# General Government Committee - May 6, 2014 > Auto-transcribed civic record · May 6, 2014 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/3347 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/3347?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2014-05-06 - **Last revised**: July 15, 2026 - **Length**: 18,689 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 May 6, 2014, at 11:00 a.m., with Kay presiding. During the meeting, the committee addressed four agenda items, heard eight public comments, and took one vote. The committee approved the Neighborhood Parks Task Force item presented by Henson and approved Items Referred. Two informational presentations were also received: Wireless Device Policies (Cell Phone Procurement) presented by Links and Gorton, and a Branding the name 'Lexington' Update presented by Clarke. ## Attendance The following individuals were present at the meeting on May 6, 2014: * Kay * Scutchfield * Gorton * Ford * Akers * Lawless * Beard * Myers * Clarke * Lane No absences or late arrivals were recorded. ## Votes and Decisions A motion to approve the creation and implementation of a barring policy by the Division of Parks and Recreation applicable to all parks of the Lexington Fayette Urban County Government was presented by Scutchfield and seconded by Lane [timestamp: 00:51:12]. The motion passed by roll call vote with the following results: **Ayes (5):** Kay, Scutchfield, Ford, Akers, Clarke **Nays (2):** Myers, Beard **Abstentions:** None The barring policy for all parks under the Lexington Fayette Urban County Government was approved and will be implemented by the Division of Parks and Recreation. ## Public Comment Council members addressed two primary topics during the meeting: a parks barring policy and a city rebranding initiative. **Parks Barring Policy** Council Member Beard raised concerns about the policy's implementation, criticizing it as insufficiently safeguarded and questioning how officers would identify barred individuals in parks [timestamp: 00:27:15]. Council Member Henson emphasized that the policy aims to protect community members in parks where criminal activity has created safety concerns [timestamp: 00:32:53]. Council Member Myers expressed concern that the barring policy could be misapplied to non-criminal behavior and questioned its fairness, advocating instead for proactive programming over punitive measures [timestamp: 00:52:14]. Council Member Lane supported the policy but urged the Parks Department to frame signage positively to avoid creating a perception of park insecurity [timestamp: 00:53:51]. **Branding Initiative** Council Member Ford questioned whether the city should adopt a symbol not traditionally associated with government and expressed concern about the seal's role in the rebranding effort [timestamp: 01:50:49]. Vice Mayor Gorton supported the Blue Horse as a symbol of Lexington's unique blend of urban and rural identity and emphasized its potential to unify city branding [timestamp: 01:56:14]. Council Member Scutchfield voiced concern that the rebranding effort would be more expensive than communicated and could grow too large in scope [timestamp: 01:55:42]. Council Member Lane supported the Blue Horse as a unifying brand but raised concerns about printing costs and recommended hiring a brand manager to maintain integrity [timestamp: 02:00:41]. ## Contested Items The meeting included two items that generated significant disagreement among council members. **Parks Barring Policy** This policy became a point of contention due to concerns about its fairness and implementation. Council Members Myers and Beard opposed the measure, raising questions about due process protections and the potential for over-policing. Supporters of the policy argued it was essential for community safety. The debate centered on whether the policy represented a necessary tool for protecting public spaces or constituted an overreach of government authority. **Branding the Name 'Lexington'** A proposal to replace the city seal with the Blue Horse generated heated discussion among council members. Council Members Beard and Ford criticized the proposed horse symbol, questioning both its appearance and its appropriateness as a government symbol. They expressed concerns about using a horse to represent the city officially. Other council members supported the rebranding effort, viewing the Blue Horse as a modern and unifying symbol for the community. The disagreement reflected broader questions about how the city should present itself and what imagery best represents its identity. ## Neighborhood Parks Task Force – Henson [timestamp: 00:04:36] The Neighborhood Parks Task Force presented three recommendations to address safety and programming concerns in city parks. **Presentations and Recommendations** The task force, led by Henson, outlined the following proposals: - **Parks Barring Policy**: A policy to bar individuals engaged in persistent or illegal behavior from park facilities - **Opportunity Park Plan**: A proactive initiative designed to address parks identified as having safety concerns - **SAFE Parks Program**: An effort to increase family-friendly programming through partnerships with community organizations **Committee Action** The committee voted on the parks barring policy, approving it by a vote of 5-2. **Key