSTAND THAT THIS LED PART OF THIS, BECAUSE OF THE HEALTH AND HUMANITY OF PEOPLE IS MORE IMPORTANT, IS THE COST OF BUSINESS. AND WHEN YOUR TENANTS AND WHEN THE PEOPLE THAT YOU'RE SERVING SEE THAT YOU CARE, THEY TAKE CARE OF YOUR PROPERTY, THEY RESPECT YOU, THEY UNDERSTAND THAT YOU CARE ABOUT THEM BECAUSE MOST LANDLORDS WANT TENANTS TO BE IN THEIR PROPERTIES MORE THAN TWO YEARS SO THEY CAN SEE A PROFIT. AND IF YOU'RE SAYING AND PART OF THESE AMENDMENTS, WE CAN TEST AGAIN IN THREE YEARS IF THE IF ANY LEVEL HAS BEEN FOUND, I DON'T WANT TO WAIT THREE MORE YEARS. THREE MORE YEARS COULD CAUSE EVEN MORE DAMAGE BECAUSE KIDS ARE EXPOSED. YOU DON'T LISTEN TO THE EXPERTS, YOU DON'T LISTEN TO THE DATA. YOU DON'T LISTEN TO PEOPLE WITH DIRECT EXPERIENCE. YOU'RE LISTENING TO THE POCKETS OF PEOPLE WHO WILL NEVER EXPERIENCE THIS. AND THAT IS A DAMN SHAME. THANK YOU. YOU.

KNOW WHAT? THEY DON'T SAY THAT. ALRIGHT, NEXT TO THE QUEUE IS COUNCILWOMAN RAYMOND. THANK YOU.

I WANT TO NAME THAT. WE'VE NOT HAD LONG TO LOOK AT THIS PIECE OF LEGISLATION. RIGHT.

ESPECIALLY IF YOU WEREN'T ON THE COMMITTEE. AND WE'VE AMENDED IT TONIGHT. IF YOU GAVE ALL 26 OF US A TEST ON WHAT'S IN HERE AND WHAT'S NOT, 25 OF US WOULD PROBABLY FAIL IT. THE POLICY HERE, I THINK, IS DIFFICULT TO PARSE ANYWAY. YOU KNOW, LEVELS PER MILLION AND THE KIDS BLOOD.

BUT THE SHORTHAND IS THAT THE CURRENT ORDINANCE, WHICH JUST WENT INTO EFFECT A COUPLE OF MONTHS AGO AFTER YEARS, YEARS AFTER IT WAS PASSED, IS MORE PROACTIVE. THIS ONE IS MORE REACTIVE, MEANING WE ACT AFTER A KID IS IRREPARABLY HARMED, OR IT RELIES ON OUR CODE ENFORCEMENT

[02:20:01]

IT HAS NOT MOVED AN INCH. WE'RE GOING TO PASS THIS ORDINANCE AND KNEECAP OURSELVES WHEN THIS BOOGEYMAN BILL HAS NOT HAD A HEARING OR A READING IN EITHER CHAMBER IN FRANKFORT. IF WE'RE PLAYING A GAME OF LEGISLATIVE CHICKEN, WE ROLLED OVER DEAD BEFORE THE GUN WENT OFF. TODAY IS DAY 19 OF THE 30 DAY LEGISLATIVE SESSION. LET THEM SHOW US THAT THEY HAVE THE VOTES TO MOVE THIS AFTER TONIGHT. THEY'VE STILL GOT TWO WEEKS TO MOVE IT AND SPOOK US, AND THEN WE CAN CAPITULATE IN TWO WEEKS WHEN WE'RE BACK RIGHT HERE ON MARCH 13TH. SAY, WE DON'T ACT TONIGHT. SAY WE DON'T ACT ON MARCH 13TH. WE STAND UP FOR OUR AUTONOMY AND OUR VALUES. THOSE BIG TALKERS DOWN I-64 STILL HAVE MARCH 14TH TO PASS A BILL THROUGH THEIR VETO PROOF MAJORITY, WITH TIME TO OVERRIDE GOVERNOR BESHEAR'S VETO. I COUNTED NINE REPUBLICAN MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE WHO HAVE CHILDREN AT HOME. THEY'RE GOING TO VOTE FOR THE LEAD POISONING BILL. SET THIS PRECEDENT, AND WE WILL BE ABLE TO TRACE FUTURE ACTION BACK TO THIS MOMENT. THEY WILL BE EMBOLDENED TO PREEMPT SOMETHING THAT YOU CARE ABOUT NEXT YEAR, THAT YOU CARE ABOUT AND THAT YOU CARE ABOUT AND THAT YOU CARE ABOUT. BECAUSE THEY KNOW THAT LOUISVILLE METRO COUNCIL WON'T STAND UP AND WON'T PUSH BACK. IF THERE'S GOING TO BE BLOOD ON SOMEONE'S HANDS, WHY WOULD WE SAY, NO, NO, NO, DON'T. DON'T YOU GET DIRTY. I'LL DO IT. MAKE THEM MOVE IT. IF THEY CAN. WE GOTTA START LOOKING OUT FOR EACH OTHER. I GOT FREE LEAD TESTERS HERE FOR EVERYBODY. AFTER THE MEETING, TAKE THEM WITH YOU AND START SPRAYING. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, PRESIDENT ACKERSON. AND THAT'S A VERY DIFFICULT ACT TO FOLLOW. SO MAYBE YOU SHOULD CALL ON A COUPLE OTHER PEOPLE FIRST AND THEN PUT ME BACK IN. SO NO, WHAT I'LL SAY IS, LOOK, I'LL START WITH SORT OF A STORY OF MY LIFE, RIGHT? WHEN I TELL MY CHILDREN THAT, YOU KNOW, YOU CAN DO THIS IF YOU WANT TO, BUT I REALLY WOULDN'T DO IT IF I WERE YOU. I'M NOT GIVING THEM A

[02:25:05]

