# General Government Committee - March 4, 2014 > Auto-transcribed civic record · Committee · March 4, 2014 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/3270 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/3270?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2014-03-04 - **Body**: Committee - **Last revised**: February 19, 2026 - **Length**: 12,259 words > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed by OpenAI Whisper-1. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude Sonnet. Speaker labels and 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 convened on March 4, 2014, at 11:00 AM with Kay presiding as the meeting officer. The committee addressed four agenda items during the session, ranging from routine administrative matters to policy discussions and branding initiatives. The committee took six votes throughout the meeting and heard informational presentations on building security and wireless device policies, though no public comments were received during the session. Two items were formally approved by the committee: the February 11, 2014 Committee Summary and a proposal regarding branding the name 'Lexington,' while the remaining two items served as informational briefings for committee members. ## Attendance The Committee meeting on March 4, 2014 had nine members present and one member absent. **Present:** • Kay • Scutchfield • Gorton • Ford • Akers • Lawless • Beard • Myers • Clarke **Absent:** • Lane No members arrived late to the meeting. ## Votes and Decisions The Committee took action on six motions during the March 4, 2014 meeting. **Meeting Minutes Approval** [timestamp: 00:30] Scutchfield moved to approve the February 11, 2014 Committee Summary, seconded by Clarke. The motion passed by voice vote. **Human Resources Department Transfer** [timestamp: 10:00] Ford moved to transfer Human Resources to the CAO's Office after the FY 15 budget is adopted, seconded by Clarke. The motion passed on a roll call vote of 7-1. Voting in favor were Kay, Scutchfield, Gorton, Ford, Akers, Lawless, and Beard. Clarke voted against the motion. **Hazardous Duty Classification Review** [timestamp: 20:00] Gorton moved to ask Human Resources to examine the issue of hazardous duty classification for the Coroner and Deputy Coroner positions by July 1, seconded by Scutchfield. The motion passed by voice vote. **Parks Enterprise Presentation Removal** [timestamp: 25:00] Ford moved to remove the Parks Enterprise presentation from the items list, seconded by Beard. The motion passed by voice vote. **Lexington Branding Ordinance** [timestamp: 1:20:00] Clarke moved to move the ordinance on branding the name 'Lexington' to work session. The motion passed on a roll call vote of 5-3. Voting in favor were Kay, Scutchfield, Ford, Akers, and Lawless. Voting against were Beard, Lane, and Myers. **Meeting Adjournment** [timestamp: 30:00] Beard moved to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Gorton. The motion passed by voice vote. ## Contested Items The Committee meeting on March 4, 2014, featured one primary contested item that generated significant debate among members. **Branding the Name 'Lexington'** The most contentious issue of the meeting centered on an ordinance proposal to use "Lexington" for official branding purposes. This item resulted in a split vote among committee members, reflecting deep divisions over the proposal's merits and implications. The primary concerns raised during the debate focused on the financial costs associated with implementing a comprehensive rebranding initiative. Committee members questioned the budgetary impact of changing signage, official documents, marketing materials, and other municipal assets that would need to reflect the new branding approach. Beyond the immediate financial considerations, members also expressed concerns about the broader implications of rebranding the community. The debate touched on questions of community identity, historical significance, and the potential confusion that might result from changing established naming conventions. The split vote outcome indicates that the committee was evenly divided on whether the benefits of using "Lexington" for branding purposes outweighed the associated costs and complications. This division suggests that the proposal faced significant opposition from members who viewed the rebranding effort as either unnecessary, too expensive, or potentially problematic for the community. The contested nature of this item reflects the complexity of municipal branding decisions, which must balance marketing and identity considerations against practical concerns about implementation costs and community acceptance. The split vote indicates that this issue may require further discussion and refinement before achieving the consensus typically needed for such significant policy changes. ## February 11, 2014 Committee Summary [timestamp: 00:30] The committee reviewed and discussed the summary of their February 11, 2014 meeting as the first agenda item. Kay served as the key speaker during this discussion. The committee examined the written summary of the previous meeting to ensure accuracy and completeness of the recorded proceedings. This standard procedural item allows committee members to review, correct, or clarify any details from the prior session before formally approving the record. Following the discussion, the committee approved the February 11, 2014 meeting summary without any noted objections or required amendments. This approval establishes the official record of that meeting's proceedings and decisions. ## Building Security [timestamp: 01:00] The Committee received a presentation on building security updates during agenda item 2. Jamshid served as the key speaker for this informational presentation. The discussion focused on two primary security enhancements being implemented in the building. First, the installation of card readers was addressed as part of ongoing efforts to improve access control throughout the facility. Second, the hiring of additional security staff was discussed to strengthen the overall security presence and coverage. This agenda item was presented for informational purposes, providing Committee members with updates on the current status of building security improvements. The presentation allowed members to stay informed about the security measures being put in place to protect the facility and its occupants. No specific concerns were raised during the discussion, and no action items or decisions were required from the Committee regarding these security updates. The item served as a status report on the ongoing security enhancement initiatives. ## Wireless Device Policies [timestamp: 1:00:00] The Committee discussed establishing comprehensive wireless device policies during agenda item 3, focusing on two key areas: a general wireless device policy and a Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) policy. The Chief Information Officer (CIO) led the discussion, presenting the need for formal policies to govern wireless device usage within the organization. The conversation centered on creating frameworks that would address both organization-owned wireless devices and personal devices brought into the workplace by employees. The discussion was informational in nature, with the CIO outlining the scope and considerations for developing these policies. Key areas of focus included security protocols, acceptable use guidelines, and the technical requirements for implementing a BYOD program that would allow employees to use personal smartphones, tablets, and other wireless devices for work purposes while maintaining appropriate security standards. The Committee did not take formal action on this item, as it served as an introductory discussion to familiarize members with the policy development process and the various factors that would need to be addressed in creating comprehensive wireless device governance. The presentation provided the foundation for future policy development and implementation planning. This agenda item represented the initial step in what would likely be an ongoing process to establish clear guidelines for wireless device usage, balancing employee convenience and productivity needs with organizational security and compliance requirements. ## Branding the name 'Lexington' [timestamp: 1:20:00] The Committee discussed agenda item 4, which proposed creating an ordinance to allow the use of the name 'Lexington' for branding or promotional purposes. Clarke served as the key speaker for this agenda item, presenting the proposal to the Committee members. The discussion centered on establishing a formal framework that would permit the strategic use of Lexington's name in various branding and promotional contexts. The Committee approved the ordinance proposal, moving forward with the creation of guidelines for using the Lexington name in official branding and promotional materials. This action suggests the Committee recognized the value of establishing clear parameters for how the city's name could be leveraged for marketing and promotional activities. The approval of this branding ordinance indicates the Committee's interest in protecting and strategically managing the use of Lexington's municipal identity while potentially opening opportunities for enhanced promotional efforts. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approval of February 11, 2014 Committee Summary - **Motion** — passed (7-1): Move Human Resources to the CAO’s Office after the FY 15 budget is adopted - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Ask Human Resources to examine the issue of hazardous duty classification for the Coroner and Deputy Coroner positions by July 1 - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Remove the Parks Enterprise presentation from items list - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Adjourn the meeting - **Motion** — passed (5-3): Move ordinance on branding the name 'Lexington' to work session --- ## Full transcript ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ March 4th meeting of the General Government Committee, welcome everybody. I'd like to begin this committee summary. Do I have a motion to approve? Motion to second. Are there any discussion about the summary? All those in favor please say aye. Opposed? Same sign. That passes. Thank you. Next item is building security. And I gather we got an email from Vice Mayor Gorton that she was not going to be able to be here. But Jamshid, I presume you're ready to present? Sure. It would be a short one. I'm sorry. During the last meeting we had with the committee of the whole couple of weeks ago, I provided an update based on the number of items that were provided in a summary sheet in regard to what's been discussed, what's been implemented and so forth. I left the meeting with a whole lot better clear understanding of what are some of the more specific items that the council would like to see happening in a short period of time. And so we've started going down this road and trying to implement and put together some of the items that we were given a clear approval to move forward with. So today all I want to do is to provide you with a very quick update divided into two groups. One is on what we call current and short term initiatives. And then the next one would be what we have proposed to request funding for the FI 215. We provided a draft of an access policy that I believe you all should have in your packets. This is something we put together during the past three, four weeks and kind of put a few more details to it after the last meeting we had with the committee of the whole meeting. Primarily the policy pages three, four, and five in our opinion have been something that really have been lacking in our standard policies and procedure. That's in regard to, and it's divided into different groups, LFECG employees, the visitors, deliveries, and contractor consultants and vendors. The policy spells out specifically what are our expectations and what are the standard operating procedures for anyone to have access to the government center. Why did we choose the government center? I believe it probably is in terms of need for security, added security and so forth probably would be a very good facility to tackle. Because there are so many different issues and opportunities that we can take care of here. As I mentioned it's a draft. We would like for the committee to take a look and we welcome any comments, recommendations that you might have in regard to this. We also have forwarded a copy of the draft to the CAO office for their review and comments. Some might find them to be a little bit too restrictive. But to be very honest with you when we looked at other operations with other groups and other municipalities and government buildings, this is not really as restrictive as some of these other ones are. So this primarily spells out if you have, and one thing that all of them have in common is no one will be provided access to any of the offices in government center without having an appointment and having somebody from specific offices and workstations to come downstairs and accompany them to where they need to go and also accompany them back down to the lobby area in the government center. It might be a little bit of an inconvenience, but in my opinion that is probably the most important aspects of trying to tighten up who's coming, who's going, what areas they're going to and so forth. But we try to spell this thing out based on looking at what a visitor when they come into the lobby what might be their needs to be honest with you. Some of them probably need to have access to the first floor, some might be second floor, you name it, depending on if they need to go to the administration offices or to law for example and so forth. So it spells that out. I would like for you all to look at it and I would appreciate later on providing us some feedback in regard to that. Next item was something that was finalized as the first phase and that was installation of the card readers at the stairwells and emergency exits. There are four floors that were identified based on the nature of what they do and we feel like in terms of risk assessment those four needed to be done first and hopefully within the current fiscal year we're looking at some numbers and so forth. Those are the 5th floor, 11th, 8th and 6th floor. We've already have requested proposals and have received proposals for the entire building and it's going to be subdivided so as soon as we get an updated proposal for those four floors we should be able to proceed with issuing a PO and be able to move fairly quickly with installing those card readers. The third one was the hiring of an additional security guard that the council gave us an approval to move forward and hire. One thing we want to make sure that everybody understood was the funding and the position was only authorized and established just for the calendar year 2014. What it does is probably going to make it a little bit more challenging for us to find qualified security staff that might be interested in that job, that position. We currently are going through the latest registry that we have from HR and reviewing those to see if we can identify any qualified potential applicants and try to expedite that issue as quickly as we can. But that has been, as I mentioned, during the Committee of the Whole meeting, that being one of the positions that we have been extremely challenged finding qualified staff. We've been very lucky to be able to have who we got right now on our staff, but as I said, this gets more and more challenging every time. The next one was the installation of additional card readers and cameras for the back and side entries. Primarily those are the ones that provide access from the garage and the government center into the first floor as well as the access from what we refer to as the alley on the side of the building, primarily used by the staff to gain access into the building. If you remember there are two sets of doors that you have to go through no matter which one of those two points of entries you're going to use. And each of them on the primary side got a card reader. What we've already roughed in have been a second card reader for the second set of doors that you have to go through as well as installing cameras. A couple of the issues we've had in the past had to do with people just kind of sneaking in as employees leaving and then before the door actually closed and locked, kind of trying to gain access to the building. With this one we feel that it should take care of a lot of those items because even if you try to gain access, even if you make it through the main point of entry without having the card to gain access on the second door you're not going anywhere. And both of those cameras will be continually monitored by our security staff to make sure we don't have any issues there. We felt like at this point that is probably the best thing to do instead of restricting access only to the front of the government center. We're going to monitor this very closely and make changes and adjustments as needed. If you feel like we still need to move forward with creating one point of entry into the government building, obviously that would be an option. Right now you're going to see that we're taking a closer look at and see what might be some costs or operational changes associated with it. But at this point we're moving forward. It's already been awarded and we're waiting on the new cards to be issued fairly quickly. We should be able to get those card readers installed. Another item that we issued a PO yesterday was the installation of an additional controlled access door which would be primarily as you get out of the elevators on this floor to your right, going down the hallway, coming into this area and the council clerk's office, there would be a door installed, a glass door with access cards. That way we feel like provides some additional level of security. That way if you've got visitors coming up to the second floor trying to go to the revenue to pay for their bills, sometimes you get them where they get lost. They come out of the elevators and go the other way. I think this would probably minimize the number of people that are just going to be by mistake coming down the hallway. But the access cards that each of you have and the employees have should provide access through those doors. So if you're authorized to get in you shouldn't have any problem getting in and out of the area. We were asked to also contact sheriff's office and revisit an item that we did about four years ago in regard to sheriff's office providing some armed guard services at the