Participants** The discussion involved Henson, Cooperrider, Daugherty, and Reed, among others present at the meeting. ## Wireless Device Policies (Cell Phone Procurement) – Links/Gorton [timestamp: 01:15:24] The CIO presented updates on the development of a city-wide wireless device policy during this informational agenda item. The presentation covered policy development for both city-purchased devices and employee-owned devices (BYOD). **Key Speakers** Valicenti and Slatin led the discussion on this agenda item. **Policy Overview** The wireless device policy initiative aims to accomplish three primary objectives: - Improve security across city wireless devices - Standardize procurement processes for city-purchased devices - Ensure responsible use of wireless technology **Scope** The policy addresses two categories of devices: - City-purchased wireless devices - Employee-owned devices (BYOD) **Process and Engagement** The committee was informed of the timeline for policy development and the stakeholder engagement process being undertaken to develop the comprehensive policy. **Outcome** This agenda item was presented for informational purposes, with no formal action taken by the committee. ## Branding the name 'Lexington' Update – Clarke [timestamp: 01:27:18] Scott Shapiro presented the city's branding initiative to adopt the Blue Horse as a unifying symbol for Lexington. The presentation outlined a comprehensive effort to address logo confusion across city communications and enhance the overall image of the city. **Presentation Overview** The branding initiative aims to achieve visual consistency in city communications while reducing the number of competing logos currently in use. The Blue Horse was selected as a central symbol to serve as a unifying element for Lexington's brand identity. **Development Process** The initiative was developed with substantial input from city departments. Shapiro reported that feedback was gathered from 23 department meetings, ensuring broad organizational participation in the branding strategy. **Implementation Plan** The rollout is structured in phases to manage the transition systematically. A key advantage of the proposed approach is its minimal cost, making the initiative fiscally responsible while achieving significant branding improvements. **Speakers and Outcome** In addition to Shapiro's presentation, Diamond participated in the discussion. The item was presented as informational, providing the council with an update on the city's branding efforts and the progress made toward implementing a more cohesive visual identity for Lexington. ## Items Referred [timestamp: 02:03:32] The committee discussed pending items that had been referred from other bodies. Kay and Gorton were the key speakers during this portion of the meeting. A motion was brought forward to remove the Neighborhood Parks Task Force from the committee's docket. The motion was approved without opposition. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (5-2): Motion to approve the creation and implementation of a barring policy by the Division of Parks and Recreation applicable to all parks of the Lexington Fayette Urban County Government --- ## Full transcript Music guitar solo Thank you. guitar solo guitar solo guitar solo guitar solo Good morning, everybody. It's 11 o'clock. We'll get started. Welcome to the May 6th meeting of the General Government Committee. The first item on the agenda is approval of the committee summary. Do we have a motion? Move approval. Second. A motion and a second. Any discussion on the motion? Hearing none, that will be approved without objection. Next item on the agenda is Neighborhood Parks Task Force. Council Member Henson. Want to kick this off? Thank you, Chair. And I appreciate the committee for hearing this item. We have a presentation to give committee members a better understanding of the Neighborhood Task Force recommendations. And I'm not sure who's going to kick it off. Maybe Chris Cooperrider with Parks and Rec. Thank you, Chris. Thank you. On behalf of the Division of Parks and Recreation, I'd like to thank Councilmembers for allowing us to participate on the Council's Neighborhood Parks Task Force. I'd especially like to thank Councilmember Gordon for creating the task force and working with us, Councilmember Henson for her leadership of the task force, and Councilmembers Ford and Myers for working with the task force as well. This task force sought input from many different entities, including the Department of Law, the Division of Police, our Parks Advisory Board, the Fayette County Attorney's Office, and the Division of Risk Management, along with Partners for Youth. The task force goals were to develop comprehensive strategies to make parks safe and family friendly, to improve the quality of life for neighborhoods, parents, children, seniors, and families, and to create a plan to identify and address when a park faces a decline of its family-friendly atmosphere. To achieve the goals, the Neighborhood Parks Task Force developed three recommendations. The borrowing policy is intended to help change a negative perception of individual park and gives police officers an additional tool to help us keep our parks safe. The Opportunity Parks Plan that seeks to engage neighborhoods to create a positive, effective, lasting change. and