RIGHT. AND SO LET'S THINK NOT ABOUT LEAD POISONING, BUT LET'S SAY WE'VE GOT A PROBLEM WITH KIDS GETTING HURT IN BUS CRASHES OKAY. BECAUSE WE HAVE BRAKES FAIL ON BUSSES. BUT WHAT WOULD WE DO? WHAT WOULD WOULD A RESPONSIBLE PERSON DO. WELL, WE'D PASS LEGISLATION THAT SAYS, BEFORE YOU LET KIDS GET ON A BUS, YOU NEED TO INSPECT THE BUS, RIGHT? AND YOU GOT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE BUS IS SAFE. AND WE PROBABLY PROACTIVELY INSPECT BUSSES AS WELL. RIGHT. WE WOULDN'T JUST LET THEM GO ON THE ROAD WITHOUT ANY INSPECTION AND SAY, WELL, TAKE YOUR LIFE INTO YOUR OWN HANDS. GOOD LUCK. OKAY, BUT WE'RE BEING ASKED TO SUPPORT HERE IS CHANGING THAT LAW AND SAYING, GO, GET ON THE BUS, OKAY. AND YOU KNOW WHAT? IF YOUR BRAKES FAIL AND SOMEBODY GETS HURT, THEN WE'LL GO TAKE SOME ACTION AND WE'LL LOOK AT THAT BUS AND SEE IF IT REALLY SHOULD HAVE BEEN ON THE ROAD OR NOT. OKAY. ARE WE GOING TO TAKE ACTION THAT PUTS KIDS ON UNSAFE BUSSES? I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD DO THAT. OKAY. WOULD ANYBODY BE OKAY WITH MAKING THAT CHANGE? OF COURSE THEY WOULDN'T. AND IF REPRESENTATIVE DODSON, CALLOWAY, LOUIS ROBERTS AND WHITE, ALONG WITH THE REST OF THE REPUBLICAN MEMBERS OF THE FRANKFURT LEGISLATURE, WANT TO BE THE PARTY OF SCHOOL BUSSES WITHOUT BRAKES, LET THEM. OKAY, BUT I DON'T WANT TO BE PART OF THAT.

YOU KNOW, COUNCILMAN LINENGER SAID THIS, AND I THINK HE'S ABSOLUTELY RIGHT. LIKE, WHAT IS THE BEST WAY TO PASS LEGISLATION? THAT'S TERRIBLE. GET SOMEBODY ELSE TO DO IT FOR YOU. OKAY. AND THAT IS PRECISELY WHAT'S HAPPENING HERE. WE ARE BEING ASKED TO PASS LEGISLATION FOR SOMEBODY ELSE. I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD DO IT. I CAME IN HERE REALLY THINKING THAT I WAS A YES VOTE. I'M GOING TO BE PERFECTLY HONEST. I REALLY CAME IN HERE TODAY. SORT OF. I'M GOING TO VOTE, HOLD MY NOSE AND VOTE YES. BUT I HAVE BEEN CONVINCED BY THE ARGUMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE THIS EVENING THAT THIS IS A BAD STEP FOR LOUISVILLE. IT IS A BAD PRECEDENT. AND IT'S NOT EVEN ABOUT JUST ABOUT LEAD. IT IS ABOUT WHAT AUTHORITY WE HAVE LOCALLY TO GOVERN THE DECISIONS THAT WE MAKE HERE. AND I WOULD ENCOURAGE ALL 25 OF US BECAUSE WE'RE MISSING ONE, ALL 25 OF US TO VOTE NO TO THIS. I THINK, COUNCILMAN ARGENTINA, THIS IS THE LAST THING THAT I'LL SAY. I THINK YOU STARTED OFF EXACTLY RIGHT. RIGHT. I TOTALLY AGREE THAT THERE ARE OPPORTUNITIES TO MAKE CORRECTIONS IN THE EXISTING LEAD ORDINANCE. I MEAN, I DO THINK WE HAVE AN EXECUTION PROBLEM, AND I THINK WE SHOULD WORK ON THOSE THINGS, BUT THAT'S GOING TO TAKE MORE THAN FIVE MINUTES HERE ON THE FLOOR GETTING AMENDMENTS AT THE TONIGHT. AND WE SHOULD WORK THROUGH THOSE. TRY TO MAKE IT STRONGER, MAKE IT BETTER FOR EVERYBODY INVOLVED. I'M HAPPY TO WORK WITH YOU ON THAT. BUT I DO NOT SUPPORT GIVING UP LOCAL CONTROL ON THIS ISSUE AND DOING THE DIRTY WORK FOR SOMEBODY ELSE. THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. OKAY. YES, JUST BEFORE I SPEAK, I BELIEVE IT IS STATUTORILY REQUIRED THAT WE SIT BY DISTRICT ORDER ON COUNCIL NIGHTS. SO IS THAT NOT THE LAW? RIGHT. YOU WANT TO ASK THE COUNTY ATTORNEY? COUNTY ALICE, HE'S GOT A STATUTORY QUESTION ABOUT. I THINK HE'S UPSET THAT THAT COUNCILMAN PURVIS HAS MOVED AWAY. I'M JUST POINTING OUT WHAT THE LAW IS. IT MAY COME AS A SURPRISE TO YOU THAT I DON'T HAVE THE STATUTES MEMORIZED, BUT I CAN I CAN TRY TO FIND THAT OUT FOR YOU. AND I'LL GET ON MY LAPTOP NOW TO TRY TO FIND OUT, BUT I. I DON'T HAVE AN IMMEDIATE ANSWER. I WOULD LIKE TO RESPOND TO MY COLLEAGUE FROM DISTRICT FIVE, WHO I WILL GENEROUSLY ASSUME WAS DISTRACTED WHILE I WAS SPEAKING CHILDREN IN THE WEST END AND OLD LOUISVILLE. THIS IS WHAT I SAID BEFORE, AND IT'S EASY FOR ME TO REPEAT MYSELF BECAUSE I HAVE WRITTEN NOTES ARE ASTRONOMICALLY MORE LIKELY TO BE IMPACTED BY LEAD POISONING. I WILL DIVERGE FROM MY ORIGINAL WRITTEN STATEMENT TO EXPLAIN THAT THAT INCLUDES WHITE CHILDREN. BLACK CHILDREN. IT INCLUDES THE CHILDREN THAT MY KIDS GO TO SCHOOL WITH, THAT ATTEND BRANDEIS ELEMENTARY THAT INCLUDES THEIR PEERS THAT RENT HOMES IN THE CITY OF OLD LOUISVILLE, THE DISTRICT OF LOUISVILLE. RATHER, IT INCLUDES WHITE KIDS IN PORTLAND. IT INCLUDES BLACK KIDS IN SHAWNEE. IT INCLUDES BLACK KIDS IN RUSSELL. INCLUDES WHITE KIDS IN RUSSELL. IT IMPACTS EVERY ASPECT OF THEIR LIVES, HOW THEY PERFORM IN SCHOOL, HOW THEY RELATE TO THEIR PEERS AND THEIR TEACHERS. CHILDREN WITH LEAD POISONING ARE MUCH, MUCH MORE LIKELY TO MAKE POOR DECISIONS IN LIFE, MORE LIKELY TO BECOME ADULTS WHO ARE ARRESTED, INCARCERATED. THEY'RE MORE LIKELY TO BE VIOLENT WITH THEIR LOVED ONES AND OTHERS, AND THEY'RE MORE LIKELY TO BE VICTIMS OF VIOLENCE. THIS DAMAGE KNOWS NO RACE AT ALL. ALL

