[00:04:31]
WE HAVE. PEOPLE THAT RIGHT NOW, I DON'T KNOW. I DIDN'T HEAR. I. SAW NO, THAT'S IT. OF COURSE,
[00:05:01]
I'M A LOT MORE BAD. CAN YOU NOT TELL? BUT WE WILL CHANGE. THE. NAME. OF. THE. COMPANY. PRETTY MUCH. ALL THE TIME. THANK YOU SO MUCH. FOR YOUR. GREYHOUND BUSSES. AND. THAT'S RIGHT. LIONS AND TIGERS AND LONG. TIME LORD RIGHT HERE. NO, I THINK I DIDN'T SEE. YOU KNOW WHAT? MOST PEOPLE DON'T KNOW THIS, BUT DC SPECIAL US, DC. YES, SIR.YOU. ARE WE READY? YEAH. ARE WE GOOD? METRO 30S, PLEASE.
[Call to Order]
RIGHT. GOOD AFTERNOON. THE TIME IS 4:03 P.M. THIS IS THE REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING OF[Roll Call]
THE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE. I'M YOUR CHAIR, DAN SEIM, AND I AM JOINED BY MY VICE CHAIR, COUNCILWOMAN TAMMY HAWKINS. TODAY I'M JOINED BY THE FOLLOWING COMMITTEE MEMBERS.WE'VE GOT COUNCILWOMAN JENNY MULVEY. WOOLRIDGE, COUNCILMAN. ANTHONY PIAGENTINI, COUNCILWOMAN BETSY ROOY, COUNCILMAN KEN HERNDON, COUNCILWOMAN BARBARA SHANKLIN, AND WE HAVE COUNCILMAN
[00:10:02]
KEVIN BRATCHER JOINING US TODAY. THANK YOU. COUNCILMAN BRADSHAW, KURT CLERK, COULD YOU PLEASE READ THE VIRTUAL MEETING LANGUAGE. THIS MEETING IS BEING HELD PURSUANT TO CARRY 61.826 AND COUNCIL RULE FIVE EIGHT READ IN FULL. THANK YOU, MR. CLERK. WE HAVE FOUR ITEMS ON THE AGENDA THAT INCLUDE THREE PIECES OF LEGISLATION. PLEASE NOTE THAT ITEM NUMBER THREE, R-02925, WILL BE HELD IN COMMITTEE. ITEM NUMBER 40-209. DASH TWO FOUR WILL EXPIRE FOLLOWING THIS MEETING, AND COUNCILWOMAN CHAPPELL HAS INDICATED THAT SHE WILL INTRODUCE IT AT A LATER DATE. WE WILL HEAR ITEM NUMBER 20-264-24. FOLLOWING THE PRESENTATION BY RON HEADY, WHO IS THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF EMERGENCY SERVICES FOR MAYOR GREENBERG'S ADMINISTRATION.[1. ID 25-0163 UPDATE ON JUVENILE DETENTION CENTER – Ron Heady, Emergency Services]
DIRECTOR HEADY IS HERE TO PROVIDE AN UPDATE ON THE JUVENILE DETENTION CENTER.EXECUTIVE. HEADY, WOULD YOU PLEASE COME FORWARD AND STATE YOUR NAME AND TITLE FOR THE RECORD? AND YOU MAY BEGIN, SIR. SURE. MY NAME IS RON HEADY. I'M THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR EMERGENCY SERVICES FOR METRO GOVERNMENT. I'M HERE TO PROVIDE AN UPDATE FOR THE STATUS OF THE YOUTH DETENTION CENTER, OR FORMERLY KNOWN AS JCC. SO I HAVE AN UPDATE FOR THAT. BUT I KNOW WE HAVE SOME NEW MEMBERS TO COUNCIL AND TO THIS COMMITTEE, SO I'M ALSO PREPARED TO GIVE SOME HISTORICAL CONTEXT AS TO HOW WE GOT TO WHERE WE ARE AND THE STATUS OF THE BUILDING. I CAN DO EITHER IN IN EITHER DIRECTION, AS YOU. SURE. SO THE YOUTH DETENTION CENTER, FORMERLY KNOWN AS JCC, WAS CLOSED IN 2019. IT WAS OPERATED BY JEFFERSON COUNTY, AND WE HOUSED YOUTH. YOUTH THAT WERE DETAINED BY THE STATE. THAT WAS UNIQUE TO ALL FACILITIES IN THE STATE. THE STATE RAN EVERY OTHER YOUTH DETENTION FACILITY IN THE STATE. WE WERE RECEIVING SOMEWHERE AROUND $90 PER JUVENILE PER DAY, TO THE TUNE OF ABOUT $3.8 MILLION A YEAR, SUBSIDIZED FROM THE STATE TO OPERATE THAT FACILITY. BUT THAT FACILITY COST ABOUT 9 TO $10 MILLION A YEAR TO RUN. SO FUNDING WAS REMOVED FOR THE OPERATION OF THAT FACILITY. IT WAS CLOSED AND WE TRANSITIONED, MOVING OUR JUVENILES FROM JEFFERSON COUNTY TO OTHER FACILITIES AROUND THE STATE. AT THAT TIME, WE STOOD UP OUR YOUTH TRANSITION SERVICES, WHICH FACILITATED SCREENING YOUTH THAT WERE TAKEN INTO CUSTODY BY LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT. AND WE FACILITATED THE TRANSPORT OF JEFFERSON COUNTY YOUTH TO AND FROM THE DETENTION FACILITIES AROUND THE STATE. SO, TO GIVE YOU CONTEXT, IT'S PRIMARILY DARREN BOYD IN CAMPBELL COUNTY IS WHERE OUR YOUTH WERE HELD. IN 20 LATE 2022. THERE'S SOME DISCUSSIONS STARTED ABOUT REOPENING OUR DETENTION FACILITY AND HAVING IT RUN BY OUR STATE PARTNERS. SO THOSE DISCUSSIONS STARTED. WE FACILITATED TOURS OF THAT FACILITY IN EARLY 2023. I THINK IN FEBRUARY, WE STARTED MEETING WITH MEMBERS FROM THE STATE. DOJ AND FACILITATED THOSE TOURS. SUBSEQUENTLY, IT WAS DECIDED THEY WERE GOING TO MOVE FORWARD. COUNCILMAN BRADSHAW, REPRESENTATIVE AT THE TIME, HELPED PUT FORWARD HOUSE BILL THREE FROM THAT LEGISLATIVE SESSION IN 23 TO ALLOCATE FUNDING TO ASSESS THAT FACILITY AND BEGIN A PHASE ONE RENOVATION THAT WOULD BE CONTINGENT ON TRANSFERRING THAT PROPERTY FROM METRO GOVERNMENT TO THE STATE. THERE WERE SOME SEVERAL STEPS IN THAT PROCESS, BUT ONE OF THOSE WAS FOR THIS BODY TO IDENTIFY THAT AS A SURPLUS PROPERTY AND PASS A RESOLUTION GRANTING THE MAYOR PERMISSION TO TRANSFER THAT PROPERTY TO THE COMMONWEALTH. THIS BODY PASSED THAT THAT IN JUNE OF 23. SUBSEQUENTLY, WE BEGAN THE PROCESS OF FACILITATING EVERY ACCESS TO THAT FACILITY THAT THE STATE NEEDED TO ASSESS THE UTILIZATION. OUR GOAL AND OUR HOPE WAS THROUGH MOST OF 2023, THAT WHEN THE STATE RENOVATED THAT PROPERTY, THAT WE'D BE ABLE TO UTILIZE THAT SPACE. WE WERE ONLY USING ABOUT 3000FT■!S OF TE 60 PLUS THOUSAND SQUARE FEET OF THAT BUILDING. WE WERE HOPEFUL THAT WE COULD CONTINUE TO OPERATE YOUTH TRANSITION FROM THAT SPACE WHILE THEY RENOVATED THE SECOND FLOOR, THIRD FLOOR AND OTHER PARTS OF THE BUILDING. LATE 2023 EARLY 24, THE STATE MADE IT CLEAR THAT BASED ON CONSTRUCTION CONSTRAINTS, THEY WEREN'T GOING TO BE ABLE TO FACILITATE THAT. SO WE AT THAT
[00:15:01]
TIME NEEDED TO LOCATE A FACILITY THAT WE COULD OPERATE. YOUTH TRANSITION. WE WERE ABLE TO LOCATE A PROPERTY WE ON AUGUST 26TH OF 2024. WE MOVED OUR OPERATIONS FROM THE 720 WEST JEFFERSON LOCATION TO 731 EAST BROADWAY, WHICH IS WHERE WE CURRENTLY OPERATE. YOUTH TRANSITION. ALONG THE WAY, YOU KNOW, SEVERAL HOOPS AND HURDLES AROSE WITH REGARD TO THE TRANSFERRING THE PROPERTY. WHEN WE SEPARATE THE SEPARATED THE PROPERTY AND RELEASED THE BONDS THAT THAT WERE ON IT, WE DREW PROPERTY LINES THAT REQUIRED AN ADJUSTMENT TO THE DEED. UPON ASSESSMENT OF THE PROPERTY BY THE STATE, THEY DETERMINED THAT THE FIRE SEPARATION BETWEEN THE JUDICIAL CENTER AND THE YOUTH TRANSITION CENTER NEEDED TO BE UPDATED. SO WE FACILITATED, YOU KNOW, ADDING PROPER FIRE SEPARATION. ALL THAT'S BEEN DONE. YOU KNOW, THERE'S SEVERAL OTHER STEPS ALONG THE WAY. AND I'M HAPPY TO ENTERTAIN ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU HAVE. BUT THE UPDATE IS AS OF THIS COMING MONDAY, THE JEFFERSON COUNTY CAPITAL PROJECTS CORPORATION, WHICH IS HEADED BY MAYOR GREENBERG, WILL BE ABLE TO FINALLY TRANSFER THE PROPERTY FROM THE SPECIAL PROJECTS COMMITTEE TO METRO GOVERNMENT AND FROM METRO GOVERNMENT TO THE STATE. AND THEN ONCE THE STATE SIGNS OFF ON THAT, WE SHOULD HAVE A FULL TRANSFER OF THE PROPERTY. AND I'M HAPPY TO TAKE ANY QUESTIONS YOU'VE GOT ALONG THE WAY. CAN I BE IN THE QUEUE, MISTER CHAIR? COUNCILMAN PAGANINI. THANK YOU, MISTER CHAIR. THANK YOU FOR THE UPDATE.AND JUST TO ADD A LITTLE MORE CONTEXT, I WAS HERE, NEWLY ELECTED, WHEN WE MADE THE DECISION RELATED TO THE BUDGET. IT WAS A VERY HARD DECISION, BUT IT WAS THE RIGHT DECISION. AND IT WASN'T JUST METRO CORRECTIONS. JUST SO EVERYBODY