then to increase the neighborhood parks programming through a new programming model that minimizes the need of general fund dollars and only requires one new civil service position for full implementation. The concept of the parks barring policy has been documented back to the late 1990s. An effective barring model already exists in Lexington with the Housing Urban Development Program. The policy is intended to address illegal or persistent inappropriate behavior and will become a tool for police officers that will create more effective and efficient patrolling of parks. Many of the behaviors that create a negative park perception are misdemeanor offenses and require first-hand observation by a police officer to issue a citation. If an individual is caught performing an offense, then the individual could be barred in an effort to prevent the reoccurrence of the behavior. Barred individuals could be issued a criminal trespassing charge by a police officer, eliminating the time-consuming need for surveillance and patrols to catch the individual in that act again. A barring notice will only be issued by the Director of Parks and Recreation after investigation. However, a temporary barring notice may be issued during the investigative process. The barred individuals will have the ability to appeal to a panel composed from the Parks Advisory Board. If the BART individual is not satisfied with the Advisory Board's decision, then the individual may appeal to the Fayette County Circuit Court. The barring policy has a guidelines of 1 to 12 months for offenses that may include vandalism, fighting, arguments with officials, or violation of park rules. It has a guideline of one to three years for more serious or flagrant violations that put children at risk, including any sex crime or court actions taken as a result of park-based activities. It has guidelines that includes over three years barring for violent behavior, endangering others, brandishing weapons, or violation of rules that are intended to protect physical, mental, and emotional safety as youth, as outlined in our divisional participant protection policy. Notice of the divisional rules policy that may lead to barring will be posted on a sign in a prominent location within the park. On the sign, there will be a reference to our website and to our administrative offices so individuals can obtain a complete set of divisional rules and policies that may lead to barring. To speak more about the logistics of the barring policy and the review and approval process that the task force sought, I'd like to introduce Sergeant Daughtery. Thank you very much. Good early afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. How are you doing? I'm Sergeant Daugherty with the Lexington Police Department, and I'd like to talk a little bit about some of the logistics that we've came up with through the Division of Police, Division of Parks and Rec to handle this. Dealing with these sort of communication issues is not really that big of an issue for us because we've had a similar program for years with HUD and with some of the private landowners in Fayette County. that deals with barring individuals and handing out barring notices. And you may not know it, but the public library also has a policy that's very similar to this that they've been using for years. And sometimes we have to go with them to serve the letters that are notices of these folks. So the logistics that we will work on primarily centers around our communications and our dispatch. We have a section in the Division of Police called Central Records. and there's a sergeant in charge of that section that I've spoke to about this and he's assured me that all of the logistics already exist in that unit to deal with this. And basically they're going to handle it just like they do any kind of a HUD barring notice or a library barring notice. Division of Parks and Rec will send them the actual documents of people that have been barred, the list for how long they've been barred, and that list gets maintained by central records and is available to our dispatch. The way that works is if an officer encounters somebody in the park and they have some reason to get out with them, as we call it in our jargon, or actually stop them and question them about what's going on or even just have any kind of interaction with them at all, and they happen to run this person's credentials through our dispatch and they come up as being banned from that park or any park, then they could be subject to a citation or in some cases maybe even arrest for criminal trespass third. Like I said, we get all this information from Parks and Rec, and we would maintain the list. And that would be available to our officers through dispatch. Second part of this, let me find this, that I'd like to talk to you all about, is the barring of the parks policy. It gets approved by a division of police. This policy has already been approved by a division of police. It's been looked at by law. It's been looked at by chief administrative officers. A lot of people have looked at this and made sure that it's going to go through all the legal wickets that it needs to go through, if you will. I don't really foresee any problems on our end of it. The way we look at it is, for the police department, it's mainly a matter of records management