point of entry into the government center. We sent a copy of the original proposal we had four years ago from them. As I mentioned the cost at that time was ranging between $250,000 and $300,000. That cost obviously was for two buildings because at that time we purchased two metal detectors one for the government center and the other one for the Phoenix building. We've asked if they could kind of take a look at their numbers and meet with us on site to discuss specific services for the government center for now. And hope to be able to provide you with an update hopefully in about a couple weeks in regard to what are the options, what are the costs associated with it, and what might be some time frame. The next one, these are primarily items that we have been looking at and have incorporated a lot of these into our upcoming proposed FY 2015 budget. They are specifically identified as fund items that we need to get funding for in order to be able to move forward with some of these. One of them is what we talked to quite a few other operations was installing turnstiles at the lobby of the government center. The one that you see up there is what they call a stadium express, which has a very good capability of having people moving through fairly quickly. Primarily it's going to be used by the staff and employees. As you can see it's capable of tying into our card reader system we already have and be able to give us an accurate count of who's coming and who's going and the number of people that's visiting the site. This is only going to be for those who have authorized access cards. We've been told that two of them will be needed. One would be pretty much what you see up there. The other one would have to be an ADA approved one. The cost at this point we've got a range of three to eight thousand per unit. That's just for the units themselves. It doesn't include the installation as well as electrical system and data system. We will provide you all with the final cost estimates on this. We've put a place order per se for our security in our security FY 2015 budget in regard to that system. We feel like even if you don't go with a single point of entry we still would benefit from having a system such as this in the lobby. The second one we're asking for funding for is upgrading the current elevator control system. As I mentioned before this is not one of those systems that you can actually identify how you want to make changes in specific floors. This is one of those all or nothing type just because of the age of the elevator and what are the options we've got available. Approximately $50,000 to $60,000. But what it does it provides us full access and full control over all three elevators on who is going to what floor and have access to what areas. So we feel like that overall would benefit the level of control needed for this building. Additional staffing we've asked for some additional staffing in our budget proposal. One of them is dealing with having been able to hire what we call a temporary permanent part time staff and with no benefits in it at this point. At this point what we've gotten a lot of our administrative functions are being conducted utilizing the security manager and or a couple of the guards that we've had. I feel like we can probably just get someone to come in and help out in regard to providing those administrative services thus relieving us of those type of duties where we can concentrate even more on expanding our security services. The last item which is an expansion of remote monitoring services, that's more related to all of the buildings that we are currently responsible for the security. So it's not just going to be specific to government center. It's going to be a lot of different locations, a lot of different buildings that we have that we currently have a security system in. That is an ongoing process for us and every year we review what's been done, what have been some of the shortfalls and try to make the adjustments needed to make sure you've got a system that's operating the best it can. As I mentioned that's just pretty much an update of what we've got. I'll be glad to answer any questions that you might have. Great, thank you very much. There are a few council members who are signed in starting with Council Member Beard. Thank you Chair. You may have mentioned this a little earlier but I want a little bit more in depth I guess. The two stairways from the lobby to the second floor are not going to be exposed to some of our other approaches to security. How are we going to handle that? We are in discussions currently with a couple of people in the field and looking at about two or three different options. The head of the security, Dave Pugh, he's got quite a bit of extensive background in security. As a matter of fact he's got a Bachelor of Science degree in Risk Management, Risk Assessments and Security as well as about 20 plus year experience at Toyota and a few other establishments. He's looking at a couple of other options on how we might be able to provide some control in terms of access. What makes it extremely challenging is because those are the primary staircases that provide access to this chamber. So we are looking at about two or three other options. There's another problem with people having access up to this level but the issue is trying to contain that just to the second floor and not higher. Obviously the third floor just because of the stairs continue to go on. We're going to have a couple of discussions with social services, with public safety as well as the purchasing to make sure whatever system we're going to put in there is not going to impede their day to day operations. But those are the items we currently are looking into. Well in many cases when we're having some type of an event whether it be a press conference of some sort, we might have two or three hundred people in that lobby. And what happens to them at some point as they deconvene could create a problem at some point anyway. And so that needs to be probably close to number one on the list of security items that you've got to deal with. This building is just a little tricky I'm afraid. Thank you very much. Thank you Chair. Thank you. Council Member Clark. Thank you Chair. Tom Chi, this is a good report and it reiterates what we've talked about before. A couple of questions. In the first place if we're talking about car readers for certain floors which is probably a good idea, what's to prevent people from using the elevators to do the same thing the floors would do? The stairwells that we're talking about are primarily utilized as a means of far exit and so forth. They're not utilized as much, especially on the floors about fourth, fifth, and higher. We feel like in combination of doing these car readers as well as putting the control system in for the elevator that is going to provide you, combined those efforts combined, going to provide you a much, much better control. But we have to start from somewhere. Some of the issues we've had in the past, and they have been minor, we haven't had any major issues, but a couple of those doors were used to have people who were just wandering around have access to different floors and so forth. We feel like by putting those controls at those doors, one thing I failed to tell you that on the first floor we are going to have those first car readers going to be on any of those stairwells. So if you've got an access card and you're authorized to use it, you have no issue getting in. Otherwise, you won't be able to find your way into the stairwells. And again, as I said, with the elevators being upgraded, the control system, I think that's going to give us a much tighter control. And all of the stairwells are going to get those card readers. The specific four floors that we identified for most immediate one are because of the risk level. But by the time we finish, all 12 floors will have card readers. I still think my question is even if we put the card readers immediately on these four floors, people still have exactly the same access by elevators. And the controls in the elevators are not scheduled until another year, correct? Probably. We've got the proposals. As soon as we get the go ahead on the funding, we've been told by the contractor who initially looked at it, told us probably would be about two weeks in getting the material delivered and probably another week for installation. So we can do a quick turnaround. Now I know exactly what your concern is. And that's one of the main reasons we put on our number one short term, the new access policy. Now the new access policy, as I mentioned before, we will not allow anybody to go to any floors unless they've got, let's say someone comes in through the front entrance and say I'm here to go to 8th floor. And this is all spelled out. At that point a guard will call, will find out who they have specific discussions with or meetings so forth. They would call someone on the 8th floor. Someone from the 8th floor will have to come downstairs. Pick up the visitors or consultants or what have you. Escort them upstairs to the 8th floor. And once the discussions and the business have been taken care of, they have to escort them back to the front lobby. Get their tag out and have them go. I believe that probably from anything else, that's going to have the biggest impact in control. Let