KNOWS, THERE WERE MULTIPLE THINGS THAT LOUISVILLE METRO GOVERNMENT WERE FUNDING, THAT THE STATE WAS FUNDING FOR EVERY OTHER COUNTY IN THIS STATE. AND THAT INCLUDED, FOR EXAMPLE, THE PUBLIC DEFENDER'S OFFICE. WE WERE SPENDING $5 MILLION A YEAR IN LOCAL GENERAL FUND DOLLARS TO FUND OUR PUBLIC DEFENDER AND THE OTHER 119 COUNTIES WERE HAVING THEIR PUBLIC DEFENDER PAID BY THE STATE. AND THEN AGAIN, I WANT TO THANK THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY, BOTH FORMER REPRESENTATIVE, NOW COUNCIL MEMBER BRATCHER. I WAS IN THAT MEETING. I KNOW A MAN SITTING IN THE BACK OF THE ROOM. HE WAS IN THAT MEETING. A FORMER COUNCILWOMAN, NOW JUDGE WAS IN THAT MEETING WHEN WE MET AT THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY. AND I SAID AT THE TIME THAT I APOLOGIZED TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY. WE, IN RETROSPECT, COULD HAVE WORKED WITH THEM EARLIER ON A BETTER TRANSITION. WE WERE UNDER THE GUN WITH THE BUDGET, AND SO WE HAD VERY FEW OPTIONS. WITH THAT SAID, THEY HAVE FUNDED IT SEVERAL YEARS AGO. IT HAS TAKEN YEARS TO GET TO WHERE WE ARE. MY QUESTION, AND THEN MAYBE JUST A QUICK FOLLOW UP IS, BY YOUR BEST ESTIMATE OR JJ'S BEST ESTIMATE, HOW MUCH LONGER UNTIL WE CAN PUT THE FIRST JUVENILE INTO THAT FACILITY? IT'S A GREAT QUESTION. I THINK, YOU KNOW, WE'RE ALL EAGER TO SEE THAT FACILITY UP, UP AND RUNNING. I WILL SAY THE I DON'T HAVE A TIMELINE THAT JJ HAS PROVIDED. I HAVE SEEN THEIR PHASE ONE BUILD OUT, YOU KNOW, WITH, YOU KNOW, THE WHAT THEY PLAN TO DO WITH THE SPACE. YOU KNOW, THEY'VE DONE A PRETTY GR, I THINK IS THE FIRM THAT WAS HIRED TO FACILITATE THE ARCHITECTURE, ARCHITECTURE AND ENGINEERING FOR THAT PROJECT. I DON'T HAVE A TIMELINE FOR WHEN THAT SPACE WILL BE OPEN. I KNOW IT'S BEEN VERY FRUSTRATING TO GET THROUGH. THE HURDLES THAT HAVE PRESENTED THEMSELVES ALONG THE WAY, BECAUSE JUST RECENTLY THERE WAS BACK AND FORTH WITH MEMBERS OF THE ADMINISTRATION. I DON'T THINK YOU SPECIFICALLY, BUT I KNOW I HAD BACK AND FORTH WITH OTHER MEMBERS OF THE ADMINISTRATION ABOUT TIMING AND WHO WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR WHAT. AND LOOK, I GET THESE ARE COMPLICATED ISSUES.
INTERGOVERNMENTAL ALWAYS ARE RIGHT WHEN WE'RE TALKING CITY STATE. AND I GOT A LOT OF WELL WE THINK IT'S THEM AND THEY THINK IT'S US. RIGHT. SO MY POINT IN SAYING THAT IS I, I WOULD ASK THAT WE DO ASK JJ TO GIVE US IF THEY'VE GOT SCHEMATICS AND PHASES, THEY SHOULD HAVE A PROJECT PLAN. THIS WOULD BE TYPICAL OF ANY MAJOR CONSTRUCTION PROJECT. LET'S ASK THEM FOR THE PROJECT PLAN. SO WE HAVE DOCUMENTED WHAT THEIR ESTIMATES AND GUESSTIMATES ARE ON OPENING IT. IF FOR NOTHING ELSE, WE COULD SET EXPECTATIONS WITH LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT, RIGHT? FOR YOU GUYS AND THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH FOR US AND ALSO SET EXPECTATIONS TO HOLD THEM ACCOUNTABLE IF THEY DON'T MAKE THOSE DEADLINES. RIGHT. SO I WOULD ASK THAT WE DO GET THEN IF
[00:20:05]
YOU HAVE ANY ISSUES, YOU KNOW, LET US KNOW. WE CAN REACH OUT TO OUR GENERAL ASSEMBLY PARTNERS AS WELL. SURE. AND I KNOW THEY RELEASED THE GR, RELEASED A PHASE A PROJECT OVERVIEW IN JUNE OR JULY OF 24. I MEAN, THAT'S PUBLICLY AVAILABLE AND I'VE GOT THAT SAVED. I CAN CERTAINLY SEND THAT TO YOU. THAT'S PERFECT. ABSOLUTELY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. BEFORE WE GO ANY FURTHER, I WANTED TO RECOGNIZE PAULA MCCRANEY. I RECOGNIZE HER AS BARBARA SHANKLIN, I THINK. AND I'M SORRY I DIDN'T HAVE MY GLASSES ON. AND WE ALSO WE ALSO HAVE SHAMIKA PARISH RIGHT ONLINE. SO THANK YOU FOR JOINING US. WE HAVE ANOTHER PERSON IN THE QUEUE AND THAT'S COUNCILWOMAN HAWKINS, PLEASE. THANKS. THANKS FOR BEING HERE TODAY. JUST A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS. SO ARE YOU REFERRING TO THE NEW FACILITY ON BROADWAY THAT YOU GUYS JUST TOOK POSSESSION OF? NO, THAT WAS THE TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT IS GOING. WE HAVE WE MOVED THAT THE YOUTH TRANSITION SERVICES, THAT FULL OPERATION FROM 720 WEST JEFFERSON, WHICH IS THE JCPS BUILDING RIGHT TO 731 EAST BROADWAY ON AUGUST 26TH OF 24. SO WE'VE BEEN OPERATING THE YOUTH TRANSITION SERVICES FROM THE BROADWAY LOCATION SINCE AUGUST. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. SO YOU'VE ALREADY GOT THAT DONE, WHICH IS GOOD. MY NEXT QUESTION IS AND THIS IF YOU DON'T KNOW, YOU JUST DON'T KNOW. THE YOUTH IS SEEMS LIKE THINGS ARE GETTING WORSE AND WORSE WITH THE YOUTH.DO YOU HAVE ANY TIMELINE OR ANYTHING AS FAR AS YOU KNOW, LIKE WHEN JC WEST IS GOING TO OPEN BACK UP OR EVEN IF THERE ARE ANY REAL INTENTIONS? SURE. THE TIMELINE, I'M NOT AWARE OF THAT. THAT'S REALLY GOING TO FOLLOW THE CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE FOR JPS WHEN THEY START DOING THE RENOVATIONS THAT TRANSFER AND THAT PROPERTY, THEY'VE HAD TO WAIT TILL THEY OWN THE PROPERTY TO BE ABLE TO START THAT PROJECT. SO I KNOW ALL THE PRELIMINARY WORK, DESIGN AND PLANNING HAS LARGELY BEEN COMPLETED, YOU KNOW, SO LIKE I SAID, I MENTIONED THE PHASE A, WHICH I'LL SHARE WITH COUNCIL. BUT AS FAR AS THE TIMELINE FOR WHEN THEY WOULD BREAK GROUND, YOU KNOW, OR DEMO THE FIRST WALL AND THEN COMPLETE THE PROJECT, I DON'T, I DON'T KNOW THAT, BUT I'LL CERTAINLY TRY TO GET THAT INFORMATION FROM THEM. BUT THEY, THEY, THEY DO INTEND TO OPEN THE FACILITY. MY LAST UNDERSTANDING WAS THAT THEIR HOPE WAS TO HAVE 64 BEDS FOR TO HOUSE YOUTH IN THAT FACILITY. WHEN IT DOES OPEN, I CAN TELL YOU THAT JEFFERSON COUNTY YOUTH IN STATE FACILITIES RIGHT NOW HAS BEEN IN THE LOW TO MID 40S FOR THE LAST FEW WEEKS. SO IF THEY DO BUILD A FACILITY WITH 64 BEDS, IT SHOULD BE SUFFICIENT FOR THE CURRENT VOLUME OF YOUTH THAT ARE CURRENTLY IN STATE CUSTODY. OKAY. YEAH. BECAUSE THE YOUTH HAS BEEN A HUGE IMPACT ON A LOT OF THINGS THAT'S GOING ON IN THE CITY. SO IT'S VITAL THAT THAT THAT THAT COMES TO FRUITION REAL SOON. THANK YOU. NEXT IN QUEUE IS COUNCILWOMAN RUBY, PLEASE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. OKAY. SO WE DEFINITELY NEED JCC BACK HERE IN LOUISVILLE TO KEEP OUR YOUTH CLOSER TO THEIR FAMILIES BECAUSE THAT'S GOING TO HELP WITH BETTER OUTCOMES. CAN YOU PLEASE EXPLAIN TO ME WHAT HAPPENS IN THE TRANSITIONAL TRANSITION FACILITY THAT GOES ON IN THERE? SURE. AND IT'S A COUPLE A COUPLE OF THINGS. SO ONE, IT SERVES AS OUR SCREENING CENTER FOR ANY YOUTH THAT ARE TAKEN INTO CUSTODY BY LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES IN JEFFERSON COUNTY, PRIMARILY. SO WE SCREENED THE LAST QUARTER OF 2020 FOR 181 YOUTH, 143 OF THOSE CAME FROM LMPD. THOSE YOUTH ARE CONNECTED WITH THE COURT DESIGNATED WORKER, AND THE COURT DESIGNATED WORKER WILL DETERMINE WHETHER THEY YOUTH IS TO BE RELEASED TO A PARENT OR GUARDIAN OR SOME OTHER FACILITY, OR IF THEY ARE TO BE TRANSFERRED TO STATE CUSTODY AND DETAINED AT THAT POINT IN A JPS FACILITY. SO WE WOULD BE INVOLVED IN IN SCREENING THEM. AND THEN WE'RE INVOLVED WITH COURT PROCESS. SO OF THE 42 YOUTH THAT ARE CURRENTLY IN CUSTODY IN JPS FACILITIES, WHEN THEY HAVE COURT APPEARANCES, WE ARE REQUIRED TO GO GET THEM FROM JERRY BOYD, ADAIR AND CAMPBELL. PICK THEM UP EARLY IN THE MORNING, TRANSPORT THEM. YOU KNOW THAT LONG TRIP HERE. TAKE THEM TO COURT. AND FACILITATE THEIR TRANSFER EITHER BACK TO THE FACILITY THAT THEY CAME FROM. OR FACILITATE THEIR RELEASE TO A PARENT OR GUARDIAN, DEPENDING ON WHAT THE COURT DETERMINES. SO JUST TO GIVE YOU AN IDEA, I THINK, AND I'VE GOT NUMBERS. LET ME SEE. I'VE GOT 2024 NUMBERS TO GIVE YOU SOME IDEA. TOTAL YOUTH SCREENED