[02:30:04]

THERE'S NO PROTECTION OFFERED BY CLASS. THERE'S NO PROTECTION OFFERED BY SEXUAL ORIENTATION OR RACE.HAT WE DO HAVE IS A SITUATION WHERE THE CHILDREN MOST IMPACTED BY ANY REDUCTION IN OUR EFFORTS TO PROTECT THEM FROM LEAD POISONING ARE MORE LIKELY TO BE POOR CHILDREN. AND STATISTICALLY SPEAKING, BECAUSE OF THE AGES OF HOMES, BECAUSE OF THE RENTAL DENSITY, BECAUSE OF A MYRIAD OF FACTORS LARGELY RELATED TO REDLINING AND THE PAST SINS OF ECONOMIC OPPRESSION TO BLACK PEOPLE. MUCH MORE LIKELY THAT BLACK CHILDREN WILL BE AFFECTED, WHICH IS A TRAGEDY.

IT IS A CRIME. IT IS A STAIN ON OUR CONSCIENCE AND ONE THAT I FEEL VERY DEEPLY AGAIN, AS SOMEONE WHO REPRESENTS PARK HILL, ALGONQUIN AND OLD LOUISVILLE AREAS THAT ARE EXTREMELY AFFECTED BY LEAD POISONING. WE HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT ALL OF THOSE CHILDREN, REGARDLESS OF RACE, CLASS, SEXUAL ORIENTATION OR ANY OTHER DIFFERENTIATION.

BUT IT IS IMPORTANT FOR US TO RECOGNIZE THAT THESE SINS DISPROPORTIONATELY IMPACT THE OPPRESSED PEOPLE OF OUR COMMUNITY, WHICH, YES, INCLUDES BLACK CHILDREN IN THE WEST END, POOR WHITE KIDS IN PORTLAND, POOR WHITE KIDS IN DISTRICT 12. THAT'S WHAT I'M SPEAKING ABOUT.

COUNCILMAN PICCININI, YOU'RE NEXT IN THE QUEUE. THANK YOU. SO, YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY A LOT OF PEOPLE WANT TO THROW AROUND NAME CALLING, AS IF, YOU KNOW, SOMEBODY TRYING TO PUT KIDS ON A BUS WITHOUT BREAKS. FUNNY THING IS, WE ACTUALLY DON'T HAVE A LAW THAT REQUIRES THOSE BUSSES TO HAVE THEIR BRAKES INSPECTED. IT'S JUST A MATTER OF PROCEDURE THAT THE THAT THE BUS COMPANY DOES, WHICH THE PRIVATE BUSINESS BY THE WAY. SO THE SO WITH THAT SAID. WHAT THIS DOES, IT DOES NOT TAKE AWAY ANY OF THE TOOLS. IT DOES NOT CHANGE ANY OF THE PENALTIES IN THE EXISTING LEGISLATION. I HAVE EMAILS FROM PUBLIC HEALTH WITH THE PRECISE NUMBERS OF HOW MANY REPORTS WE GET OF ELEVATED BLOOD LEAD LEVELS PER YEAR. IT IS A IT IS LESS THAN 500 A YEAR. THAT IS OF ANY LEVEL, ANY LEVEL. AND WE CONFIRMED WITH FAMILY HEALTH CENTERS AND OTHER OF OUR GREAT LOCAL FQHCS WHO ARE LARGELY SUPPORTING PRECISELY THE COMMUNITIES THAT MANY ARE TALKING ABOUT HERE, WHERE LEAD LEVELS ARE THE HIGHEST. THEY TEST EVERY SINGLE CHILD THAT WALKS IN THE DOOR. THEY REPORT EVERY SINGLE INSTANCE OF ANY ELEVATED BLOOD LEVEL TO PUBLIC HEALTH. SO 500 CASES A YEAR, IF WE IMPLEMENT THE EXISTING LAW, IT REQUIRES US TO LOOK AT 50,000 PROPERTIES. THE ISSUE IS FOCUS. THE ISSUE IS LIMITED RESOURCES. WE HAVE NO ABILITY TO DO THAT TYPE OF WORK. IT'D BE LIKE FINDING A NEEDLE IN A HAYSTACK VERSUS USING THE TRAINING AND TOOLS WE HAVE AT OUR DISPOSAL TO FOCUS. AND WHAT THIS BILL ALLOWS IS THAT ANY ELEVATED BLOOD LEAD LEVEL, IT ALLOWS US TO INVESTIGATE. AND IF LEAD IS FOUND IN THE HOME, REMEDIATION IS REQUIRED. IF A CODE INSPECTOR PROACTIVELY SEES ANY EVIDENCE, THEY CAN THEN ALSO REQUIRE THE TEST TO BE DONE. THAT IS BASICALLY THE SAME THING WE'RE DOING NOW. IT'S JUST THAT WE'RE FOCUSING ON THE PROPERTIES AND THE AREAS THAT ARE THE PROBLEM. THE 1%, THE 2%, RATHER THAN WASTING TIME AND WASTING RESOURCES AND WASTING MONEY ON THE OTHER 50,000 PROPERTIES THAT HAVE NEV HADNY EDENC OF ISES T J MILLOCATION OF RESESD IETS UP AIRCUMSTANCE ERE ITSSUMESVERYBODY'S GUILTY. PUBLIC HEALTH RIGHT NOW HAS A DATABASE OF PROPERTIES THAT THEY BELIEVE ARE AT RISK PROPERTIES. LET'S GO HARD AFTER THEM. BUT THAT IS A VERY, VERY SMALL GROUP OF PROPERTIES IN THIS CITY. I AM LEAVING ALL THOSE TOOLS IN PLACE. I'M LEAVING THE PENALTIES IN PLACE. THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IS ARE WE GOING TO FOCUS AND GO AFTER THOSE PROPERTIES, OR ARE WE GOING TO WASTE TIME ON LITERALLY TENS OF THOUSANDS OF PROPERTIES THAT HAVE NEVER HAD AN ISSUE AND HAVE NO EVIDENCE OF BEING THE PROBLEM? THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. COUNCILWOMAN MCCRANEY, YOU'RE NEXT IN THE

[02:35:03]

ANYONE WANT TO DEBATE SENDING IT BACK TO COMMITTEE OR. LET'S JUST HAVE A VOTE. LET'S ROLL. CALL IT. A YES VOTE IS TO SEND IT BACK TO COMMITTEE. AND NO VOTE KEEPS IT HERE ON THE FLOOR.

