# Council General Government Committee - February 2, 2013 > Auto-transcribed civic record · February 2, 2013 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/2864 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/2864?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2013-02-02 - **Last revised**: July 16, 2026 - **Length**: 4,657 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed with OpenAI's open-source Whisper large-v3-turbo model, run locally by The Lexington Times. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude. Verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The General Government Committee met on February 5, 2013, at 11:00 a.m., with Steve Kay presiding. The committee addressed six agenda items, taking four votes and hearing five public comments during the session. The committee approved the selection of a Vice-Chair and the approval of a summary, while deferring decisions on an amendment to Section 4.104 of Council Rules and a Website Linking Policy. An informational presentation on the Metro Employees Credit Union Lease and PSA was also provided, and the committee approved items referred to it for consideration. ## Attendance The following individuals were present at the meeting on February 2, 2013: * Steve Kay * Jenny Scutchfield * Linda Gorton * Chris Ford * Shevawn Akers * Diane Lawless * Julian Beard * Harry Clarke * Ed Lane No absences or late arrivals were recorded. ## Votes and Decisions **Approval of the November 13th, 2013 Meeting Summary** [timestamp: 0:00:00] A motion to approve the November 13th, 2013 meeting summary was made by Ed Lane and seconded by Julian Beard. The motion passed unanimously. **Amendment of Section 4.104 of Council Rules** [timestamp: 0:10:39] Linda Gorton moved to amend Section 4.104 of Council Rules to give the Mayor authority to execute certain agreements. This motion was withdrawn and did not proceed to a vote. **Transfer of Franchise Agreement Issue to Budget and Finance Committee** [timestamp: 0:35:22] Linda Gorton moved to transfer the franchise agreement issue to the Budget and Finance Committee, with a second by Chris Ford. This motion was withdrawn and did not proceed to a vote. **Motion to Adjourn** [timestamp: 0:38:26] A motion to adjourn the meeting was made by Harry Clarke and seconded by Linda Gorton. The motion passed unanimously. ## Budget and Financial Actions The meeting included discussion of a lease and Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Metro Employees Credit Union. No specific dollar amount or resolution number was provided in the available meeting materials. ## Public Comment Five speakers addressed the committee on various matters of transparency and policy implementation. Linda Gorton spoke twice during the public comment period. In her first comment [timestamp: 0:04:25], she requested greater public access to documents executed by the Mayor, proposing that these documents be made available in Legistar with complete details including contract names, amounts, and services rendered. Later in the meeting [timestamp: 0:25:17], Gorton asked for clarification regarding family membership eligibility in the credit union, seeking confirmation about which relatives qualify for membership and noting that immediate family and siblings should be included, but not extended relatives. Harry Clarke addressed the committee [timestamp: 0:07:12] with a related transparency concern, suggesting that the public should have access to documents executed by the Mayor. He recommended that these documents be linked directly from the docket in Legistar to enhance transparency and public access. Julian Beard raised a concern about operational flexibility [timestamp: 0:16:22], expressing worry that the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) should not restrict the credit union's ability to adapt its services. He emphasized the importance of maintaining common-sense flexibility in business operations. Keith Horn offered a procedural suggestion [timestamp: 0:32:26], recommending that the committee be provided with a visual example demonstrating how the linking policy would appear on the website. He indicated this would help committee members better understand the practical application of the proposed policy. ## Contested Items The February 2, 2013 meeting included three areas of significant disagreement among council members: **Transparency of Mayor's Executed Agreements** Vice Mayor Gorton and other council members raised concerns about public access to documents executed by the Mayor. The core issue was that such agreements were not automatically part of the public record unless specifically placed on the meeting docket. Council members emphasized the need for transparency and public access to these documents. The committee resolved this dispute by agreeing to ensure that documents executed by the Mayor would be made available in Legistar, the city's legislative management system. **Scope and Flexibility of the MOU with Metro Employees Credit Union** Council member Julian Beard and others expressed concern that