Burnside puts entertainment ordinance in place

July 08, 2009 08:22 pm

— It’s doubtful a party will be thrown in celebration of the occasion, but Burnside finally has its long-awaited entertainment ordinance in place.
The unanimous passage of an ordinance defining what is and isn’t considered “entertainment” — and as such would require the hosting establishment to obtain a license — marked the end of months of discussion on the topic. A first reading was given to the ordinance at last month’s meeting, meaning that it couldn’t be passed until a second reading was given.
Key points in the ordinance include:
• The definition of “a place of entertainment” to mean that the establishment collects some form of revenue — cover charge, tickets or general sales — as a result of people assembling in public to be entertained. This would include bingo parlors, pool and dance halls, game centers, bowling alleys, and miniature golf, but not private homes, circuses and county fairs, entertainment sponsored by religious institutions, or restaurants that provide entertainment for their customers’ dining pleasure.
Councilor Jim Rasnick requested that some of the language in the ordinance as written be cleaned up before becoming law. One such tweaking involved making sure the ordinance read that restaurants that have cover charges for live entertainment would also need a permit.
• The dollar amount to go along with an application for an entertainment permit was $100, up from $25 as originally noted in the ordinance, so as to better cover for advertising and background check costs. An investigation of the application’s “business reputation and moral character” will be conducted, and cause for dismissal of the application could include the business posing some form of public threat to “health, safety morals or general welfare.” Criteria involving how the business might affect the city in terms of police activity was added to the ordinance.
Councilor Ron Jones brought up a question of subjectivity: Who is to determine exactly what qualifies as an individual’s “unsatisfactory moral character,” or what is a threat to public morals, as worded in the ordinance? City Attorney Dan Thompson said that the City Council would be responsible for making those judgment calls, and that the U.S. Supreme Court holds that each community decides what is or is not appropriate based on its own individuals values — what is considered “obscene” in Burnside may not be in Lexington, for example.
• The city council can fix “reasonable hours of operation” for places of entertainment throughout the city. The council decided that midnight would be an appropriate closing time for all such Burnside establishments, and that they could re-open no earlier than 6 a.m.
• Rules for the appeal process for applications and any penalties sustained while operating an entertainment business were also detailed.
In related news, Pulaski citizen Shane Lanham was on hand stating his intention to bring an amateur boxing show to Burnside, possibly by September. Lanham inquired about what he would need to do to get the event off the ground, and as such would likely become the first applicant for an entertainment license under the new ordinance.
In other Burnside City Council business:
• Bob Blankenship of HMB Professional Engineers, the firm which has worked with the city an its recent upgrades to its water system, informed the council about grant money that could be available from the Kentucky Rural Development state office to do more water line maintenance. The funding would be 30 percent a grant and 70 percent a loan — a ratio which Rasnick felt was a little imbalanced.
Blankenship said the state agreed to work the with city on any size project, and offered two alternatives, one involving less work (only water line repairs on East French Ave.) and a project cost of $184,000; the other would add work replacing filters and controls at the water plant, and would also prepare for the pumping of Burnside sludge into Somerset sewers, at a cost of $624,000. The first option would result in an averaged 77 cent water bill increase per customer per month; the latter in a $2.61 increase. However, Blankenship noted, the Rural Development office prepares to work on bigger projects with bigger dollar amounts, thus encouraging the second option.
The interest rate on the loan is 2.75 percent, and can change quarterly. The loan can be paid with 40-year bonds, with principal deferred for two years. No matching funds are required by the city for the grant money.
“I didn’t expect 100 percent (to be in grant form) but 70 percent is a little bit strong,” said Rasnick.
Jones noted the importance of getting something done quickly, as businesses are “struggling” due to water line limitations in the downtown area.
Mayor Chuck Fourman said city officials would “mull over” the proposal and may pick and choose what they would want to do in the project, which Blankenship said would be feasible — the project didn’t have to be exactly either option as presented. As such, no action was taken.
• Jim Boyd, who has owned and operated the Seven Gables motel property since October of last year, revisited the council, unhappy with the way he’s being billed for his establishment’s water service. Boyd had complained earlier in the year of poor water quality at the motel and hadn’t been paying for water service, because the rates had been too high due to a leak. The council had worked out a payment plan they felt was appropriate after doing what they could to inspect the water situation in that area, which affects several businesses other than Boyd’s, but Boyd insisted upon an accurate reading before paying what he owes.
The council decided upon a payment plan this time which would have Boyd putting in $575 for previous months which have not been settled. The rates would be monitored for accuracy for a six-month period, and then an official monthly billing schedule would be decided upon.
Councilors Dic Gaskin and Craig Richardson were absent from the meeting Monday.

Photos

Burnside councilor Jim Rasnick sought to clean up the wording in the ordinance. Commonwealth Journal