[00:25:02]
THROUGH THE CENTER WERE 599IN 2024. WE TRANSPORTED 1554 FOR A TOTAL OF 147,000 MILES. THAT'S A LOT OF MILES. IT IS. SO TO COUNCILWOMAN RUIZ, VERY GOOD POINT. YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE BENEFITS OF HAVING THE FACILITY HERE IS THE ACCESS TO THE PARENTAL STRUCTURE, THOSE VISITATIONS. HOPEFULLY, YOU KNOW, WRAPAROUND SERVICES, IF WE'RE ABLE, AS A AS A CITY, TO BE ABLE TO PARTNER WITH JPS TO DELIVER SOME SERVICES TO THEM. BUT ALSO JUST, YOU KNOW, THE AMOUNT OF TIME ON THE ROAD THAT WE'VE GOT EMPLOYEES SPENDING. I MEAN, THERE'S A THERE'S A LOT OF LOT OF RUBBER ON THE ROAD, YOU KNOW, FACILITATING THAT TRAVEL. YEAH. THERE'S BETTER WAYS OF SPENDING OUR TIME THAN DRIVING DOWN THE INTERSTATE. SO CAN YOU TELL ME YOU GAVE ME A NUMBER FOR HOW MANY PEOPLE YOU PROCESSED THROUGH, AND YOU GAVE ME A NUMBER FOR HOW MANY PEOPLE HAVE BEEN IN CUSTODY? SO, LIKE, WHAT IS THE PERCENTAGE OF YOUNG PEOPLE WHO ARE PROCESSED THROUGH, WHO WIND UP IN CUSTODY VERSUS ONES WHO ARE RELEASED TO THEIR FAMILY OR WHATEVER? SO A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT THINGS TO PARSE APART THERE. IF A YOUTH IS DETERMINED BY THE COURT DESIGNATED WORKER TO BE HELD UNTIL THEY CAN BE SEEN IN COURT. THAT NUMBER. I BELIEVE. SO LAST QUARTER OF THE 181 YOUTH THAT WE SCREENED, WE TRANSPORTED 141 TO A FACILITY. OKAY. BUT THAT IS, YOU KNOW, AND THAT'S JUST TEMPORARY. THEY AREN'T TECHNICALLY THEY'RE NOT HOUSED IN THOSE FACILITIES LONG TERM UNTIL THOSE CASES ARE ADJUDICATED. BUT OF THE 181 WE SCREENED IN A QUARTER, LIKE I SAID, 141 WERE TRANSPORTED AND NOT RELEASED TO A PARENT OR GUARDIAN. OKAY. THANK YOU. I HAVE ONE QUESTION BEFORE I GET BACK TO THE QUEUE. HOW MANY BEDS TOTAL IN THE NEW FACILITY? THE PROJECTION THAT I SAW ON PHASE ONE WAS 64. I KNOW THE ORIGINAL PROPOSAL. I THINK THAT WAS IN THE HOUSE BILL. ASSOCIATED WITH THE ORIGINAL BUDGETING WAS 40.THE LAST NUMBER THAT I SAW WAS 64. WHEN IT WAS OPERATED AS JCC, WE HAD 96 BEDS. THE FACILITY ITSELF IS PLUMBED OUT TO BE ABLE TO FACILITATE 115 ISH. BUT, YOU KNOW, THE STATE IS GOING TO OBVIOUSLY MAKE A DETERMINATION ON WHAT THEIR FUNDING WILL ALLOW. OKAY. THANK YOU. NEXT IN QUEUE WOULD BE COUNCILWOMAN SHAMIKA PARISH. RIGHT PLEASE. THANK YOU, MISTER CHAIR. EXCUSE MY NOISY BACKGROUND. I REALLY APPRECIATE THIS UPDATE. WE GET CONTACTED A LOT ABOUT WHAT'S HAPPENING AND THANKS FOR THAT. I DID HAVE QUESTIONS THAT YOU COVERED AROUND TIMELINE. IT SEEMS LIKE YOU DON'T HAVE THAT NOW. AND THANK YOU FOR ANSWERING THE QUESTION AROUND THE BEDS.
AND THEN ALSO TOUCHING ON THE ISSUE OF TRANSPORTATION, AS I KNOW THAT THERE WERE SOME ISSUES AROUND TRANSPORTATION. MY QUESTION IS, ONCE THE FACILITY IS IN A PLACE WHERE WE CAN TOUR IT, I DEFINITELY WANT TO BE A PART OF THAT PROCESS. BUT ALSO, IS THERE SOMETHING TO DO WITH THE ORGANIZATIONAL CHART ON HOW THINGS WOULD BE HANDLED? THERE WAS SOME INTERNAL ISSUES ON, YOU KNOW, IT MAYBE IT DIDN'T HAVE TO DO WITH THE LAYOUT, BUT THERE WAS ISSUES ON HOW DIFFERENT YOUTH WERE TREATED IN THE FACILITY AND HOW THEY WERE KEPT. AND THERE MAY BE NEED FOR PEOPLE WITH STRONGER MENTAL HEALTH, NEEDS TO BE ABLE TO STILL USE SOME OF THE TRANSITIONAL BEDS.
I'VE I'VE HEARD I HAVEN'T SEEN IT FOR MYSELF, THAT YOU HAVE ABOUT TEN OTHER BEDS THAT ARE IN OTHER LOCATIONS FOR PEOPLE WHO ARE EXPERIENCING MENTAL HEALTH ISSUES, JUST WANT TO KNOW WHAT'S THE PLAN AROUND THOSE WITH SEVERE MENTAL HEALTH ISSUES THAT CAN'T BE IN THE REGULAR POPULATION? SEEING AS YOU'RE GOING FROM HAVING SPACE FOR ABOUT 96 OR MORE YOUTH TO NOW 64. SURE. SO AS FAR AS WHAT THE ALLOCATION OF THE BED SPACE WILL BE AT THE TIME THAT DJJ REOPENS THE FACILITY, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT WILL BE. IT'S POSSIBLE THAT THEY'LL HAVE SOME SPACE DEDICATED TO THOSE WITH HIGHER ACUITY NEEDS. THERE IS ALSO THE REGIONAL THE JEFFERSON REGIONAL DETENTION FACILITY, FORMERLY KNOWN AS ALDERMAN DETENTION FACILITY OUT IN LINDEN. THAT IS ALSO CLOSED FOR RENOVATION. SO THE STATE DOES HAVE PLANS TO UTILIZE THAT SPACE AND EXPAND THEIR CAPABILITIES THERE. BUT THE QUESTION AS FAR AS WHERE THOSE YOUTH WILL BE HOUSED AND WHAT LEVEL OF SERVICES WILL BE PROVIDED TO THEM, IT REALLY FALLS UNDER THEIR STRUCTURE.
NOW, WE HAVE EXPRESSED TO THEM A DESIRE TO PARTNER AND TO DELIVER SERVICES THAT THAT WE'RE ABLE TO DELIVER WITH, WITH OUR COMMUNITY PARTNERS. AND IN WHATEVER TIME THAT THAT BECOMES AVAILABLE. AND WE'LL CERTAINLY HAVE THAT DISCUSSION. AND I WILL CERTAINLY LOOP YOU IN ANYTIME WE HAVE AN OFFER TO BE ABLE TO TOUR THE FACILITY. I'VE ASKED COUNCILMAN BRATCHER TO COME IN. HE WAS, AS
[00:30:11]
YOU NOTED, HE WAS IN ON ON THIS DETENTION CENTER, AND I ASKED HIM TO COME IN AND GIVE US SOME INSIGHTS. AND IF HE'S GOT SOME QUESTIONS TO GIVE THOSE, IF YOU WOULD. COUNCILMAN, PLEASE. THANK YOU. SIR, I THINK THERE'S A LOT THERE'S A LOT TO LEARN FROM THIS PROCESS HERE. THE STATE, THE STATE HAS BEEN DRAGGING ITS FEET FROM THE DAY WE SAID, I'LL TELL YOU QUICKLY HOW I GOT INTO THIS.THERE WAS A HORRIBLE CRIME COMMITTED ON AN ELDERLY LADY IN FERN CREEK. LONG STORY SHORT, THE CHILD WHO DID IT WAS UNDER 18 YEARS OLD AND HE WAS BACK IN SCHOOL THE NEXT DAY AND THE KIDS WERE LIKE, GOLLY, YOU CAN JUST GET AWAY WITH ANYTHING. SO I DID IT KIND OF A DEEP DIVE WITH WITH MISTER DEPUTY MAYOR JAMES AND SOME OF THE OF THE FISHER ADMINISTRATION AT THE TIME. AND IF YOU IF YOU REMEMBER WHAT, MISTER, WHAT'S HER NAME? RON HEADY. HE SAID WHEN, WHEN A WHEN A CHILD UNDER 18 COMMITS A CRIME IN LOUISVILLE, THEY GO TO A CDW AS COUNCILMAN RULES ASKED AND THAT THAT CDW CAN JUST SEND THEM RIGHT BACK INTO THE COMMUNITY WITH THE JUDGE'S BLESSING ON A PHONE. AND THEY DO SOME TERRIBLE THINGS, AND THEY'RE RIGHT BACK IN THAT COMMUNITY. AND IF THEY DON'T, THEY GO ALL THE WAY TO A DARE COUNTY AND PROCESS THERE. THAT'S TWO HOURS AWAY. AND THE AND IN THE POLICEMAN HAS TO KEEP THAT CHILD IN CUSTODY THE WHOLE TIME. SO HE LOSES. HE OR SHE LOSES HALF A DAY OR MORE ON THAT. THERE, THERE WAS THERE WAS A MOVEMENT IN FRANKFORT TO FIGHT THIS FROM DOJ AND THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT. AND THEY BASICALLY SAID THAT NO CHILD SHOULD EVER SEE THE INSIDE OF A CELL. I MEAN, THAT'S WHAT WE WERE FIGHTING WITH. AND THAT'S WHEN THAT'S WHEN I STARTED MOVING WITH THE HELP OF THE LEADERSHIP OF THE HOUSE AND THE SENATE. AND WE PUT SOME MONEY AND WE WENT TO THE FISHER ADMINISTRATION AND THE GREENBURG ADMINISTRATION.