COUNCIL MEMBER WOOLRIDGE. NO. COUNCIL MEMBER HERNDON. OH, I SEE YOU, SIR. I'M SORRY. I DON'T MEAN TO RUSH YOU. COUNCIL MEMBER. PARKER. I HAVE YOUR. NO. ALL RIGHT, MR. PRESIDENT. YOU HAVE TEN YES VOTES AND 15 NO VOTES. THAT MOTION FAILS. THE NEXT IN THE QUEUE IS COUNCILMAN BRATCHER. YEAH. I JUST BRIEFLY WANT TO SAY THAT I CAME FROM THE SUPERMAJORITY THAT EVERYBODY HATES AROUND HERE, AND. THE. NOT EVERYBODY. BUT IT'S NOT THREATS. IT'S. THEY HAVE CONSTITUENTS TOO. AND THEIR CONSTITUENTS ARE SPEAKING TO THEM JUST LIKE THEY SPEAK TO US AND THEY'RE REPRESENTING THEIR AREA. AND MY FRIEND AND DISTRICT TEN, I'VE BEEN LISTENING TO HER SPEECHES FOR 4 OR 5 YEARS. SHE'S VERY BRIGHT, I THINK, THE WORLD OF HER, REALLY. BUT I'VE BEEN

[02:40:02]

AND THESE ARE BOTH BLACK AND WHITE PEOPLE THAT I REPRESENT. SO I DON'T REALLY GO WITH PARTY POLITICS. I SERVE THE PEOPLE. I DON'T SERVE THE PARTY. SO THIS IS WHY I'M I AM SUPPORTING THIS LEGISLATION BECAUSE I NEED TO OFFER MY CONSTITUENTS SOME TYPE OF RESOLUTION IN CASE THEY ARE AFFECTED BY LEAD. THANK YOU. COLLEAGUES, I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE ALL CLEAR HERE. IF YOU'RE IN THE QUEUE, LET'S SPEAK TO NEW PARTS OF THIS DEBATE, NOT REHASHING ANYTHING THAT'S ALREADY BEEN SPOKEN ABOUT. COUNCILWOMAN PARISH. RIGHT. YOU'RE NEXT IN THE QUEUE AND YOU HAVE THE FLOOR, MADAM. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. AND I AM SPEAKING TO THE NEW PARTS. YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT WE'RE TAKING A GAMBLE, AND IT'S NOT FAIR TO THE PEOPLE. THIS FEELS VERY RUSHED. FOLKS OBVIOUSLY WANT TO MAKE A DECISION. SOME PEOPLE COULD BE TIRED OF BEING HERE, BUT 500 CHILDREN BEING POISONED IS WAY TOO MANY. I'M NOT OKAY WITH WHATEVER THOSE NUMBERS ARE. THESE ARE BODIES. THESE ARE PEOPLE. THESE ARE HUMAN LIVES.

AND WHATEVER FRANKFURT DECIDES, WE CAN LITIGATE THAT ONCE THEY DECIDE IT. BUT WE DO NOT HAVE TO MOVE AND LET THEM BULLY US. I'M NOT HERE TO PLAY GAMES. I DON'T THINK ANY OF THIS IS FUN. I DON'T HATE REPUBLICANS. I HAVE FRIENDS THAT ARE REPUBLICAN. I NEVER HATE REPUBLICAN. I'M DISAPPOINTED IN THE DECISION MAKING OF REPUBLICANS WITH A PARTY THAT SAYS IT DOESN'T LIKE GOVERNMENT OVERREACH, BUT CONSTANTLY OVERREACHES IN LOUISVILLE, AND THAT'S A SHAME THAT WE ARE PARTICIPATING IN THAT, BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE TO, NO MATTER IF THEY'RE STATE LEGISLATOR OR NOT. AND EVERY TWO YEARS THEY HAVE ELECTIONS, AND EVERY FOUR YEARS WE HAVE ELECTIONS. AND WHEN WE TELL THE PEOPLE WHAT'S HAPPENING AND WE SHOW THEM IN OUR DECISION MAKING, THEN THEY GET TO MAKE THE DECISION. OVER 28,000 PEOPLE IN MY DISTRICT, NOT FRANKFORT, IS WHO I AM HERE TO REPRESENT. AND IF A PARTY THAT ALWAYS TOUTS WE WANT LESS GOVERNMENT OVERREACH, WE WANT MORE DECISION MAKING. WHY DO THEY CONSTANTLY TRY TO TAKE OUR DECISIONS AWAY? BECAUSE THEY'RE WORKING THEIR PLAN? I'M NOT A PART OF THAT. I WANT PEOPLE TO LIVE AND SURVIVE TODAY. I WANT KIDS TO BE SAFE AND HAVE THE HOUSING THEY NEED. I WAS BORN IN 1977, SO EVERY APARTMENT, BECAUSE I JUST BECAME A HOMEOWNER IN 2018. SO EVERY APARTMENT I EVER RENTED, I HAD TO SIGN LEAD POISONING AWARENESS PAPERWORK EVERY TIME. I DON'T KNOW IF ANY OF YOU HAVE HAD TO RENT. THAT'S THE COST OF BUSINESS. THAT'S THE PART OF IT, BECAUSE LEAD POISONING KILLS AND

[02:45:05]

I'M STILL NOT SCARED OF WHAT THEY MAY DO. IN MY EXPERIENCE, FROM BEING A LOBBYIST AND HAVING TO GO TO FRANKFORT, THEY DON'T HAVE ENOUGH TIME AND POLITICAL WILL TO GET THIS DONE. AND IF WE DO THIS, WE'RE GIVING THEM THE POWER TO DO THAT. I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THEY'RE THE MOST POWERFUL. I BELIEVE THE PEOPLE ARE. I'M NOT ACCEPTING THAT. I DON'T ACCEPT WHAT THEY DO, AND I DON'T ACCEPT BULLIES. NEVER IN MY LIFE HAVE I NEVER IN MY LIFE WILL. SO I THINK THAT WE NEED TO THINK ABOUT THE PEOPLE, THE KIDS. SOME OF YOU ARE PARENTS. HOW CAN YOU BE OKAY WITH THIS? AND EVEN IF IT'S NOT YOUR KIDS, IT COULD BE YOUR KIDS, FRIENDS, YOUR COUSINS, YOUR FAMILY MEMBERS IMPACTED BY THIS. YOUR DECISION MAKING RIGHT NOW IS TELLING YOU WHERE YOU ARE STANDING AND WHAT YOU SHOULD BE DOING. AND IF YOU'RE GOING AGAINST WHAT'S BEST FOR THE GREATER GOOD, BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT WE'RE REALLY TALKING ABOUT. I DON'T CARE ABOUT THE POCKETS OF LANDLORDS. I CARE ABOUT THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN THESE RESIDENCES. AND WE ARE MORE THAN 36,000 AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS SHORT. SO ANYTHING THAT'S NEW AND BEING BUILT, IT WOULDN'T EVEN FALL UNDER THIS GUIDELINE. BUT WE HAVE A LOT OF STANDING STRUCTURES THAT THIS APPLIES TO.

