Lexington landlords of disruptive ‘party houses’ could face fines under new proposal
Lexington is considering a fine for landowners and home owners who repeatedly allow out-of-control partying.
Under the proposed ordinance, houses or apartments that have had two violations for disorderly conduct, minor in possession of alcohol, unlawful transactions with a minor or violations of the city’s sound ordinance can be deemed a “disruptive premises” for a year.
If another violation occurs after it has deemed a disruptive premises, a homeowner or landlord would face a fine of $250 for a first offense, $500 for a second offense and $1,000 for a third offense.
The Planning and Public Safety Committee of the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Council voted Tuesday to move the ordinance forward to the full council. It’s not clear when the council will take a final vote on the proposal.
The disruptive premises plan would replace a 2001 ordinance called the Lexington Area Party Plan, which was enacted after the city was inundated with complaints of disruptive partying in off-campus housing surrounding the University of Kentucky.
Under the current ordinance, if two or more people have been convicted of certain violations, the property is designated a “no party property.“ If there are further disturbances, the property owner would receive a criminal citation and civil fines.
The existing ordinance “has been tremendously ineffective,” said Councilman Jake Gibbs.
Gibbs, whose district includes much of downtown, pushed for changes after receiving multiple complaints from neighborhoods around UK in the past several years.
Some areas where there have been repeat problems with student party houses include Elizabeth and State streets, popular areas for UK students to celebrate during NCAA basketball tournament time.
Since 2001, the Lexington Area Party Plan has been utilized only 41 times, said Lexington Police Commander Thomas Curtsinger. The bulk of those citations were issued in 2003 and 2004.
The courts were not receptive to the ordinance. Plus, to be deemed a no-party property, there must be two convictions, which take time to go through the courts.
“This doesn’t require convictions,” Curtsinger said of the new ordinance. “It’s a civil citation that would be levied against the property owner.”
In leases, landlords can make violation of any disruptive property ordinances grounds for a tenant to be evicted, he said.
Curtsinger said police will keep a list of those offenses in a database. When two or more of those violations are issued at the same address, the police will send a notice to the owner of record saying the house has been designated a “disruptive premises.”
If the property is deemed a disruptive premises and the police are called and issue another citation, then the property owner could face fines, Curtsinger said.
Curtsinger said people arrested in front of the property or on the sidewalk would not count toward the two violation limit, he said.
Property owners could appeal that civil citation and the fine to the city’s code enforcement board.
But some council members who are also lawyers said they had concerns about how the new ordinance would be enforced during Tuesday’s meeting.
“It’s not always easy to get someone evicted,” said Councilman Chuck Ellinger Jr., a lawyer. “I”m worried that landlords may start raising the rent.”
Councilwoman Angela Evans, who is also a lawyer, said for the ordinance to work it has to be fair.
“This has problems,” Evans said. “I’m confused why it didn’t work the first time. It sounds like it was just not enforced.”
Evans asked the council not to vote the new ordinance out of committee.
Vice Mayor Steve Kay said the ordinance offers landlords options to appeal. It also does not involve criminal summons, unlike the current ordinance.
“I think there is sufficient protection for landlords that are trying to do the right thing,” Kay said.
Gibbs said the ordinance is designed to go after repeat and problematic party houses. The current ordinance is not working, he said.
“We are not against parties,” Gibbs said. “We are against disruptive parties.”
This story was originally published November 13, 2019 at 10:06 AM.