AND THEY HAVE BEEN WONDERFUL TO WORK WITH BECAUSE I WAS THINKING, DOES ANYBODY CARE ABOUT THESE KIDS? BECAUSE IF YOU JUST RELEASE THE KIDS RIGHT BACK IN THE COMMUNITY, YOU'RE NOT HELPING THE CHILD. AND I HAD CLERGY AND COUNSELORS AND THEY'RE SAYING, MAN, WE CAN'T.
AND FAMILY MEMBERS, I CAN'T GO TO ADAIR COUNTY TO HELP OUR CHILD. THAT'S TWO, TWO, THREE HOURS AWAY. WE NEED SOMETHING HERE. AND SO WE HAD TO PUSH IN THE LEGISLATURE. WE HAD TO FIGHT THE ADMINISTRATION, AND THEY'RE FINALLY GETTING ON BOARD. BUT THE CAUTIONARY TALE OF THIS IS DON'T LET THE STATE GET AWAY FROM ITS OBLIGATIONS. DEPARTMENT OF JUVENILE JUSTICE IS RESPONSIBLE, BY FEDERAL DECREE BACK IN 1996. THEY ARE TO TAKE CARE OF THE JUVENILES THAT HAVE COMMITTED CRIMES, AND WE CAN'T LET THEM DRIVE. WE GOT TO KEEP. I IMPRESS UPON THE LEADERSHIP OF BOTH SIDES AND THE PRESIDENT. LET'S NEVER LET THEM ESCAPE THEIR THEIR RESPONSIBILITY.
WE'RE THEY'RE HERE. YOU HAVE TO HAVE THE CHILDREN LOCAL TO BE ABLE TO HELP THEM. AND THEY LIKE IT AND THEY ARE MOVING. AND, YOU KNOW, LIKE THE VOA WAS PART OF THAT HOUSE BILL, THREE VOLUNTEERS OF AMERICA. AND THEY HAVE SOME OF THE LATEST WAYS TO TRY TO REACH THESE CHILDREN, BECAUSE BEFORE THE WHEN THEY TURN 18, MAN, THEY'RE GOING AWAY FOR A LONG TIME. SO WE HAVE TO REACH THEM. BY THE TIME THEY TURNED 18. AND THE CITY OF LOUISVILLE HAS PROMISED TO PROVIDE A LOT OF THE SERVICES, THAT'S WHEN WE WERE DOING THE NEGOTIATIONS. MAYOR GREENBERG AND FISHER, THEY BOTH SAID LOUISVILLE WILL PROVIDE A LOT OF THE SERVICES TO THESE KIDS, BUT WE'VE GOT TO GET THE FACILITY HERE. YOU KNOW, AND THEN A LOT OF THINGS HAVE HAPPENED WITH JPS. THERE WAS A THERE WAS HARD IT WAS HARD TO FIND THE STATE WAS HAVING A HARD TIME TO FIND YOUTH WORKERS TO WORK IN THESE FACILITIES. YOU KNOW, THERE'S SEVERAL ACROSS THE STATE. SO THE STATE CAME UP WITH A $50,000 MINIMUM SALARY TO WORK IN IN THE DEPARTMENT OF JJ, JPS. ■SO THERE'S NO THERE SHOULD BE NO. SO NO PROBLEM FINDING THE STAFFING BECAUSE THEY'VE USED THAT ON US. THE STATE WOULD SAY, WELL, WE CAN'T FIND STAFFING IN LOUISVILLE. NOBODY WILL WORK FOR WHAT WE PAY. BUT THEY GOT A 50,000 MINIMUM NOW. SO THAT SHOULDN'T WE SHOULDN'T EVER LET
[00:35:04]
THEM OFF THE HOOK ON THAT. AND TO ANSWER. COUNCILMAN PARISH RIGHTS QUESTION. THERE IS A PROBLEM WITH THE SEVERELY MENTALLY ILL CHILDREN. IT USED TO HAVE PEACE HOSPITAL USED TO TAKE THE SEVERELY DISABLED. MENTALLY DISABLED. THEY WON'T DO IT ANYMORE. SO THE STATE IS TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW. THE LAST I'VE HEARD, THE STATE IS TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT TO DO WITH. AND THERE'S SOME SERIOUS SAD CASES IN THESE FACILITIES. MAN, I'M TELLING YOU, THE MENTAL DISABILITY ISSUE IS, IS REAL AND. THE STATE WAS THINKING ABOUT BUILDING ITS OWN HOSPITAL JUST JUST FOR THE SEVERELY DISABLED CHILDREN BECAUSE THERE'S NO THERE'S NO THIRD PARTIES THAT WILL TAKE THEM ON. SO THAT'S WHERE WE'RE AT. I KNOW I WAS JUMPING ALL OVER THE PLACE BECAUSE HE COVERED A LOT. WHAT I WAS GOING TO SAY, JUST MY RECOMMENDATION IS DON'T LET THE STATE SKIP ON THIS. LET'S STAY ON THEM. LET'S CONSTANTLY ASK FOR A TIMELINE LIKE COUNCILMAN HAWKINS AND COUNCILMAN PIAGENTINI THIS. THIS CAN BE A BIPARTISAN EFFORT. STAY ON DJ, TOUR IT, TOUR THAT FACILITY. WE SHOULD EACH GET ON A SCHEDULE. WE WANT A TOUR TWO COUNCILMAN, EVERY EVERY MONTH OR EVERY OTHER MONTH. WE WANT TO COUNT. WE WANT TO SEE HOW THE PROGRESS IS GOING. BECAUSE I'M TELLING YOU, THEY WILL SLIP THROUGH THE CRACKS IF THEY CAN. THEY DON'T WANT TO. AND I MIGHT GET A LOT OF HATE MAIL ON THIS, BUT IT'S TRUE. I WAS IN THERE IN THE ROOMS. THEY DON'T WANT TO OPERATE THIS FACILITY NOW. THEY GOT A NEW DJ. COMMISSIONER, I SHOULD BE FAIR. HE SEEMS TO BE REALLY GOING AT IT. BUT THE PREVIOUS GROUP THEY HAD WAS NOT INTERESTED IN THIS AT ALL. SO LET'S STAY ON THEM AND MAKE THEM DO THEIR RESPONSIBILITY OF HELPING OUR CHILDREN IN THIS CITY. THANK YOU. COUNCILMAN TAMMY HAWKINS, PLEASE. YEAH, THANKS. IT SADDENS ME TO HEAR MY COLLEAGUE SAY THAT, AS WE ALL KNOW, THAT THE YOUTH ARE ARE OUR FUTURE. ALSO, IF THIS FACILITY DOES NOT OPEN SOON, BASICALLY IT'S GOING TO FAIL. OUR CITY. I GET A LOT OF CALLS FROM PARENTS WHOSE KIDS ARE TRANSPORTED TO ADAIR COUNTY. AND IT IS SO MANY THINGS THAT GO ON THERE. SOMETIMES THEY'RE NOT EVEN ABLE TO TALK TO THEIR KIDS. I WANT TO KNOW. IF THIS JCPS DOES OPEN. I KNOW THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT RENOVATING. WHAT DOES IT LOOK LIKE WITH THE HUGE GANG ISSUE THAT WE HAVE? YOU KNOW, WHO'S GOING TO BRING THE STATE UP TO SPEED ON JUST REALLY ACKNOWLEDGING THAT THIS CITY HAS A GANG ISSUE. AND IF YOU HAVE A AND I DON'T MEAN BLUE AND RED, WHAT I MEAN IS TERRITORY, YOU KNOW, MARKET STREET AGAINST THE EAST END, YOU KNOW, TERRITORIES LIKE THAT. THAT IS WHAT IS GOING ON RIGHT NOW WITH OUR YOUTH. AND IF YOU BRING IN A GANG MEMBER AND YOU HAVE ALL OF THEM HOUSED TOGETHER, YOU KNOW, AND THAT NUMBER IS A VERY SMALL NUMBER THAT YOU STATED. IT'S A START, RIGHT? BUT IT'S A SMALL NUMBER.WE GOTTA SAVE OUR YOUTH, YOU KNOW, EVEN THE ONES THAT'S NOT ACTIVE, WE HAVE TO HAVE SOME PREVENTATIVE MEASURES THERE BECAUSE THE ONES THAT'S NOT ACTIVE, THEY GETTING ACTIVE BECAUSE THEY FEEL LIKE THEY DON'T HAVE A CHOICE. I'D RATHER BE CAUGHT WITH IT THAN WITHOUT IT. RIGHT. SO I JUST WANT TO KNOW WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE. AS FAR AS BECAUSE I HEAR SO OFTEN THAT, YOU KNOW, WE PUT IT ON THE JUDGES TALK TO A COUPLE OF JUDGES THE OTHER DAY, AND THEY MADE IT CLEAR THAT THEY GO BY A POINT SYSTEM. THEY GO BY IF THE KID IS GOING TO COME BACK TO COURT, IF THIS THEY DON'T GO BY WHAT THE CRIME IS. RIGHT. SO I GOT THAT LEVEL OF UNDERSTANDING.