EVERYBODY ELSE IS GOING TO BE PAPERWORK AND REGISTRATION. SO LET'S DO WHAT'S RIGHT BY THE PEOPLE AND NOT PASS THIS ORDINANCE. OR BECAUSE IF IT IS GOING TO HURT ONE PERSON OR TWO PEOPLE OR 500 PEOPLE, THAT'S TOO MANY. LET US LITIGATE WHATEVER THEY DECIDE, PUT THE BALL BACK IN THEIR COURT. THANK YOU, COUNCILMAN WINKLER. THANK YOU. YOU KNOW, WHILE I APPRECIATE THE COMMENTS THAT THE STATE LAWMAKERS ARE RESPONDING TO THE NEEDS OF THEIR CONSTITUENTS, WHICH I TOTALLY AGREE. I MEAN, THEY DO RESPOND TO THE NEEDS OF THEIR CONSTITUENTS. I DO THINK IT'S WORTH POINTING OUT THAT NONE OF THE SPONSORS ARE FROM LOUISVILLE. AND SO I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY. AND IF WE SAY, WELL, THIS BILL IS ACTUALLY NOT TARGETING LOUISVILLE, IT'S TARGETING THE ENTIRE STATE, I'LL GIVE YOU THAT ARGUMENT. BUT THEN WHY ARE THEY NOT GOING TO MOVE IT FORWARD BASED ON WHAT LOUISVILLE DOES? I MEAN, THAT MAKES NO SENSE WHATSOEVER UNLESS THIS BILL IS EXCLUSIVELY DESIGNED TO PREEMPT ACTION IN LOUISVILLE BY PEOPLE NOT FROM LOUISVILLE. SO LET'S CALL IT WHAT IT IS. RIGHT. AGAIN, I THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, IF WE THINK ABOUT THE ORIGINAL LEAD ORDINANCE THAT WE'VE GOT BEFORE US THAT WAS DRAFTED OVER MONTHS AND MONTHS OF WORK, WHERE WE WORKED WITH ALL OF THE IMPACTED CONSTITUENCIES. OKAY. WE HELD IT ACTUALLY AT COUNCIL FOR TWO MEETINGS TO HAVE ADDITIONAL MEETINGS WITH THE CONSTITUENT GROUPS. THEY WERE SATISFIED WITH THE OUTCOME. WE VOTED UNANIMOUSLY IN SUPPORT OF THAT ORDINANCE. RIGHT. IF THERE REALLY IS INTEREST IN DIALOG AND SOLVING THIS PROBLEM, I SEE NO ISSUE WITH WAITING TWO WEEKS WORKING THROUGH THIS, UNDERSTANDING WHAT WE'RE DOING, WORKING THROUGH THE NUANCES RATHER THAN TRYING TO JAM THIS DOWN WITH SIGNIFICANT AMENDMENTS THIS EVENING. I JUST THINK THAT'S BAD PRACTICE AND BAD POLICY. AND AGAIN, IF THIS REALLY IS SOMETHING THAT WE'RE WORKING TOWARDS AND IT'S NOT TARGETING LOUISVILLE, AND I SHOULD POINT OUT TO THAT, THE KENTUCKY LEAGUE OF CITIES IS ALSO OPPOSED TO THIS ORDINANCE, RIGHT OR NOT, OUR ORDINANCE, THE HOUSE BILL, WE SHOULD SPEND THE TIME, WE SHOULD DO THE APPROPRIATE DUE DILIGENCE, NOT RUSH WORK THROUGH THIS AND SOLVE THE PROBLEM IN THE CORRECT WAY.

THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. COUNCILMAN LINENGER, I'D LIKE TO SPEAK TO THE 500 NUMBER THAT'S BEEN THROWN OUT THERE ON THE CASES OF LEAD POISONING DOCUMENTED BY THE CITY. I HAVE BEEN ASSURED BY MEMBERS OF THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT THAT THAT IS A GROSS UNDERCOUNT. ONE OF THE FACTORS OF THE GROSS UNDERCOUNT IS THAT PARENTS ARE THE ONES WHO INITIATE THE LEAD TESTING. THESE HARMS, AS I HAVE POINTED OUT, ARE GENERATIONAL. PARENTS ARE AFFECTED BY LEAD POISONING.

THEY'RE RAISING KIDS IN THE ENVIRONMENT THAT THEY WERE RAISED IN. THEIR CHILDREN ARE BEING AFFECTED BY LEAD POISONING. PARENTS DON'T HAVE EQUAL ACCESS TO INFORMATION.

[02:50:04]

WHAT I BASICALLY SAID TO THEM WAS, LET'S SEE HOW THE ORDINANCE THAT'S BEEN PASSED GOES. AND THEN I AGREED THAT THERE WERE ISSUES THAT NEEDED TO BE FIXED. BUT I SAID, LET'S SEE HOW IT GOES, AND THEN MAYBE WE CAN PICK UP THAT CONVERSATION. AND I FEEL TERRIBLY ABOUT NOT ENGAGING WITH THEM AND NOT HAVING THAT CONVERSATION AT THAT TIME, BECAUSE I THINK IT'S POSSIBLE WE COULD HAVE PREVENTED ALL OF THIS. WE COULD HAVE PREVENTED FRANKFURT FROM GETTING INVOLVED.

I HAVE NOT BEEN I DON'T APPRECIATE SOME OF THE MISINFORMATION THAT SOME OF THE GROUPS OUT THERE HAVE PRESENTED. I NEVER APPRECIATE THAT ON EITHER SIDE, BUT THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF MISINFORMATION, AND I DON'T APPRECIATE THAT. I DON'T APPRECIATE THE SKY IS FALLING TACTICS EITHER, BECAUSE I DO THINK, UNLIKE A LOT OF THE RHETORIC, WHATEVER HAPPENS HERE TONIGHT, IT'S NOT GOING TO BE PROBABLY NOT GOING TO BE AS EXTREME AS SOME OF THE RHETORIC THAT'S THAT'S HAPPENING HERE. I GREW UP IN A HOUSEHOLD WHERE MY MOM WAS A PROPERTY MANAGER.