and training. We train the officers to act as you all want them to act because, at the end of the day, we work for the public and you all represent the public. And how that policy gets implemented will be something that is left up to you. because at the end of the day, this still needs a recommendation and approval by the council on resolution before this policy gets adopted. So you all do have final say on how it comes out. So anything that you all are willing to let us do to make these parks a better place for families, we will do and implement with, you know, however you all want us to do it. Barring any questions, I think I'll be following Mr. Cooperrider. I do want to reiterate, we do wish to bring this before Council, the barring policy. It was considered to be a divisional policy, but it's really a community issue, and we want your input before we decide to, if we go forward, to implement it. So I want to make that abundantly clear. Chris, I think before you go on to the next section, I want to see if there are questions about this particular part, and Council Member Myers has signed up. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for coming in with your presentation today. And I understand what the goal is of this park barring policy. But I guess I have some questions. So we keep talking about public housing, right, and that thing they do. Well, public housing is private property. And it's different. their ability to bar people from their property is not the same as barring somebody from a park. And so I don't think that's a fair comparison, first of all. But secondly, how do you bar a 10-year-old from a park? And then their parents say, we want to go up and have family time at the park and play on the playground and all those things, but one of my kids is barred from the park. How do you address that? Well, first off, the barring policy would be applied for persistent or severe behavior. And I don't anticipate that a 10-year-old would ever be barred. We have rules in this part of the presentation about publishing our rules and policies. We're only going, not only, the rules and policies that we really want to get out there and publish are the ones that may lead to barring. In other words, we have rules in our camps. Camp Kearney is an example, no running. We're never going to bar a child for a run. Can you give us some examples of what you're going to bar people for? Likely what we would bar people for is criminal behavior. We have experienced activities, sex-related activities and drug-related activities and gambling activities. I would anticipate that those are the activities that would likely be barred. And discharging or branching of weapons also would be one of the likely offenses. So I guess I'll ask the police department if if someone does any of those behaviors that you're looking at barring somebody from a park for doing on a city sidewalk, what's going to be a response on a city sidewalk? This deals with parks only. Right. That's why I said it's for the police department. Let me understand your question, sir. So you're asking that any behaviors that they've listed here and they're talking about if I saw someone doing them on a public sidewalk. If it was sexual behavior, anything that I witnessed doing that they've listed here would either end up in citation or arrest, depending on the severity and depending on what the situation of the victim was at that time, sir. Right. But they'd be able to come back to that sidewalk next week, right? No, we can't bar them from the sidewalk. We have no conduit. We should do that, sir. Right. And so and that's not a trick question. I'm not trying to put you on the spot. I'm trying to juxtapose I'm a citizen of this community, and I do something that parks wants to ban me from a park for doing, but there's no other situation that any entity in government can ban me from. You can't ban me from a public sidewalk. And so you can arrest me if I commit an act of crime. I understand that. But after that, then I go back to being a regular citizen. The public library would be the exception to that. And they do ban people as well, sir. And they have a similar kind of, I guess, threshold. Because they have people that act out in the public library all the time. Sure. That doesn't mean the person gets banned. When it becomes persistent, when this person is such a problem that they're more or less impeding on other people's rights to enjoy the public library, then they ban them. And they can limit the ban from anywhere over six months to a couple of years in the public libraries. I don't have their policy in front of me, but that's my understanding of it. So it could be something as simple as a six-month ban, or it could be two years for up to there. But they have pretty much a threshold where this person has to be a persistent problem at this location that's basically impeding on yours and my ability to enjoy the public library. Okay. So how are you guys going to address people claiming that there's profiling going on and those kinds of things? You mean that this barring policy is being used as a tool for that, sir? Yes, sir. Well, the only thing that we have to combat that is, you know, we can only act on the behaviors that we see currently. But if you have an individual that has been banned for some reason, that has been