the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Metro Employees Credit Union was too restrictive. They argued that the agreement should not limit the credit union's ability to adapt and modify its services in response to changing business needs. The council members emphasized the importance of business flexibility and the need for common-sense interpretation of the MOU's terms, rather than rigid adherence to its specific language. **Inclusion of November 13th Recommendations in Website Linking Policy** Vice Mayor Gorton questioned whether all recommendations from a November 13th summary had been fully incorporated into the current draft of the website linking policy. This procedural dispute prompted a request for further review and clarification to ensure that previous recommendations were not overlooked in the policy's development. ## Vice-Chair Selection Steve Kay was nominated and elected as Chair of the General Government Committee without dissent. [timestamp: 00:00] The key speakers involved in this agenda item were Steve Kay, Julian Beard, and Ed Lane. No Vice Chair was selected at this time. The outcome of the vote on the Chair position was approved. ## Approval of Summary The meeting summary from November 13th, 2013 was presented for approval. [timestamp: 00:00:00] Key speakers on this item included Ed Lane and Julian Beard. The summary was approved without dissent, and no corrections were offered by attendees. **Outcome:** The November 13th, 2013 meeting summary was approved. ## Amendment of Section 4.104 of Council Rules [timestamp: 00:01:03] This agenda item addressed proposed amendments to Section 4.104 of the Council Rules, which would modify the process for the Mayor to execute certain agreements without requiring prior Council approval. **Proposed Changes** The amendment included several specific modifications: - Revising the language from "when" to "after" in relevant provisions - Reducing the financial threshold from $20,000 to $19,999 - Replacing the term "remove" with "place on docket" - Removing subsection G, which addressed change orders **Discussion and Speakers** The following council members participated in the discussion: Glenda George, Linda Gorton, Chris Ford, Julian Beard, and Harry Clarke. **Outcome** The motion was withdrawn to allow for further review of the proposed changes. The item was deferred, indicating that the Council did not proceed with a vote at this time and intends to revisit the amendment at a future meeting. ## Metro Employees Credit Union Lease and PSA Sally Hamilton provided an update on lease negotiations with Metro Employees Credit Union [timestamp: 0:11:22]. The discussion focused on formalizing a long-standing relationship between the organization and the credit union through official documentation. **Key Points** Hamilton explained that despite the established relationship with Metro Employees Credit Union, no formal agreement had previously existed. To address this, a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is being developed to document the terms and conditions of the arrangement. **Participants** The agenda item involved discussion among Sally Hamilton, Piper, Chris Ford, Julian Beard, and Linda Gorton. **Outcome** This was an informational presentation. The lease agreement and MOU will be presented to the group at the next meeting for further consideration and action. ## Website Linking Policy The Council discussed the final draft of the CAO policy on external website linking [timestamp: 00:26:20]. **Participants and Discussion** Key speakers in this discussion included Keith Horn, Scott Shapiro, Linda Gorton, Harry Clarke, and Diane Lawless. **Concerns Raised** Participants raised concerns about whether all recommendations from the November 13th summary had been incorporated into the final draft of the policy. This indicated that reviewers wanted to ensure previous feedback had been adequately addressed in the current version. Additionally, a request was made for a visual example to better understand how the policy would be implemented in practice. This suggests that Council members felt a concrete illustration would help clarify the policy's application. **Outcome** The policy was deferred for further review, indicating that the Council did not approve it at this time and intended to revisit it after addressing the raised concerns and potentially incorporating the requested visual example. ## Items Referred To Committee [timestamp: 00:33:31] During this agenda item, the council addressed several matters that had been previously referred to committee. Multiple items were removed from the referred list during the discussion. **Items Removed from Referred List:** - General Services Link recommendations - Abatement of tall grass - Nuisance abatement days - Ordinance 4-75 - Smoking in parks - Sponsorship procedures **Franchise Agreement Discussion:** The franchise agreement issue was considered for potential transfer to the Budget and Finance Committee. However, this action was withdrawn pending clarification on the matter. **Key Participants:** The discussion involved Chris Ford, Diane Lawless, Linda Gorton, Harry Clarke, and Ed Lane. **Outcome:** The items referred to committee section was approved. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed: Approval of the November 13th, 2013 meeting summary - **Motion** — withdrawn: Amendment of Section 4.104 of Council Rules to give the Mayor authority to execute certain agreements - **Motion** — withdrawn: Transfer of franchise agreement issue to Budget and Finance Committee - **Motion** — passed: Motion to adjourn the meeting --- ## Full transcript First, take a look at the approval of summary. Are there any corrections to the summary as we have had them distributed? Move approval. Second. All those in favor? Aye. Aye. Opposed? All right. Next order of business, we have Linda George. Ms. George, thank you. If you will look in your packet, if you recall at the last general government committee meeting, You all requested that I make some changes to the resolution that we have been working on relating to giving the mayor blanket authority to execute certain documents. And those changes have been made, and they are reflected in Section H of the resolution, which is found on pages 9 and 10 in your packet. And to refresh everyone's memory about what the changes are, in subsection A, we changed the word when to after. In subsection B, we changed the $20,000 to $19,999. In the paragraph after subsection K, we changed the may to shall. And then in that same section where it has the 1, 2, 3, and 4, we changed remove to place on the docket. And then in that last sentence, we changed the word approved that the mayor would have the authority to execute the documents, and we added a sentence about any executed documents would appear in the communications from the mayor on the council meeting docket so that you all would be aware of the documents that the mayor had executed. And those are the changes. Oh, and one more thing I forgot. We took out that subsection G relating to change orders. And all of these changes are reflected in your summary. Chair recognizes Vice Mayor Gordon. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Glenda. You're welcome. I keep meaning to ask you back before the changes on page 7, what are the items with an asterisk? Items 2, 4, and 7. Because there's no... Where are you? Page 7 of the packet. You know? That's an interesting question. Meredith and I have had a conversation about this before. That is in the council rules, and we haven't been able to figure out what those refer to. So it's not linked to any asterisk of explanation? No, not that we've been able to find. It's something that Meredith and I have discussed previously as I've been working on revisions to the council rules about what do those apply to, and we haven't been able to locate that. Do you suppose they can be removed? I mean, if they don't link to anything. Okay, so there's that. And then I have a question back on, and I thank you for bringing these changes, back on the very last paragraph about, you know, the documents appearing in the communications from the mayor. Uh-huh. So one reason we had wanted that was because we learned at the last meeting that anything at work session would not appear in the official public record. Correct? That work session? It would appear, there would be a record of it in the minutes of work session. Yes. But there would not be a record of it in your official minutes, which are your Thursday meeting minutes, unless we did something to put it on the docket. Okay, so with that, in the communications from the mayor, how much will the public be able to see? For example, if it's a contract, will they see the name, the amount, the service rendered, or will they simply see a statement about a contract? In other words, how open will that be to the public? We're not that far yet in what it should look like, But I think you all could provide us with some guidance as to what you would like to see in the communications from the mayor when we're reporting to you all the documents that have been executed. Because once we agree on what this resolution will look like, then the law department, council clerk's office, mayor's office will work on what the process is going to be. be, but we don't have that outlined out yet. Well, okay. I would like to request, if anyone else, there may be others who would like this, I think that our government has a history of being very open, and the public for a long time has been able to go into documents and meetings and see exactly what's going on, and I think that's very important. So my thinking with this last paragraph would be that we include more rather than less. I was just going to say so that, for example, a member of the public could go in and see what a contract was for, who we gave the contract to, and how much money we spent of tax dollars. Now, we have had discussions about coming up with a process to load these documents into Legistar. And so if we do that, then it would be available as any other matter that's in Legistar for the public to review. Okay, so the public has access to all of Legistar, is that