me just say in a sentence that negates even the need for other controls. If nobody's going to be on our floor or any floor that's not escorted there and back then I'm playing devil's advocate here. Absolutely. I'm not arguing about it. I'm trying to clarify in my own mind if we have somebody doing that up and down then why do we need card readers on the floors or elevator controls? I'm a firm believer in redundancy and having an option B to be honest with you. So is there going to be additional costs? Absolutely. But I think overall long term when you're looking at the safety and security of the tenants in this building, I believe that's money well spent. So obviously our first and foremost line of defense and control will be the policy. But again, I just want to make sure that we've got some redundancy in the system just in case. Okay. And quickly do all the operations in our building have personnel to escort people? If their business is fairly steady, do they have the personnel that can do that? That is what we need to have some. That's why I said this is just a draft. It's going to be provided to just about every division that call this place a place of work. And we would like to get some feedback from them. There will be some issues. I can guarantee you that it's not a matter of if, but how much pushback we're going to get. And that's acceptable. But at the end of the day as I mentioned, this is something that's been overdue and needs to be done. And it's something that's done on day to day basis in all these other locations. Okay. Quickly, I'm still not real sure what the door here does for us. It doesn't prevent people from coming into the chambers. It just prevents them from going down the hall. Is that correct? Yes. Chambers by its function. That doesn't change. No, that does not change. It is a public place and it needs to be made accessible. I'm just asking what good is that door? It's preventing them from going where? Obviously it would prevent them from going down the hall. Other than council office? Council clerk's office, the caucus room areas and so forth. But that's an added security that we talked about trying to make sure that unauthorized staff don't get access to other areas. Okay. Alright. My time's up I'm sure. Thank you very much. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. Council Member Lane. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to ask a couple questions of Commissioner Reed. Hello. Good morning. Good morning. The first question I had, are you planning to have a capital investment estimate to put into the mayor's budget for fiscal year 15 for the security issue here? We will be requesting that of the mayor. Okay. And then you would also have an operating budget for the security personnel and all that. That would also be in the budget? Yes, sir. Are we going to use an outside security consultant once we get our system set up to review everything and see if there are any tweaks or enhancements we need to make to improve the security? We have consulted with outside folks prior to this. John Sheed's contacted them. I've contacted them. Obviously this will be an ongoing process. Things will change. If the past is any indication, you'll find things don't work as well as what you perceive they would. There will be constant changes. So the long answer is yes, there will be outside evaluation as we go. Wanted to start slow with smaller costs, building towards something so we can make changes as we go, not incur the heavy cost up front, yet enhance security services. This is a topic that has ebbed and flowed for some amount of time and I'm sure it will continue to. I like your strategy because I don't think we'll really know how secure we are until we set the system up to see where the leaks are in security. I'd like to just make a little closing comment on this. I think this is very important. Of all the government buildings in downtown, I believe this one has the weakest security system and that makes us the most vulnerable if somebody wanted to do something bad. Secondly, the cost of some kind of catastrophic issue happening in our city hall would be greatly more than the cost of the security system and I think we have to look at the liability and future exposure we might have versus the cost of the system. That being said, I strongly support getting the security system going and thank both of you all for your efforts on this. And it's a continuing balance between security for people here and elected officials and the public's access and we're trying to go about this in a step by step way where we achieve the proper balance. That's all I have. I'm giving you a minute and a half back here. Thank you. Council Member Scotchfield. Thank you, Chair. Obviously anytime you have security issues, you're only as safe as what you have letting you in. But we do want to make sure as the government body, we are accessible to the public. But at the same time, we've got 11 floors here of people that deserve to feel safe in their job. I do think that adding the card readers and having the access on the elevators I don't know how the rest of council feels, but if we have those safeguards in, I don't think that we need the added expense of somebody on the fifth floor. Because I think we will add the security in just on the entry level. So I think that's probably something we'll discuss as we go on. But in my opinion, that's an expense that doesn't need to be out there. But thank you for working hard on this and thank you, Chair. Thank you. Nobody else is up, but I have a question or a couple questions myself. First of all, I'd like to second what Council Member Scotchfield just said. It seems to me if we have card readers and controlled access from the elevators that a guard on the fifth floor would be not only redundant but excessively redundant. We can talk about that more. Second thing is my sense about the balance between public access and security is that the second floor is really the big issue. And that if we had, for example, no access to elevators on the second floor except by card reader so that nobody who got to the second floor could go higher. If we had the exit door out here that goes out into the hallway a two-way card reader. So if you got in here you could not get out except by going back the way you came. That would seal off the main public access. And then I know there are other issues. But it seems to me that would go a long way to providing the security we need. I also had a question about the draft policy. Can you say a little bit more about where it is and where it's going and when we might be able to look at it again? We submitted, I don't know if you've got it, Paul? You submitted it after the PAC was put together. So I forwarded it to council and council staff last Thursday. I guess it was your Friday. It's only a full page document. At this point it's primary focus is on process and procedures in terms of how we're going to handle visitors getting access into this building. And spells it out specifically for example with employees. Somebody comes in here and needs to go to the finance floor or needs to go to the law or needs to go to general services or what have you. How we handle almost like a manifest type of deal. From the point they get in to the point they get out of the building. It spells out what the expectations and requirements are. Since each is going to have different needs, we split that into four different groups. So it will be spelled out depending on the situation and the type of services that they require. At this point you're waiting for feedback from all of the people you've circulated to. What do you need from council and what's the next step? As I mentioned this has been also forwarded a copy to the CAO office. Obviously this more or less is going to fall as an administrative type of activity in action. But we would love to hear back from the council in terms of recommendations and feedback. And once we've had a chance to discuss it internally at the CAO level and the commissioners, what I would like to do is to make the changes that everybody feel like it needs to be the adjustments. Forward that to the directors who work out of this building and the supervisors and managers. Try to get a little more feedback from them because I'm a firm believer in having them involved with any of the new policies. And they will buy into this and we need their support to make this a success. So that's how the process is going to go. And we would like to get this thing expedited very quickly. I would really like to have something in effect by latest, by first of May to be honest with you. But I want to make sure that everyone has had a chance to take a look at it and reviewed. And we might have overlooked a couple of things. So I just want to make sure that we're aware of those. So does it make sense then to think about putting this back on the agenda in May? I could provide an update by then. As I mentioned, this is something we're going to push forward and move forward. We would like to have you all's input on this. But some sort of policy is going to have to be put in place and enforced. And I'm hoping by first of May I'll be more than glad to swing by and give you all an update on if there have been any issues or any kind of changes and modifications proposed. You will be fully informed of the final product