through a process that, you know, several people have looked at this. It's not just the officer banning this person right there on the spot. If the officer sees something that he believes that person, he or she believes that person should be banned for. One of the things that I propose doing is that we actually can send forth that proposal to have that put in that system, but the officer does not have the right to say, bam, you're now banned. It's not like something they can throw on the person right there with any charges that they had on it. But if they do make an arrest, and it's one of the crimes that we talked about, they can certainly fill out the recommendation and let the parks and rec folks, the board that they have to look at this, look at it. But that board should be fair and impartial. It's my understanding. I believe it's made up by citizens. Citizens. It's a citizen Parks Advisory Board. And that was a key component of this barring policy to get through the Department of Law. And Larry Roberts, the Fayette County Prosecutor's Office, is that there's appeals process. And not just the Parks Advisory Board is an appeals panel. That's the first, but they can take it to the Fayette County Circuit Court as well. So are you saying that the Park Advisory Board is the appeal panel? Yes, the initial appeal panel. Yes. three members of the park advisory board makes up the appeal panel i'm sorry but there's side side conversation i'm sorry can we get this on mike what's the answer the question is what exactly is the makeup of the appeal panel it's three members from our park advisory board that makes up the appeals panel and are they rotated they can rotate yes okay thank you you're welcome thank you council member lane um thank you thank you chairman how many parks uh do we have in fayette county at this time 105 okay and have we had complaints from every one of those parks or is there selected areas where we have a concentration of problems We've had, no, we have not had complaints from all 105 parks, but we have had complaints from various parks that do represent the community, geographically speaking. If a complaint comes in, how does the police department respond to that? Do they, you call 911 and one of the, they'll dispatch a car over to see what the problem is? I mean, that would be normal in an emergency. Right. But, I mean, how does that, I mean, normally when they get a call that way anyway for an emergency situation. So how do you separate the two? I'm trying to get a picture of it. Well, obviously the first, like you said, if it's an active situation, we call 911 or ask that someone calls 911. What the policy contains is a reporting period of 10 days. Sometimes our own employees may witness a situation and initiate an investigation. There will be an internal investigation, and only the director of parks can issue the barring notice. So it has to go through an internal process to get witnesses to look at the situation and confirm there's no mitigating circumstances. The other situation that we anticipate is we may get calls from the community, complaints about another participant or another member or another park member. Again, it would go through the same internal investigation process to see if it merits taking it up to the director and with the recommendation of a barring notice. If someone ultimately is barred from the park and then they're caught in the park after they've been barred, is there a fine? Is it a criminal or trespass? Is it a misdemeanor? Is it a felony? I mean, how does that, what happens on that? It is indeed a criminal trespass, which I believe is a misdemeanor. That's right. Okay. Sir, that would actually be criminal trespass third is what that would fall under there. And what would happen to the person is based upon the situation. Criminal trespass third currently is one of those violations that we can either arrest or we can cite for. And generally it's situational dependent. If somebody has been banned and we catch them and they have children with them, we don't like to arrest people in front of their children if there's no need to. So obviously that person would be issued a citation sent on their way. If it's a situation where the person's going to be arrested anyway, that charge would likely be added on to whatever that arrest ticket was. Okay. Do you envision that there will be signs in the park saying that in the event of some problem came up that you could call 911 or call a phone number to get assistance? Is that how you're going to let the patrons of the park know how to reach you in an emergency? I believe Mr. Cooper was saying there was signage that you were going to take about what we're actually saying. We intend to post a sign in each park that's in a prominent location that provides a summary, because obviously the sign would be huge if we tried to publish everything, provides a summary of things that may lead to banning. The key is may lead to banning. The earlier question about a 10-year-old running across and breaking a camp rule would never lead to banning, so we don't necessarily have to publish it. But on that sign, importantly on the sign, this has been reviewed by law, we would provide our website where they could get the complete set of policies and rules and our administration offices if they do not have access to the