BUT IT'S LIKE YOU HAVE A LOT OF PARENTS THAT FEEL LIKE, PLEASE KEEP MY CHILD LOCKED UP. WELL, WE'RE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO KEEP THEM LOCKED UP NO MATTER WHAT THE CAPACITY OF CRIME THAT THEY'VE DONE. IF WE DON'T HAVE THE ADEQUATE SPACE, AND EVEN IF WE DO HAVE THE ADEQUATE SPACE, HOW ARE WE GOING TO DECIPHER? HE'S A KNOWN GANG MEMBER. WELL, HE'S WITH THIS ENTITY AND HE'S WITH WE HAVE TO BE ABLE TO IDENTIFY THAT EVEN ONCE WE DO HAVE JCPS. RIGHT. AND I ALSO, IF
[00:40:05]
YOU COULD TOUCH JUST A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE TRANSPORTATION PIECE, RIGHT. IF YOU HAVE I KNOW THAT THE EMPLOYEES TRAVEL SOMETIMES WEE HOURS OF THE MORNING. I KNOW YOU GUYS GOT BODY CAMS NOW, WHICH IS GREAT, BUT HAVE YOU EVER BEEN IN A SITUATION TO WHERE YOU HAVE, YOU KNOW, YOU HAD TO TRANSPORT TO GANG MEMBERS OR TWO PEOPLE AT THE SAME TIME? OR HAS THAT EVER BEEN IDENTIFIED OR, YOU KNOW, HAVE YOU HAD TO GO THROUGH THAT BEFORE WITH THIS, WITH THIS FACILITY THAT YOU ALL HAVE, DO YOU KNOW, TO IDENTIFY, TO KEEP THEM SEPARATED? RIGHT. BECAUSE I KNOW A LOT OF TIMES IF YOU HAVEN'T. AND THAT'S NOT TO SAY BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW YOUR BACKGROUND. RIGHT. AND I DEFINITELY DON'T WANT TO PREJUDGE YOU, BUT A LOT OF TIMES IF YOU IF YOU'VE NOT EXPERIENCED IT, WHAT YOU DON'T KNOW, YOU DON'T KNOW, RIGHT? I KNOW, DEPUTY MAYOR JAMES, I KNOW HE'S AWARE. HE'S BEEN IN THE SYSTEM FOR QUITE SOME TIME, BUT JUST HAVING THOSE RIGHT EMPLOYEES THERE, YOU KNOW THAT THAT KNOW HE'S AN ACTIVE SHOOTER OR KNOW HE'S WE HAVE TO HAVE THOSE VITAL TYPE OF EMPLOYEES. AND THAT SALARY THAT MY COLLEAGUE WAS JUST TALKING ABOUT. NOBODY WANTS TO. WORK, YOU KNOW, PUT THEIR LIVES IN JEOPARDY. AND I REMEMBER LAST BUDGET CYCLE WHEN DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION CAME IN, THEY WAS THE LOWEST, I WANT TO SAY THE LOWEST ASK IN THE BUDGET. AND I COULDN'T UNDERSTAND WHY BECAUSE THEY DEALT WITH THE MOST VIOLENT YOUTH CRIMINALS THAT'S DOING EVERYTHING AROUND HERE, YOU KNOW. SO I KNOW THIS IS SOMETHING THAT I'M DEFINITELY 110% DOWN FOR BIPARTISAN, WHATEVER. I FEEL LIKE COLLECTIVELY TOGETHER, IT'S GOING TO TAKE A VILLAGE TO MAKE THIS HAPPEN, TO HOLD THE STATE ACCOUNTABLE, TO MAKE SURE THAT WE GET THIS FACILITY. AND EVEN IF THEY DON'T GET IT, WE NEED TO GET A FACILITY THAT IS GOING TO HOUSE OUR JUVENILES. THEY KNOW RIGHT NOW THAT THEY WILL NOT BE KEPT LONG. THERE'S NO WAY THERE'S NOWHERE TO HOUSE THEM.SO WITH KNOWING THAT, THEY FEEL LIKE, OKAY, WE CAN DO IT AND GET AWAY WITH IT. THANK YOU. SO I CAN ANSWER A COUPLE OF YOUR QUESTIONS AND ACTUALLY TOUCH ON SOMETHING THAT COUNCILMAN BRADSHAW HAD REFERENCED. ONE WITH REGARD TO GANGS, WE'VE HAD VERY GOOD COMMUNICATION WITH SECRETARY JACKSON, WHO'S OVER AGE NOW HAS BEEN VERY, VERY HELPFUL. WE'VE WE'VE DRIVEN TO FRANKFORT AND MET WITH HIS TEAM AND MULTIPLE DISCUSSIONS, NOT JUST ABOUT THIS FACILITY, BUT HOW WE ADDRESS YOUTH VIOLENCE IN OUR COMMUNITY IN GENERAL. SO I CAN SAY IN THOSE MEETINGS, THEY'VE BEEN GREAT. AND TO YOUR QUESTION ABOUT GANGS, AND PART OF THOSE DISCUSSIONS ARE ABOUT THOSE SECURITY THREAT GROUPS THAT ARE IN THE FACILITIES, YOU KNOW, THE GANGS THAT ARE IN THE FACILITIES THAT THE STATE OPERATES. THEY KEEP IN MIND THAT THE YOUTH THAT THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, THAT WILL BE HOUSED HERE IN THE FUTURE. THEY'RE IN THESE FACILITIES NOW.
SO THEY'RE THEY'RE DEANG WITH THESE YOUTH THAT ARE THAT ARE GANG, GANG OR GROUP AFFILIATED IN THOSE SPACES AND THAT THEY HAVE SOME INTELLIGENCE RELATED TO THAT. SO THOSE ARE THINGS THAT THEY'RE WORKING ON. AND I THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, WITH THEM BEING HERE JUST FURTHER ENHANCES OUR ABILITY TO COMMUNICATE WHAT WE KNOW. JUST TO GIVE YOU A LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND, YOU REFERENCED DEPUTY MAYOR JAMES. SO MY HISTORY WITH METRO GOVERNMENT, I WAS A 23 YEAR EMPLOYEE WITH LOUISVILLE METRO POLICE, RETIRED FROM THERE IN 2020. AND I'VE BEEN IN MY CURRENT ROLE FOR THREE YEARS. SO JUST, YOU KNOW, I AM AWARE OF THE NEED TO HAVE GOOD AND QUALIFIED PEOPLE IN POSITIONS TO EVALUATE THREAT AND RISK AND, AND TO DEAL WITH IT APPROPRIATELY AND WITH YOU TO THAT POINT, YOUR QUESTION ABOUT TRAVEL SAFETY, THAT IS SOMETHING THAT THAT WE ARE CERTAINLY EVALUATING AT SCREENING WHEN WE BRING YOUTH INTO THE TRANSITION CENTER, IF IT'S DETERMINED THAT WE HAVE TO TRANSPORT YOUTH TOGETHER, IF WE HAVE TO SEPARATE THEM BECAUSE OF SOME KNOWN AFFILIATION OR SOME KNOWN ANIMOSITY THAT THEY HAVE WITH ANOTHER JUVENILE THAT'S BEING TRANSPORTED AT THAT TIME, THOSE ARE CERTAINLY THINGS THAT WE'RE FACTORING IN AND CONSIDERING. THE ADDITION OF BODY CAMERAS WAS SOMETHING THAT WE BROUGHT INTO PLAY WITHIN THE LAST 12 TO 18 MONTHS, I THINK SO, BUT THE SAFETY OF THOSE YOUTH AND THE INTEGRITY ASSOCIATED WITH THOSE TRANSPORTS WITH OUR STAFF IS THE HIGHEST PRIORITY. SO WE ARE CERTAINLY EVALUATING THAT ON EVERY TRANSPORT. THANK YOU. I JUST WANTED TO SAY ONE THING BEFORE WE CLOSE OUT. MCCRANEY. OH, WE DO HAVE SOMEONE IN THE QUEUE THEN. COUNCILWOMAN
[00:45:08]
MCCRANEY, PLEASE. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. I WANT TO FIRST THANK OUR COLLEAGUE, COUNCILMAN BRADSHAW FOR STATING THAT WE SHOULD NOT AND ENCOURAGING US TO NOT ALLOW THE STATE TO SHIRK THEIR RESPONSIBILITIES. I CAN GIVE YOU A LITTLE CONTEXT. YEARS AGO, WHEN WE WERE DOING THE BUDGET, THE REASON WHY THE WHOLE DETENTION CENTER WAS CLOSED IS BECAUSE JEFFERSON COUNTY PUT IT THE WHOLE BILL. THE STATE WAS NOT INVOLVED WITH DOING THEIR PORTION. AND SO WHEN WE WERE LOOKING AT A VERY TIGHT ECONOMY, WE HAD TO MAKE SOME HARD CORE DECISIONS. AND I CAN TELL YOU THE ONLY REASON. AND TO COUNCILWOMAN HAWKINS STATEMENT ABOUT SOME PARENTS ARE WANTING THEIR CHILDREN TO REMAIN IN JAIL BECAUSE THAT'S THE BEST PLACE FOR THEM. SOMETIMES I CAN TELL YOU THAT THE HARD DECISION WAS MADE FOR A COUPLE OF REASONS. ONE, IT WAS STATED THAT THERE WERE A FEW HOUSED IN THE DETENTION CENTER. IT WAS NOT A LOT OF CHILDREN WHO WERE BEING HOUSED THERE, BUT BUT THE PAYROLL WAS ASTRONOMICAL. AND ON TOP OF THAT, WHEN THE ARGUMENT CAME ABOUT THEM GOING TO ADAIR COUNTY OR OTHER COUNTIES, IT WAS STATED THAT RIGHT HERE IN LOUISVILLE, WHEN THEY WERE HOUSED AT THE DETENTION CENTER, THE PARENTS OR RELATIVES WERE NOT VISITING THEM ANYWAY, SO THE HARD DECISION WAS MADE TO CLOSE IT. BUT I CAN TELL YOU THAT I'M SO GLAD TO KNOW THAT IT IS COMING BACK AND THAT THE STATE IS DOING THEIR PART. SO I APPRECIATE ANY OF THE CONVERSATION ABOUT US HAVING A FACILITY HERE, AND I AM LOOKING FORWARD TO IT BEING WHAT IT SHOULD BE AND WHAT IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALL ALONG. STATE RUN AND SUPPORTED. AND CERTAINLY IT'S GOING TO BE A BENEFIT FOR IT BEING BACK HERE IN LOUISVILLE. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. THANK YOU. I DON'T SEE ANY MORE SPEAKERS IN THE QUEUE.ANY MORE ADDITIONAL COMMENTS? NONE, SIR. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR SERVICE. THANK YOU.