and the timeline for having that program put in place. Okay. So you're aiming for the first of May. So perhaps come back next month. Not a problem. Okay. That makes sense. I had one other question. This is about the turnstiles. Yes. So that's on the first floor. And essentially if you have a card reader you'd go through the turnstile and everybody else would go to the security desk as they do now? Yes. As you gain access to the front lobby, obviously if you are an employee we want you to go ahead and move forward. There's no reason for you to stop at the front desk. Although we've discovered there are some other operations that require that. And when they do you're going to be creating a backlog. That's why the turnstiles came up. Everybody's recommending them. They said it's really helped out. And it's another point of control. Because if you've got five or six people up front trying to gain access, you're trying to give them the temporary access cards and so forth. Somebody might want to try to just sneak out and sneak in and so forth. We felt like that would really help us out also with controlling who's getting beyond that point and so forth. But just to be clear, this would not be for the public? No. This would just be for employees? We'll go through the badging process. Okay. Thank you for all of that. Now I've got a couple more people who would like to either make comments or ask questions. Council Member Myers. Thank you Mr. Chair. Thank you John for an excellent report. A quick question about the turnstile. Will it require that I use my ID? Yes. Every one of those will have a card reader that will allow you to go through. Excellent. When you come back, will you be able to have an update on the sheriff's numbers? So you plan on moving forward with all these things. You're going to push it out to your commissioners and directors to make sure that there aren't any big issues there. But then you're going to go ahead and move forward on everything? That is correct. And then you'll come back I guess maybe at the next meeting and tell us about the conversation with the sheriff's department? Sure. Excellent. Thank you. Great work. Thank you for your team. Thank you Mr. Chair. Council Member Beard. Thank you Chair. One other question which I forgot to ask the first time around. The previous session of legislature, not the present one we're in, but last year. They passed a bill about concealed carry and government buildings mandating that you cannot stop someone from coming in here with a gun. I would like to get some kind of a ruling from law about exactly what that means and under what circumstances and things of that sort. I could go online I guess and find it but by the time they get through writing some of those bills it's almost impossible to figure out what they're really saying. That would be a help to me and probably to you also. Thank you. I'd be glad to reach out to law and try to get you an update. Okay that'd be great. Thank you very much. Thank you Chair. Thank you. Council Member Myers. Thank you Mr. Chair. On that note could you ask one specific question for me and that is does the law allow or require, I guess really I want to know if it allows us to say to someone if they're going to come in with a concealed weapon that they have to notify us that they have the weapon or can they just come in and we have no idea that they have it. Thank you. I think that would help at least if you are aware who in the building or who in the chambers actually has the weapon for obvious reasons. Sure. But I'm not sure if the law will allow. State already have such a process and I will discuss that with law and see what if they would like for us to continue with the same one over there. If you have one and you have the right to carry it with you there is a tag that the visitor has to put on to let others know that they are carrying. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. At this point I see no other council members signed up so thank you very much for that. Thank you. I look forward to hearing from you next month. Thank you. The next item on the agenda is the wireless device policies and again CIO is going to speak to this. Welcome. This is a short update on two issues that we've identified and then give you a little bit of progress of work that has been done. First of all we've expanded. It's no longer just cell phones. It's wireless devices and there's an awful lot that has happened in technology over the last few years to actually do this expansion. Number one it's the cell phone. There's smart phones. There's tablets. There's the iPad and laptop. All of them with wireless communication. And so when we address this policy we're also going to have to address the policy that governs all of those devices. The second issue that was identified and maybe a little bit more complicated issue is bring your own device. I know when I started to work here in November I brought my Blackberry which is a wireless. I brought my iPad which is a wireless. And then I went and bought a mini iPad which is a wireless. All of those I actually use in my work. But how do we protect the information that is on there that is city information? That is probably the bigger issue. And so as we started to talk about this when you bring your own device how do we ensure that the information that is on there that is used to do your work for the city is protected? Should the device be lost, damaged or stolen? Which by the way can all occur. And it is with it is about this issue that probably we're going to have to do some work. And as you can see from the I think the handout you've got a one sheet in there. Those issues are identified. They're going to be part of the policy which means that if you bring your own device to work and you use it for work and by the way a lot of folks don't want to carry two devices. It is much more convenient to carry one. We are going to have a policy where we are going to be able to wipe the information that is related to the city to city work. That will require a policy that everyone who brings their own device to work understands what their responsibility is. That they will have to acknowledge that they are using the device for business purposes for the city and should the device be stolen, damaged or lost that we have the ability to wipe the device of the information that is related to city work. That's probably the bigger issue that is being discussed. As a rule we have not had any guidelines about who gets what issued. That's another one of those things that we're now talking about. What kind of device do you need in your work? Some just need a plain cell phone. Parks went out and got some crickets which is perfectly fine and does the job for them. There are other devices that are going to be used for actually gathering data and can be bought by the city. We're looking at applications that can be put on an iPad which makes it much more efficient than gathering the information on a paper and then transmitting them to some other device. All of those will require a policy. Those are to be addressed. So what I'm doing right now is basically outlining the discussions that we still have to have concerning this policy. I'd be happy to answer any questions. Great, thank you. Councilmembers, questions? Councilmember Clark. Thank you, Chair. Aldana, you say when we bring a device to work. I would probably be speaking for most of the councilmembers when I say most of our work on cell phone, maybe not most, but a lot of our work on cell phone is not here. It's at home, it's in the car, it's at meetings and so forth. So how would that apply to this policy? As long as you're doing city work, though, and you are using your cell phone, and physically it may not be at work, but it is your property, that we should have the ability then to wipe any city information should the device be stolen, damaged, or mislaid. So then I'm going to ask this question, and out of my own ignorance, how do you determine what is city business as opposed to what is personal? Well, most of the time, if you get emails on a cell phone or on a smart phone, we know very well because it will have an address that is a city address, Lexington, ky.gov. That actually, there is software available, which is, and I don't want to get too technical, can be put into, quote, a container, and then can be wiped. And yet? We cannot differentiate voicemail or messages that way. Okay, yeah. And I have to add that a lot of our business is between us and constituents. Correct. And that would be city business, but how would you identify that? Well, I'm assuming that if it's going out from under your Lexingtonky.gov email, that it is city business. I see what you mean. All right. And it is only that mail that actually we're interested in protecting. All right, good. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. Council Member Lane. All right. I just wanted to say I generally support your recommendation because there are many issues, legal, accounting, financial, employment contracts, HR matters, that need to be totally confidential. And for people to have those in their computer or their smart phone or whatever and be able to take that with them is not a good thing. Whereas things that are open records, materials like anything the council does is pretty much open record. Anybody can request that information. That's a little bit different. So do you need some kind of written resolution to get this moving forward? Have you already got the legal department working on it? You know, I don't know that we do. You probably know that better than I do. One of the things that I think our largest concern is that we cannot take a look at every single email, every single communication. We have to assume that if it is city, that it may contain information that should be protected. I understand exactly what you're saying. And frankly, if I left the government and you could wipe out all the correspondence in my computer, I'd probably be happy with that. Well, you know, and sometimes if a device is stolen or lost, many times people ask us to wipe out their own personal communication also because that actually protects them and some of the information. By the way, bring your own device is a phenomenon which is right now all over the country in every government. This issue is being discussed. People want to bring their own device. They want to, they're comfortable with it. They know how to use it. They don't want to wait for another one to be issued. And I think that that is going to be the prevalent preference as we go forward. That's all I have. Thank you so much for your comment. Thank you. Nobody else signed up at the moment. I do have a couple questions. The first is that on the agenda, in parentheses, it says cell phone procurement and Vice Mayor Gorton is not here. And I don't know if anybody on the link knows. I assume that that meant something about setting up a policy for what cell phones the government would not buy. I think originally that is how it started. I think that Todd was the owner of that originally. As it turned out, we decided that maybe this is a larger issue than just the procurement. There are other ways that we may look at it. For instance, right now, if someone wants a cell phone, they do go to purchasing and can procure an item. And by the way, that is totally paid for by the city. And then it is owned and the information on it is owned by the city. Sometimes that is hard to govern. But I think that when we're looking at this policy, we may also look at other ways. So for instance, right now, it is a cost saving to the city if we bring our own devices. They don't have to be purchased. But I think what we are more concerned about is the protection of the information on there. So when I look at the outline that you've provided for us, procurement is one aspect of that. It is. It is one aspect. Okay. Thank you. And now I have another Councilmember. Councilmember Myers. Thank you, Mr. Chair. A couple of questions. Thank you for your report. This says policy on here at the top. Establish a wireless device policy. This seems to be just the outline for the policy, correct? It is. It is just the outline. We have just identified the issues that need to be addressed. So the policy's not written yet? That has not been written. Okay. And will that come back to us at some point? Yes, it will. Okay. And then, thank you for that. And then, I would say on this issue, though, of procurement, one of the things that I've always brought up, and part of it was that the company you mentioned earlier and the contract that Parks had, one of the questions that I keep asking is, related to the procurement part of it, are we going to come up with a policy that says we do business with one carrier or instead of different departments going out and securing their own contracts? Because it seems like the economies of scale for the government using one carrier would be enough that we at least ought to look at that rather than just let individuals do their own thing. So here comes Mr. Slayton. Here comes Mr. Procurement. And I don't know if that's what the LINC or the Vice Mayor had in mind when they talked about procurement, but that's a question that I've had. I think that's probably the ultimate goal, because we do have Verizon, Sprint, AT&T, and Cricut, and I think we have 700 some accounts. Right now, we're pretty much using state contracts for all of those various carriers. And they do have pretty aggressive rates, but we do think we could probably maybe garner some type of volume discount if we had all of our accounts together. One of the ongoing issues, and we've kind of gone down this path before, but you have a problem with people have a contract for a certain amount of time, and it's really hard to get them all on the same renewal date, but we could do that if we combine those accounts together. So I think that's the ultimate goal. Okay. So you're going to bring that back at some point also? Yeah. And really what we do is we would end up, we need to figure out exactly how many accounts we have, what types of service we're going to have, and then we'll just put out a bid and allow all the major carriers to bid on it and see what comes back. It's possible that some of these state contracts, we may not do any better, but I do think by combining them, we'll be able to save some money, at least make it easier on us from a tracking purpose as well. Sure. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Akers. Thank you, Chair. Do we have a sole source provider for laptops and other devices, I mean, specifically like if someone wants an iPad versus a regular tablet? Laptops right now, we still purchase, we do not lease them, but we are looking at leasing laptops. Okay. Primarily, we've been doing business with Lenovo, and we've managed that off of certain contracts that are already existing. Now as far as procurement of workstations, we have brought that to you recently, so workstations right now are being leased. And what about like if someone wants an Android tablet versus an iPad, do we, I mean, are those all the, do we get them all from the same place? No, we don't, especially if it's bring your own device, they come from various places. We have right now, we are, we have been slow in adopting the iPads or the tablets for work, but we are now looking at some applications where the use of a laptop, I mean, of a use of a tablet would be very beneficial. We have not yet procured them from one place. Okay. So the city has not purchased any tablets for employees? No, I won't say that. Okay. But my point is, is that we have not yet have a whole host of applications that would allow for the use of that, where you would deploy a greater number. I see, I see. And do, for people that do bring their own, are there any employees that receive reimbursements for either cell phone usage or their? They do not. Tablets, wireless fees and things? Okay. That's all. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Myers. Thank you, Mr. Chair. People keep asking questions and it sparks questions I've had in the past. When it comes to buying technology, sort of like the iPads for one, I know when my office bought ours, the city was buying them from Tiger Direct. Is there a way that we can look at, we can buy the same thing, same exact thing for the same or better price from Best Buy here locally and support our local economy? Also it didn't take six weeks for it to get here? And then if something happened to it and it needed to be replaced under warranty, I could drive up the street and get it replaced and walk out instead of having to send it back to Tiger Direct. So as we look at these policies, can we look at one buying locally so we support our economy when it makes sense, particularly if it's the same price, and we don't have to go through six weeks of waiting to go through the mail and those kinds of things? Yeah, and I think there were some issues with the iPads in that if we were buying them from Best Buy, we actually had to go through the, I think it was Best Buy government division. And I can't remember if we did that for one that we bought from the council office, but I think we did that at one time. And it was still, it didn't accomplish what we wanted it to, which was buying it locally because you're really buying it from Best Buy corporate. The other issue with the iPads, I think, is that you're going to pay $4.99 whether you get it at Best Buy. The price is the same. It's something that I think we need to consider. Another problem related to that, Council Member Myers, is the ProCard limit of $1,000. If you get over that, then we're looking at a PO, so then you've got to consider, is this company going to take a PO? And then that can be a whole other set of issues. There's things we can do to look at it, but it's probably not ironed out just yet. Well, as we put that policy together, because I think with the technology changing the way it is, we probably ought to change that limit from $1,000 to a different number to make sure that we can buy the things that the government wants to buy. You're right, we did buy that through, and the police department has that contract already set up with Best Buy business, but you still pick it up at the local. And if you have, it didn't come in the mail, I still went to Best Buy local and picked it up. And then if there's an issue, you still go back to Best Buy local and trade it in. Right. So, I don't know, it just seems like those are some things that we could at least... And again, I think we haven't purchased that many iPads that we turned it into a full-blown contract, so we're kind of finding whatever the best deal is at the time, and that may be a viable source going forward. And if we do a larger bid for mobile devices, I think that would be a part of, you know, iPads would be on that list, and then we'd get them all from AT&T or Verizon or T-Mobile or whoever. So, that may direct us where we're going to buy the actual devices at some point. Yeah, I think the big thing is buy local, and then not have to wait for shipping to replace things. Understood. Okay, thanks. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Council Member Clark. Thank you. I wanted to address Council Member Meyer's question about the price contract for... They came up in our link, and we questioned it because whoever we were talking to had their own deal, rather than a single deal from our government. So, every department was doing their own deal, and we questioned whether we could get a better price by having a central source. That's where it came from. I just wanted to mention that at this point. I just wanted to add what Todd had to say. If we go out with a bid, let's say to AT&T, Verizon, all the rest, all of those companies are now full-service companies as far as wireless devices. You can walk into any one of those stores and buy almost anything that you really want. And in many cases, you can buy them with additional capability, not just Wi-Fi, but their own cellular networks, and there are some, there may be some job functions that would require that. And if I could add to that, an iPad is an iPad, and wherever you buy it, it's going to be the same price because of the way Apple does their pricing. Where the difference can come in, though, is if you use a local vendor, I won't name any names, but if you use a local vendor, a lot of times they will give you at the time of purchase 50 to 75% off on all the accessories, so your charging equipment and all those things. And that's where the value really comes for the government. The iPad is going to be the same price no matter where you buy it, but the additional things that you buy with it, you can get substantial discounts by doing that. Almost every shopping network has a special on them about every other week now, so it comes with a full package deal. Thank you. Thank you. No one else is signed up to speak at this time, so thank you very much, and I only have one other question, I'm sorry, and that's about scheduling. Do you want to, what should we be thinking about in terms of having this come back to committee? I have a very varied group which has to come together, so it's been a little bit difficult in scheduling meetings, but I suggest that maybe around May we'd be happy to come back and at least have a draft of a policy. Okay. Thank you. We'll tentatively schedule it for May and you'll be in touch with staff if that changes. I will. Great. Thank you very much. Okay. Next item on the agenda, Council Member Clark, branding, name Lexington. Thank you, Chair. We've been working on this for some time. We realized that a lot of the promotion of Lexington is by the name Lexington rather than L-F-U-C-G, and so we were trying to make some provision so we could officially refer to Lexington, and there seems to be no real objection anywhere. Law put this together for us. We wanted to avoid any conflict with sovereign immunity, and this would do that, and so it's in your packet, and if you have any questions, I'd be happy to address them, and I'd like to move this to the Council meeting this Thursday, if I might. So you're making a motion to place it on? Yes. Yes. Okay. I'm going to second to place this on the Council agenda for Thursday, comments, questions? Council Member Lane. Thank you. Council Member Clark, you said we've been working on this. Who is we? Maybe I shouldn't have said we. It's primarily me and the Law Department. Okay. This is a very complex issue from my perspective because what we're doing about, what we're talking about is changing the branding for our city, and first off, it's very expensive because if we change to Lexington, then all of our stationary signs, trucks, vehicles, wayfaring information, building identification, parks, all that would have to be modified, and we would need somebody to serve as a brand manager for the city to approve all of the new applications of the name Lexington and how it's used. I would suggest that we table this and have somebody, Scott Shapiro in the Mayor's Office is supposed to be working on the branding of the city. I think before we vote on it that we have a report from him and what his plans are for branding the city. I'd like to cite the University of Kentucky as a good example of a very large entity like the Urban County Government. They've got all their colleges, schools, you know, divisions of government, and they had a whole myriad of signage on the UK campus, and seven or eight years ago, they rebranded the campus, and it's now managed by the Communications Department, and any use of the name University of Kentucky or their logo is approved by that department so that there is consistency. And if you think about it now, UK's signage, cars, vehicles, advertising, everything is coordinated. So I think that we need to notch this up another step. I support your idea, but I don't think we have enough planning in place that we should have, you know, go forward with this until we have a real program. May I respond, Chair? Before you do, I want to clarify. You suggested that we table. You're not making a motion at this time to table. Is that correct? Yes, sir, I am going to make a motion that we table this until we have a report from Scott Shapiro of the Mayor's Office on the branding campaign for the city. So moved. I have a motion, but do I have a second? I'll second it for discussion. It's been seconded. There cannot be any discussion. This is a motion to table. There will be no discussion. Are you seconding the motion? No. Not yet. I've got a point. I have a motion. I just want to know if I've got a second. I see no second. So that motion dies for lack of a second. We're back on to the main motion. Council Member Beard. Thank you, Chair. I guess I'm worried about something. There's 17 other Lexingtons in the United States. Alabama, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, Mississippi, North Carolina, Nebraska, New York, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia. Five of those are adjacent to Kentucky. And then there's Lexington Park, Maryland, Lyon, Lexington, Pennsylvania, and New Lexington, Ohio, just to make it a little more complex. Just putting Lexington out there without a Kentucky behind it is a problem for me. I mean, we have to be able to designate somewhere along the line which Lexington we're talking about. And as I said, we've got almost half the United States has got a Lexington in their inventory. I didn't know whether Council Member Clark had thought about the Kentucky part of it or not, but I can't support it unless it's got some other designation that's a little crisper. Okay. Thank you. Council Member Clark, I apologize. You wanted to respond and I got lost in that motion. So questions have been raised and the questions that have now been raised by Council Member Clark, if you wish to respond. I think I do need to respond because I want to make it clear, this is not a name change. We're not changing anything. We use Lexington all the time. And this simply provides us with an opportunity to put it in an ordinance that that's okay. We think about all the things that we do here in this city that are named Lexington. We don't say Commerce Lexington, Kentucky. We don't say Lexington Parks and Recreation. I could go on and on and on and have a whole list here of things. But all this does is simply gives us the authority to use Lexington as a brand. That's all it does. We're not changing the government. We're not changing the names of the trucks. We're not doing any of that. All we're doing is giving us the opportunity to use this as a brand. We call ourselves Lexington all the time. When you're asked where you live, what do you say? So there is no change of name. We're still LFUCG. That's the title of our government. We live in Lexington, Kentucky. And all this does is give us the right to say that on all our publicity. And when we're marketing our city for economic development or tourism or conventions, any of that. It just simply says we can use Lexington as the name that we are branding. And that's all it says. And so I think that answers the questions. But if you have other questions, I'll be happy to respond. Chair? Thank you. Yes, I thought council members either have questions or comments. Council Member Schuchfield. Thank you, Chair. I also am not opposed to this, but I guess I wanted to hear some more. Because Scott Shapiro had done a whole bunch of work on this. And I have talked to Scott. I think before we move, I'd like to see what the questions were. Why did he stop the process? I mean, what questions came up in that? A little bit more research on what, I guess, not research, but a little bit more of a report on what were the pitfalls? What were some more of the information that he came up with? And honestly, that you came up with. I think it's a great idea, but I want it fleshed out a little bit more, just so that we can see any of the problems that might show up. Because I'm sure there are some. I mean, I like to have the big picture. So that's where I'm hesitant right now, not