Internet. So you would want them to contact the Parks Department as opposed to calling the police? Is that what you're saying? Not for emergency situations, no. Okay. No. The sign would not. Yes, the sign would include if this is an active emergency situation, call 911. Well, do you feel that if we put signs up in all the parks that people would get the feeling the parks are unsafe because we're putting warning signs up and you could be barred if you do bad things? That is a possibility. That was a concern that was discussed on the task force, and it was felt that the greater good is to minimize it, but legally we have to publish notice. And this was likely the way to publish notice and minimize that concern that you just expressed. Do you, instead of putting the signs in every park, would it be better only to put them where you've had a higher than average or high instance of problems? Just that, in that case, that would make me feel better if I was visiting there because I know that there's a program to respond. But if I live somewhere else where I go all the time and I've never had a problem, and then there's signs now in case of, you know, anything inappropriate, call this number. I would have to ask Law's opinion of this, but I would think if we experienced a behavior in a park that led to banning and there was not a sign posted, it would be overturned. All right. And do you have an actual number of instances that have come up in the last year? I mean, how big is this problem? How many, got any kind of accounting of how many problems we've had? We have a policy called the physical and verbal altercation policy, which in a way mirrors the barring policy, but it does not have the teeth to actually ban people. It's really a courtesy, you know, and it mainly addresses participants in athletic settings. personally I see about a half a dozen a year in my office but I know Ellen Bologna sees many more because her area and recreation works with it so Ellen would you have a number so maybe can you repeat I'm sorry can you repeat I'm sorry could you say that on the speaker I couldn't hear you up here we typically don't have more than probably eight within a year that I see and these range from anything and from everything that's an argument a verbal argument between right now there's two on my desk that we're looking at that's a verbal argument another one that we're looking at right now is for inappropriate behavior of a parent toward children in a t-ball game so I've got two on my desk right now over a course of a year we may have anywhere from eight to ten and the The range is very wide from just simple verbal disagreement that we feel we need to investigate and follow up on to anything up to anything that might be physical as well. But are you saying that you currently have eight or you just had eight in the last year? I didn't follow that exactly. It varies. I would say in the last year there were no more than eight. I have two on my desk right now. Two in front of me right now. Probably throw it for the course of the last year there's maybe been eight. Okay. Some years may be more. Some years may be less. Well, that being the case, it seems to me the approach on this should be if there's certain parks that are having a lot of problems, that we put the signs there but not everywhere because I think it would create a negative impression of that our parks are not safe. And then you keep a record of where you're having problems, and then you could modify where the signage program is located. I don't know, just a suggestion. I know you guys know a lot more about it than I do, but based on the number of instances that we've had, we don't want to discourage people from using the parks or feeling insecure about going there. I think that wraps me up. Thank you very much for your input on this. Thank you. Council Member Beard. Thank you, Chair. A couple of things. If a person is barred from Park A, is there anything to stop him from going to Park B or C, or is he barred from all parks? The intent of the barring policy is to bar from all parks. Okay. I would like to clarify one aspect about the current physical and altercation policy. It's the intent of the division to keep that policy in effect. So we would in essence have a policy that can address, as Evelyn said, could be relatively minor issues and we work through them. The barring policy is really intended for violent behavior or repetitive, persistent behavior. So an individual could be acting out in one way or another at Park A and then his little brother is playing in Little League in Park B. he can't go see his little brother play? That is a possibility. I'd say it's a certainty if you're doing your operation right. Sure. If an individual is barred, they would be barred from all parks. That is true. Okay. I don't know. This seems to be loosely knitted together for some reason. It just doesn't sit right with me. There's too many holes and loops that bother me somewhat. How, for instance, can the police determine in the middle of a park somewhere that an individual has been barred? I mean, the guy doesn't have a stamp on his forehead that says he's being barred. And you can't force him to have an ID because he's riding a bicycle. So, I mean, I don't know how they're going to be able to handle something like that. They can't do it