[3. O-264-24 AN ORDINANCE REPEALING AND RE-ENACTING SECTION 130.01 OF THE LOUISVILLE METRO CODE OF ORDINANCES (“LMCO”) REGARDING PROHIBITIONS ON MASK WEARING. 3/5/25 Public Safety Committee Held 2/5/25 Public Safety Committee Held 12/4/24 Public Safety Committee Held Action Required By: May 7, 2025 Sponsors: Paula McCraney (I-7) ]
CLERK. PLEASE READ ITEM NUMBER TWO INTO THE RECORD. AN ORDINANCE REPEALING AND REENACTING SECTION 130 .01 OF THE LOUISVILLE METRO CODE OF ORDINANCES REGARDING PROHIBITION ON MASK WEARING. READ AND FULL MOTION SECOND. BEEN PRORLY MOVED. COUNCILWOMAN MRA IS . CHAIRMAN. IANT TO START OFF BY THANKING YOU AND YOUR VICE CHAIR FOR ON LAST YEAR HOSTING A PUBLIC MEETING. IT WAS EXTREMELY CONSCIENTIOUS ON YOUR PART TO GO TO THE COMMUNITY AND GET INPUT ON THE MASK ORDINANCE. NOW, IT WAS AT THAT MEETING WHERE WE DISCOVERED THAT THE MAJORITY OF SPEAKERS WERE OPPOSED TO A MASK BAN. THEY WERE SO ADAMANT ABOUT NOT BEING FORCED TO DO WITHOUT THEIR MASK FOR SAFETY REASONS. AND FOR, YOU KNOW, SOME EVEN STATED ABOUT THE LUXURY OF HAVING WEARING SOME MASK FOR FASHION STATEMENTS. BUT THE OVERWHELMING AMOUNT OF COMMENTS THAT WE HEARD WERE THOSE WHO WERE IMMUNE, IMMUNOCOMPROMISED, AND THOSE WHO, BECAUSE OF COVID 19, BEGAN TO WEAR THEM AND NOTICED THAT IT WAS A SAFETY MEASURE NOT ONLY FOR THEM BUT FOR OTHERS THAT THEY WERE AROUND. SO TO HAVE THE MASK BAN WAS SCARY TO THEM AND THEY WERE VERY MUCH OPPOSED TO IT. AND SO IT WAS BECAUSE OF THAT MEETING. AND OUT OF THAT MEETING THAT A COUPLE OF US WERE TALKING TO THE CITIZENS AFTERWARDS, AND THEY WERE ASKING US TO PLEASE DO NOT PUT A MASK BAN IN PLACE. NOW, WE DID EXPLAIN TO THEM THAT CURRENTLY ON THE BOOKS THERE'S A MASK BAN, BUT THEY WANTED US TO APPEAL IT. THEY JUST WANTED US TO NOT ALLOW THAT TO COME FORWARD AT ALL. SO WHAT THIS ORDINANCE DOES IS A LITTLE BIT MORE THAN JUST REPEAL A MASK BAN. IT GOES A LITTLE FURTHER IN EXPLAINING THE IMPORTANCE OF ALLOWING PEOPLE TO WEAR A MASK IF THEY FEEL SO COMFORTABLE IN THEIR SAFETY MEASURES. IT IT IT ADDRESSES THOSE WHO ARE MORE SUSCEPTIBLE TO HAVING ALL THESE DISEASES AND HAVING SOME ILLNESSES,[00:50:07]
ESPECIALLY SENIOR CITIZENS AND THOSE WHO ARE ALREADY COMPROMISED WITH ALL TYPES OF PREEXISTING CONDITIONS. BUT IT ALSO TALKS ABOUT THE SAFETY MEASURES. IT TALKS ABOUT THOSE WHO WOULD CHOOSE TO WEAR A MASK IN THE PROCESS OF COMMITTING A CRIME. WE TALK ABOUT THAT.WHEREAS THE MASK BAN DOES NOT. AND IT AND IT DOES NOT ALLOW FOR THOSE WHO WANT TO COMMIT A CRIME AND WHO ARE JUST HAPPEN TO BE WEARING A MASK TO GET AWAY WITH THAT. THERE ARE PENALTIES FOR THAT. THIS, THIS ORDINANCE NOT ONLY SAYS, WILL ALLOW PEOPLE TO WEAR A MASK AT THEIR DISCRETION, BUT IT WILL ALSO ALLOW THE POLICE OFFICERS TO UNDERSTAND THE IMPORTANCE OF WHY THEY'RE WEARING A MASK, BUT YET BE VERY COGNIZANT OF THOSE WHO ARE TRYING TO HIDE THEIR IDENTITY WHILE COMMITTING A CRIME. SO I AM ASKING THE COMMITTEE TO LOOK HARD AT THIS PARTICULAR ORDINANCE, BECAUSE IT GOES A LITTLE FURTHER THAN JUST BANNING MASK. IT ALLOWS CITIZENS THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO WEAR A MASK AND TO WEAR WHATEVER THEY WANT TO WEAR. BUT AT THE SAME TIME, IT SPEAKS TO SAFETY AND IT ALLOWS THE POLICE OFFICERS TO HAVE A LITTLE BIT MORE AUTHORITY IN PENALIZING THOSE WHO THINK THAT THEY CAN WEAR A MASK AND COMMIT CRIMES. SO THAT'S WHAT THIS ORDINANCE IS REALLY SPEAKING TO. AND I ASK FOR YOUR SUPPORT SO THAT THE COMMUNITY AT LARGE, WHO ABSOLUTELY CAME OUT TO THAT MEETING AND OPPOSED A THEIR GOVERNMENT IS LISTENING TO THEM. THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR YOUR PRESENTATION, COUNCILWOMAN. WE HAVE SOME FOLKS IN THE QUEUE. COUNCILMAN ANTHONY PIAGENTINI, PLEASE. THANK YOU. COLLEAGUES.
THANK THANK YOU. COUNCILWOMAN MCCRANIE. I'M GOING TO BE AGAINST THE AMENDING THE CURRENT MASK ORDINANCE FOR A COUPLE REASONS. FIRST OF ALL, IT'S A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO WEAR A MASK IN PUBLIC. THERE IS NO SUCH RIGHT. WE KNOW THAT BECAUSE WE HAVE IDENTIFICATIONS CALLED DRIVER'S LICENSES AND CALLED PASSPORTS. RIGHT. AND THEY ARE PREDICATED ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT WHEN YOU NEED TO IDENTIFY YOURSELF, WHICH IS WHICH IS LEGAL AND NORMAL IN THE COURSE OF BUSINESS, THAT YOU CANNOT HAVE YOUR FACE COVERED. I THINK IT IS COMPLETELY REASONABLE FOR US AS A SOCIETY TO SAY IN PUBLIC VENUES, WITH ONE EXCEPTION AND ONE EXCEPTION ONLY, AND THAT IS HEALTH, THAT YOU SHOULD NOT BE WEARING A MASK, PERIOD. THAT IS A REASONABLE THING. AND WE AND WE KNOW IT'S REASONABLE BECAUSE WE REQUIRE FACIAL IDENTIFICATION IN CURRENT IDENTIFICATIONS THAT THE GOVERNMENT USES. AND SECONDLY, I REALIZE THAT OBVIOUSLY COUNCILMAN MCCRANIE IS NOT TRYING TO MAKE A CHANGE RELATED TO THE ORIGINAL INTENT OF THIS ORDINANCE. BUT I'M GOING TO REMIND EVERYBODY WHY THIS ORDINANCE EXISTS AND WHAT I WHY THE ORIGINAL ORDINANCE EXISTS AND WHY AND WHAT I THINK WILL HAPPEN IF WE REPEAL IT IN THIS WAY. AND THIS HAS TO DO WITH SECTION ONE, LETTER B, QUOTE, PEACE OFFICERS SHALL NOT STOP OR DETAIN AN INDIVIDUAL SOLELY ON THE BASIS THAT THEY ARE WEARING A FACE COVERING. THE ORIGINAL REASON THIS HAPPENED THIS WAS PASSED WAS BECAUSE THE KLU KLUX KLAN WAS MARCHING DOWN MAIN STREET, ESSENTIALLY IN LOUISVILLE. FACES COVERED, TERRORIZING PEOPLE THAT LIVE IN THIS CITY. I CAN TELL YOU THAT WE REMOVE THIS. I DON'T KNOW WHO IT'S GOING TO BE. IT MIGHT BE THE KLAN. IT MIGHT BE SOME OTHER ORGANIZATION. THEY WILL. THEY WILL HAVE THE COMPLETE LEGAL AUTHORITY AT THAT POINT TO WALK DOWN THE MIDDLE OF MAIN STREET, FACES COVERED AND TERRORIZE OUR CITIZENS. AND I'M SORRY, I CAN'T ABIDE BY THAT. I REALIZE THAT IS THE EXTREME CASE. I WANT TO BE SUPER CLEAR. THAT IS THE WORST CASE SCENARIO, BUT IT IS A SCENARIO THAT I DO WANT A LAW ON THE BOOKS THAT ALLOWS US TO STOP. YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO. THE CONSTITUTION SAYS PEACEABLY ASSEMBLE. OKAY, PEOPLE ABSOLUTELY HAVE THAT RIGHT. BUT NOWHERE DOES IT SAY YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO MASK YOUR IDENTITY IN PUBLIC. IN THE PUBLIC SPHERE, THE SECONDARY ENFORCEMENT ISSUE ACTUALLY CREATES ANOTHER ISSUE.