THAT'S WHAT SHE DID HER ENTIRE CAREER. AND SHE WAS VERY, VERY PROUD OF THE UNITS THAT SHE RENTED TO PEOPLE. AND THEY DID ALWAYS DID THE RIGHT THING BY PEOPLE. OH, WELL, I CAN'T SAY. I MEAN, THEY SHE ALWAYS TRIED TO DO THE BEST SHE COULD BY THE PEOPLE WHO RENTED HER APARTMENTS. AND SO I CAME FROM THAT PROPERTY MANAGEMENT BACKGROUND. THERE ARE SOME BAD ACTORS OUT THERE. AND HOW WE TARGET THOSE BAD ACTORS AND FIGURE OUT HOW TO. I DO THINK THAT THE MAJORITY OF THE CASES AND 500 IS TOO MANY, 100 IS TOO MANY, TEN IS TOO MANY. BUT I DO THINK THAT MOST OF THE CASES ARE WITHIN A CERTAIN GROUP OF BAD ACTORS, AND THEY'RE UNITS THAT IF WE COULD TAKE THE RENTAL REGISTRY AND COULD TAKE THE INFORMATION THAT WE HAVE CURRENTLY, WE COULD WORK TOGETHER AS A GROUP AND TARGET THOSE PEOPLE AND TRY TO BRING THAT NUMBER DOWN TO ZERO. SO THE REASON THIS HAS BEEN HARD FOR ME IS I DO THINK THAT THIS IS NOT GOOD POLICY IN GENERAL. I DO THINK THAT WE ARE SUBMITTING MORE KIDS TO POTENTIAL LEAD BASED POISONING BY DOING WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING TO DO TONIGHT THAN WHAT WE HAD DONE PREVIOUSLY. I DON'T TRUST FRANKFURT AT ALL. AT ALL. BUT THIS ISN'T THE FIRST PREEMPTIVE PREEMPTION FIGHT WE'VE HAD WITH THEM EITHER, THAT WE THE SOURCE OF INCOME BILL LAST YEAR CAME AND WENT AND NOTHING WE COULD DO ABOUT THAT ONE. I ALSO DON'T THINK THAT IF WE ROLL OVER TONIGHT, IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT WE CAN'T FIGHT LIKE HELL AGAINST THE NEXT PREEMPTION. IT DOESN'T IT? TO ME, IT'S NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE. AND I AND I DON'T NECESSARILY MEAN IT'S ROLLING OVER. SO THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER IS I'VE GONE BACK AND FORTH TONIGHT BECAUSE I REALLY DON'T KNOW WHAT'S BEST TO DO. I HAVE SPOKEN TO CASSIE CHAMBERS ARMSTRONG MULTIPLE TIMES THIS WEEK. SHE SPENT AN UNBELIEVABLE AMOUNT OF TIME LAST TIME GETTING THIS BILL PASSED BROUGHT A LOT OF PEOPLE TO THE TABLE, AND ULTIMATELY I WAS TAKING THE LEAD FROM CASSIE, WHO TOLD ME, TAKE SOMETHING WHICH IS BETTER THAN NOTHING. SHE AND I HAVE GONE BACK AND FORTH AS WELL OVER

[02:55:03]

YEAH, IT'S WAY MORE THAN 505 HUNDRED IS A LONG WAY FROM ONLY. I REALIZE THIS IS GOING TO BE A VERY LONG NIGHT. MY INTENTION IS STILL TO VOTE NO, AND I'M GOING TO TURN IT OVER TO THE NEXT PERSON. COUNCILMAN BRATCHER, YOU HAVE THE FLOOR. I HAVE A QUESTION. IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THE ORIGINAL BILL THAT THIS BODY PASSED CARVED OUT METRO HOUSING. CAN ANYBODY ANSWER THAT? CAN I MAKE A QUESTION ON THAT? YES. THANK THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION. YES. THE CURRENT ORDINANCE HAS AN EXEMPTION. NUMBER SEVEN, HOUSING UNITS THAT A GOVERNMENT ENTITY OR HOUSING AUTHORITY OWNS, OPERATES OR MANAGES, OR THOSE EXEMPTED BY FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL LAW. I DID NOT INCLUDE THAT EXEMPTION IN THIS VERSION. SO GOVERNMENT OWNED HOUSING IS NOW INCLUDED AND SUBJECT TO THE SAME STANDARDS, BUT THE ORIGINAL ORDINANCE EXEMPTED THEM. SO I'D LIKE TO FINISH IF I COULD, SIR. GO AHEAD. WELL, I NEED TO. I NEED TO LOOK THIS UP, BUT I AND I DISAGREED WITH THAT PARTICULAR EXCLUSION AS WELL, BECAUSE I THINK THAT WE SHOULD BE, AS A GOVERNMENT, REQUIRED TO DO THE SAME THINGS. MY UNDERSTANDING, THOUGH, AFTER ASKING THE QUESTION, IS THAT PUBLIC HOUSING UNITS ARE HAVE A FEDERAL GUIDELINE THAT THEY HAVE TO THAT INCLUDES THEM. THAT WAS BEYOND WHAT THIS WAS REQUIRING. SO WHILE THE EXEMPTION LOOKS TERRIBLE, RIGHT, ON THE FACE OF IT, I DON'T THINK IT WAS EXACTLY THAT. IF I COULD RESPOND, MR. PRESIDENT. THAT MIGHT APPLY TO THE TAIL END OF THE SENTENCE EXEMPTED BY FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL LAW. AND FRANKLY, IF THEY'RE EXEMPTED BY FEDERAL OR STATE LAW, WE CAN WRITE ANYTHING UNDER THE SUN. THEY'RE EXEMPTED, RIGHT? THIS THE BEGINNING OF THE SENTENCE IS THE ISSUE. HOUSING UNITS THAT A GOVERNMENT ENTITY OR HOUSING AUTHORITY OWNS. THERE ARE PLENTY OF HOUSING UNITS OWNED BY LOCAL BY OWNED BY GOVERNMENT ENTITIES THAT ARE CONSIDERED LOCAL. THEY ARE NOT OWNED BY HUD. THEY ARE NOT OWNED BY SOME OF THESE FEDERAL AGENCIES. THEY ARE NOT NECESSARILY SUBJECT TO THE SAME FEDERAL RULES. SO YOU CAN THINK OF ANY OF THE PROPERTIES THAT WE DO RELATED TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING. THERE'S AN ARGUMENT TO BE MADE THAT A LOT OF THEM ARE OWNED OR HAVE AN OWNERSHIP INTEREST BY THIS GOVERNMENT ENTITY. AND SO THERE'S A THERE'S A QUESTION ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THEY ARE EXEMPT. SO I AGREE WITH YOU THAT CERTAIN PROPERTIES A PICK ON AGAIN HUD PROPERTIES, THEY ALREADY HAD FEDERAL GUIDANCE. BUT THIS GOVERNMENT IS GETTING MORE AND MORE INTO FUNDING HOUSING. AND AS A RESULT OF THAT THAT HOUSING COULD BE EXEMPT. SO THERE ARE NOT NOT EVERY SINGLE HOUSING, PUBLIC HOUSING IN THE CITY OF LOUISVILLE IS SUBJECT TO THE SAME FEDERAL REGULATIONS. THANK YOU, MR. PRESIDENT. WELL, I MEAN, OKAY, WE GOT FEDERAL GOVERNMENT NOW. WE GOT STATE GOVERNMENT NOW. WE GOT METRO GOVERNMENT NOW. SO JUST SO EVERYBODY HAS THAT CIVICS