by memory. No, sir. Primarily, it's going to be by complaint. If we have a complaint of this individual, we're going to go up and talk to them and try to investigate what the problem is. You can see somebody to death during the period of time that you go through a process like that. Yes, sir. But, you know, at the end of the day, are we going to go in and question everybody? That's not our practice. We haven't done that in the past. I don't foresee this making us do that now. But as far as, like, people that are there, if there's somebody complaining on them and the officer is called and he shows up and this person is still there, they're going to question them. You know, and through that questioning, if they don't have an ID and they're riding a bike and they're not required to have an ID, the person could lie to us. You know, that's Lord knows we get lied to a lot. But at the end of the day, it'll have to be one of these things. The officer is an investigator, trained investigator. if he finds out the person is banned from the park he could take appropriate action otherwise you know it could get away from us if it's not something that we if the person is good at lying to us they could get away it you know i'm not opposed if if we can again hold this thing together in in some kind of a a proper way i'm not opposed to the barring but it just seems like there's a lot of issues that haven't been nailed down adequately enough to suit me anyway. Yes, sir. I would like to point out that a lot of times what we're dealing with, the reason this would be a tool that the police would use in the first place is a lot of the things that they were talking about that we would want to address in these parks as far as vandalism, assaults, assault force, misdemeanor assaults. We're talking about misdemeanor crimes, but they're crimes that affect people who are going to the park. It affects people like you and I. When we want to take our family there, we don't want to see two people fighting. If that person has been cited for that or somehow barred, banned, however you want to phrase it, from the park, and the officer shows up, and this person, they've called the police because some activities this person's doing, yet they're not doing it when I'm there because I'm a uniformed police officer, this is one more tool to fix the problem. And that's really what we've used this type of policy in HUD and the library for in the past, is if the person persists in coming forward and causing problems, well, usually they're not so dumb that they would do it in front of us. But this is the tool that we can use to actually fix the problem there. And that's primarily what this would be used for. It's not something that I don't foresee us using as going out and doing, you know, aggressively using this. I think we talked about this in the parks task force meetings, that you would probably see a higher than normal amount of activity right off the get-go if this gets enacted. But then you'd probably see it trickle off to pretty much nothing, simply because once people understand that this is a power that we have and something that could happen to them, they're going to not play the system, if you will, as much. And, you know, I don't know. I can't – I don't have a crystal ball to tell you exactly how many we would have, but I think it would be fairly close to what they were talking about as far as the policies that they have in place for sports. I can't foresee it getting something that's used a lot. I could be wrong, but I'm just going off about 15 years' experience. That's pretty much what I expect, sir. Thank you very much. Thank you, sir. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. If you don't mind, George, I'll go to Council Member Henson, who's not spoken yet on this. Council Member Henson. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Chris. I guess I wanted to give a different perspective as far as the barring policy. I think we're not talking about a great number, but I think we have many parks in our city where there are people afraid to go to their neighborhood park due to drug activity, gambling activity, or just any criminal behavior. We're not talking about the parents that get in a fight over the t-ball games. We're talking about a park where a young man's life was taken, or you find drug paraphernalia or sexual paraphernalia. And I know that many of you are concerned about the rights of people, and I certainly understand that. But I feel like the people that live in these communities surrounding these parks, their rights should be looked at. I think I should have the right, no matter where I live in this city, to go to a park and feel safe. And I don't think we should allow our parks to be taken over by people that are there to do harm to their self and others. So I just wanted to throw that in. We didn't intend for the barring policy to be any more than that. So thank you, Chair. Thank you. Councilmember Ford. Thank you, Chair. I want to ask just a question. I want to thank the council and Councilwoman Henson for the opportunity to serve on this task force. I have a question for Sergeant Donnery. So just by comparison, how has the policy worked out for the library? I think in regards to our parks and our public places, we would like to think that issues don't arise, but the reality