LMPD RIGHT NOW USES A SERIES OF ISSUES TO IDENTIFY WHETHER THERE'S PROBABLE CAUSE TO DETAIN SOMEBODY, RIGHT. AND TO QUESTION THEM. WEARING A MASK IS ONE OF THOSE ISSUES. AND BECAUSE WE HAVE THE EXISTING ORDINANCE, THEY ARE PROTECTED BY USING THAT. IF THIS PASSES, IT CREATES
[00:55:04]
THE RISK THAT IF, FOR EXAMPLE, SOMEBODY SEES SOMEBODY RUNNING AWAY FROM RUNNING AWAY FROM THE SCENE AND THEY'RE WEARING A MASK, RIGHT? BECAUSE RUNNING BY ITSELF IS NOT YOU CAN'T STOP SOMEBODY JUST FOR RUNNING. BUT IF THEY'RE RUNNING AWAY FROM A KNOWN SCENE OF A CRIME AND THEY'RE WEARING A MASK, THESE ARE PRETEXTS. AND THERE HAVE TO BE MULTIPLE TO DETAIN SOMEBODY AND QUESTION THEM. OKAY. DOESN'T MEAN ARREST, BUT IT MEANS DETAIN AND QUESTION. WE PASS THIS AND THEY DO THAT. THEY WILL HAVE TO ASSERT A CRIMINAL CHARGE BEFORE THEY USE THAT AS A PRETEXT TO STOP THEM, BECAUSE IT'S A SECONDARY ISSUE, NOT A PRIMARY. AND THEN FINALLY, THIS IS RELATED TO THE REPORTING. AND I'VE TALKED TO MEMBERS OF LMPD ABOUT THIS. NOT ONLY IS THE REPORTING SORT OF JUST ONE MORE STEP THAT THEY WOULD HAVE TO DO, WE JUST PASSED JUST A FEW WEEKS AGO, A CONTRACT, A VERY EXPENSIVE CONTRACT, FRANKLY, WITH LMPD, FOR THEM TO RUN ANALYTICS ON WHETHER OR NOT THERE IS BIAS IN OUR POLICE DEPARTMENT. OKAY. SO FOR THEM REPORTING TO US, THAT WON'T TELL US ANYTHING. IT'LL TELL US, YOU KNOW, THE RACE, AGE, ETHNICITY, ETHNICITY, THE TIME OF THE ENCOUNTER, WHAT IS SAID IN THE ORDINANCE. BUT THAT DOESN'T TELL US IF THROUGH THE STATISTICAL ANALYSIS THERE IS BIAS. WE JUST APPROVED THIS CONTRACT, LMPD WILL BE TRACKING FOR A VARIETY OF THINGS, WHETHER OR NOT THERE IS BIAS DETERMINED, AND THAT WILL BE DONE THROUGH A VERY SOPHISTICATED STATISTICAL MODEL, NOT THROUGH JUST REPORTING TO COUNCIL, WHERE WE WILL NOT HAVE THE ABILITY TO UNDERSTAND THAT DATA AND PUT IT IN THE PROPER CONTEXT. SO I APPRECIATE THE INTENTION. I KNOW THAT SOME PEOPLE ARE UPSET ABOUT IT. I CAN TELL YOU, I KNOW MANY, MANY, MANY, MANY CONSTITUENTS THAT FOR AT LEAST MY DISTRICT THAT I REPRESENT WHO DO NOT BELIEVE THAT PEOPLE SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO WEAR A MASK IN PUBLIC AND WANT TO KEEP THE LAW ON THE BOOKS AS IS. SO I'M GOING TO VOTE AGAINST THIS. I ENCOURAGE MY COLLEAGUES TO DO SO. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. THANK YOU COUNCILMAN. NEXT IN QUEUE WOULD BE COUNCILWOMAN HAWKINS, PLEASE. THANK YOU. WELL, I'M GOING TO GO A DIFFERENT DIRECTION WITH THIS.AS FAR AS YOU KNOW, WE STILL TRYING TO NAVIGATE THE GOOD ACTORS. THE BAD ACTORS. WE GOT OUR OWN TYPE OF ACTORS IN EVERY DEPARTMENT OF POLICE DEPARTMENT. BUT I WANT TO SAY THAT I FEEL LIKE THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE SETTING OUR OFFICERS UP, AND THEY'RE GOING TO BE LOOKED AT AS TARGETING. IF THEY START TO STOP, THERE'S NO WAY THAT YOU CAN IDENTIFY A 15 YEAR OLD IF YOU STOP HIM, WHETHER HE'S RUNNING, IT'S ALWAYS A GROUP OF YOUTH RUNNING SOMEWHERE. IF SOMETHING HAPPENS SOMEWHERE, A GROUP OF YOUTH IS RUNNING. A FEW OF THEM GOT ON MASK. THEN THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO STOP THEM. SO IF THEY STOP THEM, YOU GOT TO BE, WHAT, 17, 18 TO HAVE PROPER IDENTIFICATION, RIGHT? THERE IS NO WAY THAT YOU WOULD BE ABLE TO IDENTIFY THESE YOUTH NO MATTER WHAT. SO I FEEL LIKE THAT WE WILL BE PUTTING OUR POLICE OFFICERS, YOU KNOW, WE THINK THAT WE GOT LAWSUITS NOW. WE GOING TO HAVE PLENTY OF MORE, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE THEY'RE GOING TO FEEL LIKE THAT THEIR CHILD IS BEING TARGETED. SECONDLY, YOU KNOW, WHEN WE HOSTED THAT COMMUNITY MEETING, YOU KNOW, I WAS ALL FOR IT. BUT AFTER HEALTH CARE IS MY PASSION. BEING IN IT FOR 15 YEARS. AND YOU GET A PATIENT THAT GOES TO THE BROWN CANCER CENTER AND FOR HEALTH REASONS, THEY HAVE TO HAVE THAT MASK ON. LET A LMPD OFFICER STOP ME. WHAT WAY CAN I IDENTIFY TO THEM UNLESS I DISCLOSE MY MEDICAL INFORMATION, THAT I HAVE THE RIGHT TO WEAR THIS MASK, RIGHT? SO I CANNOT SUPPORT THIS. I WILL NOT BE SUPPORTING THIS TODAY. SO THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. COUNCILWOMAN. COUNCILWOMAN SHAMIKA PARISH. RIGHT, PLEASE.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. I THIS THIS ISSUE, EVER SINCE IT CAME ABOUT HAS BEEN REALLY TAXING ON ALL OF US. AND BUT WHAT I WORRY ABOUT IS THE RACIAL PROFILING THAT CONNECTS TO A LOT OF THIS BLACK PEOPLE AND BROWN PEOPLE AND OTHER PEOPLE AND POOR WHITE PEOPLE HAVE BEEN STOPPED FOR RUNNING, FOR JOGGING, FOR DRIVING, FOR WALKING. AND I'M CONCERNED NOT JUST AS A MOTHER
[01:00:06]
WITH WITH BLACK SONS, BUT THE FACT THAT THERE'S THIS EMPHASIS ON PEOPLE WEAR MASKS FOR ALL SORTS OF REASONS, AND NOT EVERYONE WEARING A MASK IS DOING IT TO COMMIT CRIMES AND DOING THAT. AND SO I, I UNDERSTAND THE MAKEUP OF THIS ORDINANCE BACK THEN AND WITH THE KLU KLUX KLAN AND ALL OF THAT, I WAS ALSO OUT THERE DOING THE RACIAL JUSTICE ISSUES AND SEEING PEOPLE STILL WEARING MASKS. I THINK, THOUGH, WE HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY AS A LEGISLATIVE BODY IS TO DO WHAT'S RIGHT FOR THE GREATER GOOD. MORE OF OUR FOLKS ARE DEALING WITH HEALTH ISSUES AND, AND REASONS WHY THEY CHOOSE TO WEAR A MASK THAN IT IS THE PEOPLE WHO ARE COMMITTING AND PERPETRATING CRIMES THAT WEAR A MASK. I THINK, AS COUNCILMAN PIAGENTINI SAID, THE POLICE HAVE A LOT OF REASONS TO USE PROBABLE CAUSE, AND I DON'T THINK THAT THIS ORDINANCE I DON'T THINK THAT THE NEW ONE IS MEANT THAT WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED BY COUNCILWOMAN MCCRANIE IS MEANT TO TIE THEIR HANDS. BUT I'M REALLY TORN ON WHAT WE'RE DOING. WILL THIS NEW RESOLUTION DO AWAY WITH THE ORIGINAL ONE? WHICH TO ME, IT DOES NEED SOME GUIDANCE. IT DOES NEED TO BE UPDATED. IT IS NOT TO ME GOOD FOR WHAT WE NEED, ESPECIALLY POST OR COVID 19. I JUST NEED SOME MORE CLARITY ON FROM COUNCILWOMAN MCCRANIE BECAUSE I WANT TO SUPPORT BECAUSE I, I WAS THERE, I HEARD THE COMMUNITY AND I HEARD HER TRYING TO ANSWER THE CALL. WILL THIS RESOLUTION DO AWAY WITH THE ORIGINAL ONE? AND THIS WILL BE THE STANDING THING THAT, FOLKS, THAT THE POLICE WILL GO BY? OR IS THIS IN ADDITION TO THAT, I THAT'S ALL. I JUST NEEDED SOME MORE CLARITY ON THAT. YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT ALWAYS. REFERENCE. COUNCILWOMAN MCCRANIE, PLEASE TO ANSWER HER QUESTION. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. YES, THIS IS TO REPEAL THE CURRENT MASK BAN. AND THIS IS THE SUBSTITUTE ORDINANCE THAT I AM PROPOSING. AND I WOULD LIKE TO GET BACK IN THE QUEUE AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME. WE HAVE ABOUT FOUR MINUTES LEFT. THAT'S ABOUT HOW MUCH TIME. AND I'VE GOT THREE OTHERS IN THE QUEUE. SO I WILL ASK COUNCILWOMAN RUBY IF YOU WOULD. NOPE, NOPE. I HAVE COUNCILMAN JONATHAN JOSEPH, PLEASE. YEAH, I'LL BE QUICK. MY TWO QUESTIONS I HAVE IS WITH BEING A TEACHER IS IF THIS ORDINANCE WERE TO EVER PASS, WOULD HOW WOULD THAT IMPACT OUR SCHOOLS WHEN IT COMES TO MASK WEARING? BECAUSE WE STILL HAVE SOME STUDENTS THAT WEAR MASKS.AND WHEN JK HAVE THE SAY OR OR HOW WOULD THAT LOOK? BUT ALSO MY OTHER QUESTION WITH THE MAYOR'S POSITION IS THE ADMINISTRATION HAD PREVIOUSLY SPOKEN OUT AGAINST THE ORIGINAL ORDINANCE.