correct? At our level, they can see portions of it, and I'll have to let Meredith. And is there a link directly to Legistar on our homepage, or how would the public get there? Yes, ma'am. The link to Legistar is available as a public website, And the little several-digit numbers you see beside each docket item is a hyperlink that you can follow to visit that legislative item. And then any contracts, materials, bid recommendations are all available and open. Anybody can view those. So is the link also with the docket where the mayor's communications, would they be linked so the public can actually see that night what is approved and what he? Yes, ma'am. We could structure it that way. I think that would be really a good thing to be sure that the public can see that on July the 21st, whatever, that the mayor's communications included these items, and then they can go in and see what they are. And for placing it on the docket would just be a matter of, like Ms. George said, just how you want to structure what you see there. Okay. And that would be a very simple process. Okay. All right. Very good. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you. And, Vice Mayor, if I may add, all of these documents will have some numbering system. We just have to work out what that's going to look like so there won't be any confusion with the ordinances and resolutions that are on the docket. Okay, I appreciate that. Thank you. Recognize Council Member Clark. Following up on Vice Mayor Gordon's question, should this somehow be reflected in that statement rather than just leaving it like it is because it could be from one person to another. We might miss that. I mean, our intentions are good here, but maybe it ought to be reflected somehow in that statement that it is available to the public. I'm just suggesting that as possible. I don't know how exactly you'd word it, but that might save us in the long run. I'd also like to just remind us that we need to re-number or re-letter the page 10 since we eliminated G. Since we eliminated G, that's correct. Sorry, I didn't catch that. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Do we have anyone else that wants to make a comment? I think we probably need to bring it back with some of the changes that we've got. If we can. Next month, it'll be four years. We'll have to have an anniversary celebration. But I can make the changes and bring it back. All right. Thank you, Ms. George. Are we good? Okay. Thank you. All right. I believe the next order of business, we have the Metro Employees Credit Union lease. Ms. Hamilton. Thank you. And we may be the second longest project after Glenda with Metro Employees Credit Union. If I may, please, I'd like to sort of just for those members who joined us this year to sort of catch you up on where we have been on this particular issue. And we started this issue back in late spring, and this goes back to our council ordinance to look at all people who are in organizations, who are in LFUCG buildings, and charge them a fair market rent. We have gone over this with the credit union, and we have had numerous drafts, and we started out at some very fair market rent standards, some very high ones that the credit union objected to and then their employees objected to. We have negotiated several times during the year, and Piper and I have become sort of very dear friends through these negotiations. And I think that where we are now and what we will bring to you, not today but in the very near future, is I think we have decided on what you saw the last time, and that was a five-year lease with a credit union that took this rent up gradually and had them pay for their utilities. But in the conversations with that particular credit union lease, several members of the council said, is there any agreement? Is there any PSA? Is there any MOU with the credit union and LFUCG? And we found out through legal that, no, there has never been. And I think that's been a, what, 40-year history? It has never been. I can't. 72 minutes. And that would outline exactly what the credit union offers to the employees of LFUCG and what LFUCG does for the credit union. And what LFUCG does for the credit union, and I certainly don't mean to be describing this as a one-sided deal, but what LFUCG does for the credit union are some financial things. and they involve basically preparing certain documents so that credit union, those LFUCG employees that are credit union members really have access to their funds the day before the rest of the employees do. In order to have full disclosure of that, that has to be done by the finance people. and the Department of Finance. We had, the vice mayor had convened a meeting with us, and the commissioner of finance at that time, Jane Driscoll, was going to prepare that. Jane, as you all well know, had a million issues on her plate before her departure. She took care of a lot of those, but she did not get to this one. Bill O'Meara just walked into that spot and has not had time to get this MOU done yet. So consequently, what we're doing right now is they've already