[03:00:04]

PURVIS. OH. VERY GOOD. COUNCIL. YES. I'M READY. YES. YOU HAVE 16 YES VOTES AND NINE NO VOTES.

THAT MOTION FAILS. NO. CALL THE QUESTION. I CALL THE QUESTION TAKES A SUPERMAJORITY, DOES IT NOT? ALL THOSE. IN. 16.7583. NO 17. YES.

0.7. OH. YEAH 16. OH EIGHT. 2137. OKAY. YEAH, YEAH, YEAH. I'M GOING TO READ. OKAY. I'M GOING TO. SAY THAT. NEXT. THE QUEUE IS COUNCILMAN. TO WITHDRAW. NEXT THE QUEUE IS GOING TO BE COUNCILWOMAN PURVIS. NOPE. YEAH. ALL RIGHT. I'VE NOT SAID MUCH TONIGHT, BUT I'M GOING TO ECHO OFF OF MY COLLEAGUE, COUNCILMAN OWEN. I GOT A CALL. YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT ABOUT DEMOCRAT OR REPUBLICAN. YOU KNOW ANY OF THAT? I GOT A CALL FROM CASSIE WHO REPRESENTED DISTRICT EIGHT. YOU KNOW, I TALKED TO THE CURRENT COUNCIL MEMBER THAT REPRESENTS THAT DISTRICT. YOU KNOW, WHO ASKED ME TO SUPPORT THIS? AND I DO WHAT I SAY IMMA DO. IF I SAY I'M A SUPPORT SOMETHING, THAT'S WHAT I'M GOING TO SUPPORT. NOT HEAD MEANING AT ALL. FROM MY DISTRICT. SEVERAL OTHER DISTRICTS CONTACTED MY OFFICE, BUT NOT MANY FROM MY DISTRICT. I'M STRUGGLING JUST A LITTLE BIT BECAUSE. YOU KNOW, I SEE A LOT OF DIVISION. HERE. AND, YOU KNOW, I HOPE WE CAN LIVE TO FIGHT ANOTHER DAY. IT'S A STRUGGLE FOR ME BECAUSE I SEE I'M A VERY PASSIONATE PERSON AND I SEE MY COLLEAGUES ARE PASSIONATE AND IT'S OKAY. BUT I BELIEVE IN, YOU KNOW, DOING WHAT'S RIGHT FOR THE PEOPLE. BUT I ALSO BELIEVE THAT THE PEOPLE THAT SELECT THE REPRESENTATIVES AND PUT THEM IN IN THAT SPACE KNOWS WHAT'S BEST FOR THE DISTRICT. SO WITH THAT BEING SAID, YOU KNOW. I'M GOING TO TRUST THE JUDGMENT OF CASSIE CHAMBERS ARMSTRONG AND

[03:05:04]