SO DOES THIS AMENDMENT HAVE THEIR SUPPORT? COUNCILWOMAN MCCRANEY. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE MAYOR'S OFFICE IS CONSIDERING TO DATE. I KNOW THAT IN THE PAST I ORIGINALLY DID NOT SPEAK WITH THEM. WHEN I WAS SPEAKING WITH THE PUBLIC ABOUT IT, BUT THEN I SUBSEQUENTLY DID SPEAK TO THEM, AND THEY UNDERSTAND WHAT I AM TRYING TO DO WITH THIS ORDINANCE. AND WHAT IT DOES IS NOT BAN MASK, PERIOD. STUDENTS WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO WEAR THEM AND THEY COULD. THEY COULD MANDATE THAT OUR YOUTH CAN'T WEAR THEM. AND I CAN TELL YOU THAT DURING THE 2020 PANDEMIC, WHEN IT WAS PREVALENT, THAT IT WAS A NEED FOR MASK, THERE WERE A CONTINGENCY OF FOLK IN THE COMMUNITY WHO DID NOT WANT PEOPLE TO WEAR MASKS. DON'T THINK THAT THAT WILL EVER GO AWAY. THEY JUST DON'T WANT PEOPLE TO WEAR A MASK. I DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT LOGIC. THERE ARE REASONS WHY PEOPLE HAVE TO WEAR A MASK, AND I CAN ALSO SAY THAT I DON'T BUY INTO THE KKK ARGUMENT. YES, THAT DID HAPPEN BACK THEN. YES. IT'S HORRIBLE. YES, IT'S HORRIBLE TO SEE KKK, KLANSMEN OR ANYONE ELSE WITH ILL INTENT MARCHING DOWN THE STREET COVERING UP THEIR IDENTITY. BUT I CAN TELL YOU, AND EVEN IF YOU WANT TO ASK OUR COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, WE LOOKED HIGH AND LOW FOR AN OPPORTUNITY TO BAN THE KKK FROM WEARING A MASK. AND CONSTITUTIONALLY, WE CAN'T. SO THIS DOES NOT ELIMINATE THEM FROM WEARING A MASK. NOR DOES THE CURRENT MASK BAN ELIMINATE THE KKK FROM WEARING A MASK. SO LET'S PLEASE LOOK THIS FOR LOOK AT IT FOR WHAT IT REALLY IS. IT'S ALLOWING THE CITIZENS THE RIGHT TO WEAR A MASK. AND IT ALSO GIVES THE
[01:05:11]
POLICE OFFICERS AN OPPORTUNITY TO UNDERSTAND WHEN IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOT PROFILE, BUT TO UNDERSTAND THE IMPORTANCE OF STOPPING SOMEONE BASED ON THE FACT THAT THEY BELIEVE THEY'RE IN THE PROCESS OF COMMITTING A CRIME. SO WE DON'T WANT TO WE DON'T WANT OUR POLICE OFFICERS TO LOOK AT MASK WEARING AS A CRIME. WE WANT THEM TO LOOK AT THE EXCEPTION. AND IF SOMEONE IS SUSPECTED OF COMMITTING A CRIME, WE WANT OUR POLICE OFFICERS TO ACT ON THAT MASK WEARING OR NOT.OUR POLICE OFFICERS ARE KEEN ON SUSPECTING A CRIME WHEN SOMEONE IS IN THE MIDST OF COMMITTING ONE. SO ALL WE'RE DOING HERE IS REPEALING WHAT IS ON THE BOOKS NOW, A BAN ON MASK, AND WE'RE ADDING TO IT THE ELEMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND PUBLIC HEALTH. AND WE'RE LISTENING TO THE CONSTITUENTS WHO ABSOLUTELY IN THE MAJORITY, FROM WHAT I HAVE HEARD, ARE OPPOSED TO A MASK BAN. THANK YOU. I AM ASKING FOR OUR SUPPORT ON THIS BECAUSE THE PEOPLE HAVE SPOKEN, AND AT SOME POINT, IT REALLY IS UP TO US WHO ARE ELECTED BY THE PEOPLE TO LISTEN TO THE PEOPLE. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. BEFORE I ALLOW COUNCILMAN PIAGENTINI TO RESPOND, HE'S IN THE QUEUE. NOT LONG AGO WE HAD 75 JUVENILES GO INTO A FAMILY DOLLAR STORE AND DEMOLISHED THE ENTIRE STORE.
EVERY ONE OF THEM HAD MASKS ON. COUNCILMAN PIAGENTINI, WOULD YOU PLEASE RESPOND? YEAH. THANK YOU.
JUST FOR CLARITY, IT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL TO SAY ONE GROUP CAN'T WEAR MASKS. IT IS ENTIRELY CONSTITUTIONAL. THAT'S WHY THE LAW PASSED. TO SAY THAT NOBODY CAN. SO THE, THE CURRENT LAW WE HAVE ON THE BOOKS IS CONSTITUTIONAL. YOU CANNOT SINGLE OUT A GROUP. THAT'S THE DIFFERENCE. RIGHT. SO AND AGAIN, I THINK IT'S ENTIRELY REASONABLE TO SAY THAT, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE SHOULD AGAIN, WITH ONE EXCEPTION AND THAT IS HEALTH OTHERWISE BE EXPECTED TO BE IDENTIFIED IN PUBLIC. RIGHT. OTHERWISE, WHY DO WE DO 95% OF THE LAW ENFORCEMENT TECHNIQUES WE DO, LIKE HAVE CAMERAS IN PUBLIC PLACES WHERE A CRIME OCCURS. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. THANK YOU. COUNCILMAN.
ONE MORE PLEASE, WOULD BE JENNY WOOLDRIDGE, PLEASE. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. I JUST WANT TO GO ON AND SAY THAT I AM ALSO AGAINST THIS FOR MANY REASONS, SUCH AS MY COUNTERPARTS OF PIAGENTINI AND MISS HAWKINS SAID. BUT ONE IS THAT THE FACT THAT WE CAN HAVE MANY GROUPS WHO WEAR MASKS, AND WHY CAN'T WE STOP THEM FOR WEARING THEM, AS WELL AS THE FACT, AS WE DID MONTHS AGO, JUST PASSED SOMETHING WHERE WE ALREADY HAD THESE STATS THAT ARE BEING REVIEWED. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. OVER HERE, DID I ARE YOU? I REQUESTED TO SPEAK. IS THAT AM I NOT SHOWING UP? COUNCILMAN HERNDON VERY BRIEFLY, I. I WILL VOTE NO AS AS WELL. IN PART AGREEMENT WITH WITH COUNCILWOMAN HAWKINS AND ALSO COUNCILMAN ARGENTINI. THAT RALLY WAS ACTUALLY ON THE JEFFERSON COUNTY COURTHOUSE STEPS ON ON ON JEFFERSON STREET. I KNOW THAT BECAUSE THERE WERE SEVERAL HUNDRED PEOPLE ACROSS THE STREET AT A COUNTER PROTEST, AND I WAS ONE OF THEM, THAT LAW WAS PASSED FOR THAT REASON, AND I STILL SUPPORT IT BEING IN PLACE. THANK YOU, COUNCILMAN. AND LAST ONE WOULD BE MY CO-CHAIR, COUNCILWOMAN HAWKINS. THANK YOU. YOU KNOW, I KNOW EVERYBODY SAY LISTEN TO THE PEOPLE, BUT WE CAN'T JUST LISTEN TO THEM WHEN IT'S CONVENIENT FOR US. THERE'S A LOT OF PEOPLE THAT WANT THE MASK. THERE'S A LOT OF PEOPLE THAT DON'T WANT THE MASK. BUT WHAT I WILL SAY IS, IS UNTIL WE CAN GET THIS CONSENT DECREE, UNTIL WE CAN GET A LOT OF THESE THINGS OUT OF THE WAY, LMPD NEEDS A LOT MORE TRAINING. WE ARE IF WE'RE GOING TO RELY ON LMPD TO JUST MAKE A DECISION ON IF THIS PERSON IS DOING SOMETHING BECAUSE THEY GOT ON A MASK, I'M NOT GOING TO DO THAT. SO, YOU KNOW, I DON'T WANT TO PUT ANY MORE ON LMPD THAN THEY ALREADY GOT ON THEM. NOW I DON'T WANT THEM MAKING THE DECISIONS ON JUST BECAUSE SOMEBODY HAS A MASK ON. AND IF WE LEAVE THIS UP TO THEM, IT'LL BE AT THE MOMENT. SO AGAIN, I WILL NOT BE SUPPORTING THIS. I DON'T I DON'T FEEL LIKE THAT THIS MASK THING IS I DON'T YOU KNOW, THE MAYOR CAME OUT WITH IT. IF IT'S NOT BROKE, DON'T FIX IT. THEY HAVE IT. LMPD HAS NOT BEEN TARGETING
[01:10:03]
A YOUTH OR ANYBODY ELSE WITH MASKS WITH HEALTH PROBLEMS. I FEEL LIKE WITH THIS PUT IN PLACE, IT WILL START THEM TO, TO LOOK TO IDENTIFY THESE THINGS. I JUST FEEL LIKE LEAVE IT WHERE IT. OKAY. THANK YOU COUNCILWOMAN, WITHOUT ANY MORE SPEAKERS IN THE QUEUE. CLERK, WOULD YOU PLEASE OPEN THE VOTING? VOTING IS OPEN. COMMITTEE MEMBER. SHANKLIN. NO! CAN YOU HEAR ME? YES, WE HEARD YOU. BARBER. COMMITTEE MEMBER. PIERCE. RIGHT? YES. SIR. YOU HAVE TWO YES AND SEVEN. NO VOTES. SO THAT PASSES FAILS. IT FAILED. THE BILL FAILS AND WILL BE SENT. A BILL FAILS. WE'RE DONE. IT GOES TO. OKAY. OKAY. THE BILL FAILS AND GOES TO OLD[Adjournment Note: Agendas are followed at the discretion of the Chair. While an item may be listed, it does not mean all items will be heard and/or acted upon by the Committee.]
BUSINESS WITH A NEGATIVE RECOMMENDATION. AND WE'RE DONE. THANK YOU ALL.* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.