started the meetings. We will prepare an MOU. We will go back and make sure that we don't want to do this just with LFUCG. We need to make sure that the credit union is in agreement with what we are going to present to you all. And so hopefully in April that what we could do would bring you back a lease and a memorandum of understanding between the credit union and LFUCG that could be one that at least you would know, and the council would be the ultimate decider of this, that you would know that we are on the same page. So that is our plan, if we can please do that. Piper, do you? Chair, I'm sorry. The Vice Chair recognizes Mr. Beard. Thank you, Chair. Is this in-depth, the MOU, in-depth as to what services are provided to the employees? by the credit union and who controls what is on that list of services, what happens if the MOU is executed and then three months from now there is a service that other credit unions are doing that they would like to add. How would that work? I mean, we can't be in a position, I don't think, to dictate what the credit union does as it relates to their own business. They are a separate entity. I think your point is very well taken, Council Member Beard, and we would not want to get to an MOA that does that, that restricts them. I think what we would do would be to come in very broad terms so that the credit union certainly can respond in a businesslike way to daily changes that they need to make. So we would not be that restrictive, and we will make sure that MOU is not that way. We see the MOU before it's executed? Oh, certainly. Okay. Certainly. And what our plans would be is at that next meeting, we've talked about the lease so much. I think the MOU would be where we would review the lease with you, but the MOU would be where we would really concentrate with you on that next meeting. And there you will see what happens from LFUCG's point, and we'll get down on paper what has been the relationship for years. but we will bring that back to you. Yes, sir. Thank you very much. Thank you, Chair. Do we have any other comments or questions? I'd like to ask a question. Recognize Mr. Clark. Sally, I've heard about this, but I don't really know a whole lot about it, but how does this compare to agreements with other units that are using our facilities? What we have been doing through this last year is we have been coming in with rental agreements, and that's where we started with the credit union, and that we would do fair market value, and then we would propose what we thought would be the right cost for that. And so we have done that. But in that conversation, several council people asked the fact of, well, you know, we usually have a memorandum of agreement or a PSA with an entity that is providing services to our employees or we're providing something to that entity. And then the light bulb suddenly went off and everybody said, well, we don't. So that's how we've gotten to that. The rental agreement is what we've been doing with all the agencies, that MOU is the real difference. Okay. And we should have it. Yeah, I understand. Thank you. Thank you. Do we have any other questions? Okay, I guess we're moving on then to Chris. I'm sorry, Mr. Ford. Thank you, Chair. Sally, thank you for your update of us, and we look forward to getting this report. It sounds that there's been progress made in working with Piper and members of the credit union. I guess I just have a question in regards to the MOU moving past the negotiated lease rate that's in line with our facility usage policy. But the formality of an MOU I think is probably appropriate, probably more so than a PSA. I'm wondering, Will, to help defray some of the costs of the credit union, but also will such an MOU perhaps better define or highlight some of the perhaps benefits that they offer to potential employees and family members, their eligible population of who can be members of the credit union. I don't know if you can speak to that or maybe Piper can speak to that, but what are your thoughts in regards to a true benefit, not just our requirement from the council that an MOU be in place, but the practical application and benefit their own one? This is what I envision from being the non-lawyer, and David Barbary is going to be working on this, But what I would envision in this from Piper's side, from the credit union, is that we would reiterate those benefits and put those benefits down on paper, but not do, because I think Council Member Beard had a really good point here. And in reiterating those benefits and pluses, we don't want a restrictor and say, if you want to offer something else, you're restricted to this MOU. So we would want to do that. I think that MOU would read the fact of the credit union provides, dot, dot, dot, and LFUCG provides. Now, the reason why it takes so long and why we've had such problems with this is because we need to be careful in the writing of that. Would you agree? Yeah. I'd just like to add, for me personally, it's been 73 years, the relationship between the city and the credit union. And although there hasn't been a written agreement on the city side, our charter says that we can only serve city employees. So being rent-free for 73 years, we've always had the commitment and the partnership. For me, the agreement still solidifies that relationship and that partnership, even though we're now paying rent. And so I just need to know that that partnership still exists going forward, and that's why the agreement is so important to me. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, guys, for your responses. All right. Thank you. We look forward to April. I believe next on the agenda. Oh, I'm sorry. Mr. Beard. Piper, before you leave, please. We tried to catch you. You left the microphone. Someone who is an employee for some extended length of time, whatever that might be, and leaves of their own volition, or maybe not even with their own volition, but they can continue to be members? Absolutely. I mean, once you're a member, always a member, is what other credit unions have always said. Correct. Now, if they close their account when they leave, they cannot come back and reopen. Right, I understand that. But the same account, I'm a person that has done that, in fact, and have had an account with Members Heritage for 20-some-odd years, actually. Okay, I just want to be sure that we don't get down to as fine a line in the MOU, that there is not common sense flexibility in how you do business. I appreciate that. I think that's an excellent point. Being very new to this process, I don't even know what to expect. So once I see the first draft, then I'll keep that in mind. Us too. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Vice Mayor Gordon. Thank you, Madam Chair. Piper. Well, first of all, Sally, Commissioner Hamilton, I want to thank you for your work on this. I think it's going to get us to a better place. Council Member Beard brought up something that sparked a question. And now, I know in the past we talked about family members being able to be members of the credit union. How far out does that go? What kinds of family members? Can it be your second cousin once removed or just immediate family? It is immediate family. So children or spouse? Correct. Now, actually, at one point, I think it mirrored LFUCG's funeral leave policy. And I apologize, I don't have that handy, but it was real similar to that. So it was grandparents and it's grandchildren, but it doesn't go out to, you know, cousins. Sisters and brothers? Sisters and brothers are included. Can be, like if I were a member as an employee, could my sisters and brothers? Yes. And even though they live in other states and have? Okay. That doesn't happen very often. Right. because of the convenience factor, but yes, that is correct. Okay. All right. Thank you very much. Thank you. All right. If there's no other questions or comments, thank you all. Website linking policy, I believe Keith Horn is here for Mr. Shapiro. Scott couldn't be here today. I didn't realize this was on your agenda until yesterday, I thought this was done, so I don't really have much to say about it. But if you've got questions, I'm happy to try to answer them. I think that Scott and Scott put this together. I worked with Scott on some language. We incorporated nearly everything that the council commented on last year. All right. I believe Vice Mayor Gordon has some comments. Thank you. Thank you, Keith. I think it's not finished, is my perception. And there were some questions that have come up among different folks who've been looking at this. If we go back to the November 13th summary, and I know that council members don't necessarily have that here, and you may not have that here, there is a list at the top of page 3 of the November 13th summary of recommendations from Council Member Martin. And we weren't really, some of us were not certain that we found those changes in the most recent draft. Oh, okay. I think Jonathan's going to put that on the Elmo. And it may not be something you can answer today, realizing this goes back to November, but it has been discussed in two different meetings, and I know suggestions came forward in both meetings. And we wanted to be sure that the November suggestions were incorporated, so it might take some further work, I think. It's the six bullets at the top that are the question marks as to whether they've been incorporated into the latest draft. so I don't know if you know this off the top of your head but I would certainly think we could look at it next month and ask that those suggestions be incorporated for us to look at the new changes I would have to look at it with Scott to see if he had incorporated those the notes I have indicated from Scott all of the suggestions had been incorporated, but I don't know if exactly those have been or not. Okay. Those are the ones that go back to November. And so I would appreciate it if you and Scott would take a look at that. We probably ought to be able to see in the draft where those changes were made. That's really all that I had at this point. Thank you. Thank you, Vice Mayor. Mr. Clark. On page 13 of the current draft, it