because I don't think I'm going to vote for it in the end. I just, I think the more informed body makes us be able to support it and back it up later on. I understand. Thank you, Chair. May I respond? Yes, sir. I did talk to Scott, and I didn't realize Scott was working on this until I had talked to Law. And Law informed me that Scott had been working on it. So my contact with Scott was just to find out if he'd had any problems with it, and he said he hasn't. Why he didn't pursue it like this, I don't know, but he was very happy to see this. I will say that I do know that he met with some folks like Fayette Alliance, because there was some concern there. And so, Fayette Alliance folks gathered some people together that were in rural areas, farmers and so forth, talked about the concept. They had no problems with it either. So I just thought, well, that pretty well clears the idea. And that was one of the responses that the Vice Mayor had, was that a problem? And I understood that, that's why I went to Scott, that's why I questioned that. And he assured me that they met and there was no problem with it. So I thought that really clears up one of the concerns that I had to begin with. So, thank you, Chair. Thank you. Council Member Lane. Yeah, I would encourage Mr. Clark to invite Mr. Shapiro to come to our next meeting and give us a report on that. It's one thing to say that he's happy with it, but I'd like to know what the scope of his plan is. And this is an expensive proposition. We could spend $3 or $4 million in signage, stationery, business cards, if you start modifying your brand. And basically, when we pass this ordinance, we're sort of giving somebody carte blanche to do that. And I would even ask our own council members, if you look around our own council office, each of the council members has their own sort of unique stationery, which is not branding our community, it's branding them as an individual. And I think if we were at the University of Kentucky, it would have the standard UK logo on there. It's not some logo that we've arbitrarily picked up to put on our council stationery. This is a much bigger issue than just changing the name to Lexington. And as you said, we're already using it. So, if we're already using it and there's no harm, no foul, why do we need to pass a resolution? Why can't we wait until we evaluate it further? But that's my thought. Thank you. Council Member Ford. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to thank Council Member Clark for bringing this issue to committee. I know he brought this to the council's attention collectively a few weeks ago, but I think this is a good place to start the discussion. A question I have, and I was looking here in the audience, and I don't know if anybody from the administration can speak to it. This kind of goes before my time on council, but I think with Mayor Newberry's administration, I was still a staffer at the time. One of the first things that they did was kind of in line with what Council Member Clark is alluding to for years and years, and folks still refer to this government as LFUCG, the acronym for the official Lexington-Fayette-Urban County government. And that used to be our email address, johndoe at lfucg.com, and it used to be our website. But for the outside world, if you say LFUCG, folks will, what is that? It was really limited to local familiarity. And so the reason I bring that up is I'm wondering what effort was taken by that administration. And I support, now our website is simply Lexington KY, as Council Member Beard alludes to, lexingtonky.gov, and it's easy. Our email addresses are the same way. So my question, and I don't know if anybody, maybe we can look to it, was there a major undertaking to do that, or was that just that minute? Again, I think it was the right thing to do, but we're already kind of moving towards what Council Member Clark is saying. This would kind of just put some legislative support and intent and endorsement behind it. So I'll support it. I'll also go along with the committee as whether or not we want to bring this forward to the whole council. But I do recognize and respect the questions that have been raised. But I think in the end, we're already kind of going that way. We're Lexington KY. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Council Member Clark. Yes, thank you. I think that's exactly right, and that's the direction we're headed. I also want to answer Council Member Lane's concerns about funding. This doesn't cost us anything, Ed. We're not changing anything. We use Lexington only when it's convenient in publicity, which we kind of do already. I think I said, we're not changing anything. It's not going to cost us any money. We do refer to Lexington now, and I appreciate Councilman Ford's the idea that the email address is Lexington now. And so we use Lexington in so many ways. And let me suggest some ways here, if I could. I mentioned Commerce Lexington, for instance. And even in publicity, from Faith Alliance, for instance, they say, we believe that Lexington can be the model for affordable growth, etc. And Blue Grass Airport says that we're located in Lexington, Kentucky. And on and on and on. So the point is, we're saying we can use this as a brand. But we're not changing anything. We're not going to change the name. We're not going to change the documents necessarily, unless we just want to. So anyway, I've also been reminded that if we move this out of committee, Chair, we have to move it to the work session. So if we do move it, that would be my motion. Thank you. Councilmember Lane. Well, as Councilman Clark said, we're not changing anything. We don't need the right legislation to not change anything. That's why I look at it. We don't need this legislation. It's just another resolution that we are going to pass. I would also like to add that when the World Games came in, I just want to cite this as an example. We put up wayfaring signs throughout Lexington, had the blue horse on it. And my recollection is that cost about $800,000 to put the signs up around town. So we're not talking about not spending any money. If we decide to rebrand, there's going to be a cost incurred. And it's going to be millions, not just 100,000 or something, because there's a lot of cost incurred when you do the rebranding process. And it would be something that needed to be planned, because if you're going to change the name on the vehicles of your fire trucks, your police cars, your sanitation trucks, you wouldn't do that all simultaneously. As you get new equipment, you would phase in the new logo. We're already using Lexington on the police cars. So as you said, we're able to use it already without legislation. Thank you. Thank you. No other speakers signed up, but I do have a question for Councilmember Clark. Or maybe it's a two-part question. You say it doesn't change anything. What limits now do we have that this would address? And what does it allow us to do that we can't do now? I think the limits are, we impose those limits on ourselves. And this simply says that this is an okay thing to do. We're doing it anyhow, in many cases. But this simply gives us an ordinance that says that this is appropriate branding if we want to take it. That's what it does. And the other part of your question- Well, so, yeah, I think you answered them both. So my understanding is that right now, this ordinance, as you said, would not change anything. It would simply codify what we're already doing, which is using Lexington as well as Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government, as well as Lexington-Fayette, et cetera, as an appropriate designation for the city. Correct. It wouldn't require us to change any of the designations we now have on vehicles, et cetera, et cetera. That's correct. So that's why, as I understand it, you're saying it doesn't add any cost. That's correct. Okay. Any further questions, comments? The motion on the floor, do you wish to, I think you do, wish to amend the motion? Yes, my motion was originally to move it to council session, but it should go to work session. So I will change it to moving this to work session. So that would be next, this today? A week from today. A week from today, whatever the date. So the motion has a motion to amend. Is there a second? Second. I have a second. Any discussion on the motion to amend? All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? No. Can we take a vote on the motion to amend? Please indicate on your screen. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, that motion, thank you, that motion passes, 5 to 3. Now the original motion, which is to place this on the agenda for the work session next week. Take a vote again. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. All opposed? No. Again, can we do a, can we take an electronic vote, please? That motion passes, 5 to 3, thank you. One more item on the agenda, and that is the items referred. It's a fairly long list. If anybody has a motion to either remove or place onto our agenda, rather than walk through each one, does anybody have any motions related to the items? Hearing none, with the items referred, we'll stay as they are. Is there any further business? Hearing none, I'll accept the motion to adjourn. Motion to second. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. We stand adjourned.