THANK YOU. IS COUNCILWOMAN MCCRANEY. I WITHDRAW, I'M JUST SICK AND TIRED OF BEING SICK AND TIRED. THAT WAS FANNIE LOU HAMER, NEXT. ACCUSED COUNCILWOMAN PARRISH, RIGHT? YEAH. LISTENING TO I WAS INITIALLY GOING TO RESPOND THAT THERE ARE GOVERNMENT HOUSING HAS A FEDERAL POLICY THAT WOULD THAT ALREADY HAS THIS REGULATION AND MORE IN PLACE. THERE HAS NOT BEEN ANY HOUSING. AS SOMEBODY WHO'S HAD TO SEEK ALL TYPES OF HOUSING HERE, NOT JUST GOVERNMENT, THAT WE DIDN'T DEAL WITH THE LEAD AND THE PAPERWORK AND MAKING SURE THAT SIGNING THOSE LEASES MEANT THAT THERE WAS AN UNDERSTANDING IF THAT PROPERTY WAS BEFORE 1978. SO I DO WANT TO SAY THERE'S THINGS ALREADY OPERATING. MY ISSUE IS THAT IF THERE'S ISSUES WITH PARTS OF THE ORDINANCE, THAT'S TO ME THAT THE ORIGINAL ORDINANCE THAT SHOULD BE DEALT WITH IN ANOTHER MANNER. I THINK THIS FEELS VERY RUSHED AND VERY IT NEGLECTFUL OF A LOT OF THE THINGS THAT THE PEOPLE HAVE TALKED ABOUT. THE PEOPLE ARE ASKING US TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT THERE'S NO NEED. AS COUNCILWOMAN RAYMOND HAS SAID, THERE'S NO NEED TO DO THIS RIGHT NOW. IT'S JUST WE'RE I FEEL LIKE THE PRESSURE IS THERE AND WE DON'T HAVE TO DO THIS RIGHT NOW. SO WHAT IS THE RUSH TO TRY TO DEAL WITH THIS RIGHT NOW? BUT IT LOOKS LIKE BECAUSE ALL THESE OTHER MEASURES TO STOP IT HAVE FAILED, THAT WE GOT TO GO TO A VOTE. I JUST THINK THAT WE DON'T HAVE TO ROLL OVER. I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY THAT IS THE OPTION FOR MOST PEOPLE. AND I THINK THAT WE ARE DOING OUR COMMUNITY, OUR CITY, A DISSERVICE AT THIS MOMENT IF WE ALLOW THIS TO HAPPEN. AND I JUST WANT TO BE ON RECORD TO SAY I'M STILL A STRONG NO, I, I DO APPRECIATE THE WORK OF PEOPLE WHO ARE ALLOWED TO BE A PART OF THE PROCESS, LIKE COUNCILMAN PIAGENTINI WAS, BUT TOO MANY OF US WERE NOT A PART OF THIS. IT'S JUST BEEN RUSHED AND IT AND IT DOESN'T IT HASN'T BEEN RESPECTFUL FOR ALL OF OUR DECISION MAKING. SO YOU'VE BEEN A PART OF THAT PROCESS. YOU'VE BEEN ALLOWED TO DO IT AND PARTICIPATE IN. TOO MANY OF US HAVE NOT. AND I'M NOT COMFORTABLE WITH DOING THAT. SO I THINK THAT WE NEED TO MAKE SURE WE ARE, AGAIN, CONSIDERING OUR CONSTITUENTS, OUR DISTRICT, OUR RESPONSIBILITY TO DO WHAT'S BEST FOR THEM AND WHAT IS HAPPENING NEXT. AND SO, YES, I'M STILL WANT TO STATE THAT BECAUSE I FEEL LIKE WE HAVE TO KEEP SAYING IT BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW WHAT'S HAPPENING HERE, BUT WHATEVER IS HAPPENING IS NOT THE WILL OF THE MAJORITY OF OUR LOUISVILLIANS WHO ARE DEPENDING ON US. THANK YOU. I APOLOGIZE FOR RISING TO SPEAK AGAIN. I'M SURE EVERYONE'S SICK OF HEARING FROM ME. I WANT TO MAKE ONE FINAL APPEAL AND I PROMISE THIS IS THE FINAL ONE. I WANT TO APPEAL NAKEDLY TO YOUR SELF-INTEREST, TO VENAL SELF-INTEREST. YOUR CONSTITUENTS DO NOT WANT YOU TO VOTE FOR THIS. AND WHEN YOU ARE GOING DOOR TO DOOR OR ON MAILERS, WHEN THIS VOTE COMES UP AND THIS VOTE IS GOING TO COME UP, YOU ARE GOING TO SPEND 20 AND 30 MINUTES EXPLAINING THE NUANCE OF WHY YOU HAD TO VOTE FOR BAD POLICY THAT HARMED CHILDREN FOREVER, WHEN WHAT YOUR CONSTITUENTS WANT IS FOR YOU TO VOTE NO AND FOR YOU TO FIGHT, THAT IS WHAT YOUR CONSTITUENTS WANT, AND YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE TO ANSWER TO THOSE CONSTITUENTS. FOR THE MEMBERS IN ODD DISTRICTS. DISTRICT ONE. DISTRICT FIVE. DISTRICT NINE. THE DAY THAT YOU HAVE TO ANSWER THOSE QUESTIONS ON THE DOORS. QUESTIONS IN MAILERS, THINGS PEOPLE WILL NOT FORGET. THAT DAY IS COMING VERY QUICKLY. WE ARE LESS THAN A YEAR AWAY FROM THAT NEXT PRIMARY, AND YOU WILL HAVE TO JUSTIFY AT 20 AND 30 MINUTE SEGMENTS WHAT IS BEING ACCUSED IN ONE SENTENCE. I WOULDN'T ENVY THAT POSITION. I APPEAL TO YOUR SELF-INTEREST. VOTE NO. SEEING NO ONE ELSE IN THE QUEUE, MADAM CLERK, OPEN THE ROLL. COUNCIL MEMBER. MULVEY. WOOLRIDGE? YES. RIGHT. COUNCIL MEMBER. PURVIS.

AND COUNCIL MEMBER. HAWK. OH, I SEE YOURS. YES. READY? MR. PRESIDENT, YOU HAVE 17 YES VOTES AND EIGHT NO VOTES. THE ORDINANCE IS ADOPTED. THE NEXT ITEM ON OUR BUSINESS WILL BE NEW

[New Business]

[03:10:05]

ITEM 59, AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 100, SERIES 2024 RELATING TO THE FISCAL YEAR 2024 2025 BUDGET BY TRANSFERRING $20,000 FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT FUND DISTRICT THREE TO THE LOUISVILLE METRO COUNCIL. GENERAL OPERATIONS DISTRICT THREE. THE FOLLOWING LEGISLATION WAS SENT TO EQUITY, COMMUNITY AFFAIRS, HOUSING, HEALTH AND EDUCATION COMMITTEE. ITEM 60 A RESOLUTION HONORING REVEREND DOCTOR GODFREY ELLIS BY DEDICATING THE NORTHEAST NORTHWEST CORNER OF 19TH AND CEDAR STREETS AS REVEREND DOCTOR GODFREY JEFFREY AS ELLIS WAY. IN HIS HONOR, THE FOLLOWING WAS SENT TO LABOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE. ITEM 61 A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE GRANTING OF THE TO THE ATOMIC BRANDS INCORPORATED AND ANY.

SUBSEQUENT APPROVED AFFILIATES THEREOF PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 154, SUBCHAPTER 32. ITEM 62 A RESOLUTION PURSUANT TO THE CAPITAL AND OPERATING BUDGET ORDINANCE APPROVING APPROPRIATIONS TO THE FUND. THE FOLLOWING NONCOMPETITIVE NON NEGOTIATED PROFESSIONAL SERVICE CONTRACT FOR THE. FOR THE OFFICE SALE AND THE SAFETY HEALTHY NEIGHBORHOODS CONCERNING POSITIVE FACILITATION OF THE YOUTH DEVELOPMENT, PREVENTION AND TREATMENT FOR THE LOUISVILLE YOUTH AND CARE PROJECT. THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION WAS SENT TO THE COMMITTEE. ITEM 63 ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE ZONING OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 8915 OLD BARDSTOWN ROAD, CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 2.2 ACRES AND BEING IN LOUISVILLE METRO. CASE NUMBER 24 0013313. ITEM 64 AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE ZONING OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 11 401 RACE ROAD, CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 2.4 ACRES AND BEING IN LOUISVILLE METRO CASE NUMBER 24, ZONE 0115. THE FOLLOWING LEGISLATION WAS SENT TO PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE. ITEM 65, A RESOLUTION URGING LOUISVILLE METRO GOVERNMENT TO FORMALLY ACKNOWLEDGE THE DOCUMENTED HARMS OF LOUISVILLE METRO POLICE DEPARTMENT AND ENCOURAGE THE LOUISVILLE METRO POLICE DEPARTMENT TO BUILD TRUST IN THE COMMUNITY. READY AND FULL. MR. PRESIDENT, I HAVE AN ANNOUNCEMENT. MADAM. THANK YOU.

[Announcements]

[03:15:05]

I DIDN'T NAME ANY NAMES, BUT. THAT CONCLUDES OUR MEETING. THE NEXT SCHEDULED MEETINGS FOR

[Adjournment]