says this website contains links to external websites beyond the control of the Lexington Fiat River County government. Links beyond the control is referencing links, I believe. Is that correct? And it seems like to me it looks like we're talking about websites, which, in fact, we're saying we don't have any control over. So we're controlling links and not websites, and I thought maybe a little different language there might help. You can see that. See where we are? I do. and I guess I'm a little bit confused. When I read the language, it indicates that when you click on this link, you may go to a website that we have no control. Okay. If you think that's clear, then that's fine. But I read it differently, so we can think about that. One other thing, if I might, under rollout of policy, do we need to make changes to the website? shall sign a copy? Adding the word shall. I don't see why not. That's what I have. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Mr. Clark. Are there any other comments or questions? I believe with the changes that we probably need to see, we'll probably bring this back next month. Okay. Just looking at those bullets, It seems like at least the third one, I think, has been incorporated. But let me get with Scott, and I'll get him to show. And if there's some problem with it, we'll come back and explain our thinking on it. Councilmember Lawless. Thank you. Thank you. it would be really helpful if Scott could be here and perhaps, I don't know if somebody in IT or whatever could show an example of what it might look like. In other words, you know, there would be a link to a website what would that look like if these policies were implemented? Okay. Philip Stiefel was involved in the original sort of conversations about this, so I'll talk to him about coming to the next meeting to talk about that in IT. Yeah, if he could have a visual for us or something, that I think would be extremely helpful to us and to the public. Thank you. I think there are already some links on there. I think that may have been partly what drove the idea that there needed to be a policy. That is absolutely correct. Thank you. Are there any other questions or comments? Mr. Horne, thank you. All right. Next order of business is items referred to committee. If we want to take a look at this, do we have anything, any movement? Vice Mayor Gordon. I just had a question about, Council Member Ellinger isn't here, but the franchise agreements, I'm not sure what we need to do with that. we did increase the franchise fee in this budget. But does anyone know what that issue is? So maybe some research could be done about what this issue is and what we're supposed to be deciding about it. Do you know, Scott? It's my understanding that the 3% to the 4% was in the budget, but it's never been approved by Council. So the 3% to the 4%, that assumption is the way I understand this, was in the budget, but Council never acted on it. So passing the budget didn't approve it? That is my understanding. It did not approve it. What is this committee, general government, supposed to do with franchise fees? Is this a budget and finance issue? I think it would be. I mean, I think you need to get some help from law. Is that the way you understand it, Jen? It is. That's what I just kind of whispered to them. Well, if no one knows any reason why we shouldn't do this, I'd like to move to transfer this franchise agreement issue to budget and finance. Second. Vice Mayor Gordon has moved. I believe Mr. Ford has seconded. All in favor? Oh, wait, I'm sorry. Ms. Akers? Shouldn't we maybe talk to Council Member Ellinger before we move it out if he referred it here for some reason? and then maybe wait until he's present or we can get an answer from him or clarification from him first. My thinking just is simply that increasing the fee is a financial issue. I'm happy to wait to see if there's something that's specific to our committee. Do you know more information, Scott? I would just point out that Mr. Ellinger is Chair of Budget and Finance. So it would be going to him. It's just been here for two years, so that's why I'm just like, Well, it was referred two years ago, so I don't know. That's not my thought. I think it was referred before we ever did anything with it, and in this current budget we did have the discussions last year. So I'm happy to, this might be an issue we can take off rather than refer, so I'm happy to withdraw my motion and ask Mr. Ellinger if it still needs to be in this committee. If the seconder will withdraw. I will. Yes, ma'am. All right. The motion has moved to be withdrawn and seconded by Mr. Ford. All those in favor? Oh, no. Okay. I'm sorry. Motion withdrawn. Ms. Lawless, did you? Okay. Are there any other items on here? It looks like several are still active, and Mr. Myers is not here today. So I guess everything else, it looks like we can just keep on committee. All right. If there are no other items, do I have a motion to adjourn? So moved. Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Thank you. I just saw him that he's not. Thank you.