is that they do. And more so often than we would like in our parks. So just, although confined to a building, explain by comparison what happens at the library in regards to their policy. Like I said, the only thing I see of the library's traffic is generally when they issue a borrowing letter, it comes out on our email as well. And we don't see that many. I may see five or six a year. And generally, it's usually due to some sort of, there's two kinds. You've got the loud and disruptive person that's causing nobody to be able to enjoy the library. And then you also have people that are using the computers inappropriately. That's generally what I've seen come across my nose as far as these letters. Some of these letters go to people who have mental problems, you know, a lot of issues with some of these folks. But at the end of the day, as sympathetic as we can be toward their issues and their problems, their rights kind of end when your rights start being impeded upon. And that's where I think the library has stepped in and been pretty effective in having a good threshold where they're saying, okay, we're not just here to run everybody out. We want people to be able to enjoy this, and we want all people of all walks of life to be able to enjoy this. And that's the policy that I pretty much think this should take on the parks. All walks of life should be able to enjoy the parks until their personalities or their behavior gets up to a certain crescendo that it's impeding everyone else from enjoying this. And I think that's a valuable tool for us to have as a society to be able to say, everybody here is welcome until you break certain rules. And then we have to step in and say no. And as far as the library's numbers, sir, I can't really give you an honest answer on that right now. That's fine. And your description is very, very helpful as we have this discussion. So thank you, Sergeant. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Councilmember Clark. Thank you, Chair. I'm sitting here listening to these comments, and the questions that have been asked have been very good ones, and it's really clarified some things for me. I've read the document and think that we're on the right track here. And I think the comments that have been made have clarified that we're not, this is not a punitive thing. This is not trying to single out folks for any reason other than the fact that they are causing a circumstance, whereas other people can't enjoy the parks like we intend for them to. And so just in a short statement, I'd just like to say I think it's a really good idea. Obviously, some very good thought has gone into this. It's not a perfect policy. We know that. I can't imagine very many situations like this where we have a perfect policy. It's going to take some judgment by the police and by parks. It's going to take some fleshing out, and I suspect that we're going to make some mistakes, but I think it's the right intention, and I think we ought to look at this as a positive development. So I appreciate the work that this task force has done, particularly people who have taken the leadership. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. Council Member Myers. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I guess I'll start by talking about the library policy. And I think, again, the difference between that policy and this is that the behavior from which they're expelling you from a library is not illegal behavior. It's not illegal to use your outside voice. But it's inconducive to a library's function to have people using their outside voice inside. and as far as the computers go it depends on if it's illegal activity to do on a computer then that's a criminal offense that they would be locked up for so that's not what they're doing they're just using a lot the computer in a way that they don't want the computer used and so yeah I think it's perfectly fine to bar somebody from a library for persistent behavior such as that what we're talking about in our parks though is criminal behavior and so really this is a policing issue, not the same type of issue that you're barring somebody from a library for. So one of the questions I would ask is, when you gave the example of someone who is loud or rude or even hits a referee or that kind of thing, it would seem to me the appropriate thing to do would be to ban them or bar them from coming back to that sporting event. So if my son's playing baseball and I act out that way, I can't come back to any of those baseball games. That's not a reason to bar me from all the parks in the city because my behavior was I'm an out-of-control dad and it was specific to that situation. So but now because I was that way and I'm wrong for being that way, there's no doubt about that and that has to be corrected and for that I would I would do a bar for the rest of the year. If it happened next year, a lifetime ban because you can't have that going on But now you're telling me that I can't come back to the park for the next, if it's 1 to 12 months, according to this, with my kids in any of the parks because I acted stupid during the baseball game. And so I guess my question would be, is that fair? The current physical and verbal altercation policy, just because you get suspended or barred from an activity or event for a certain amount of time, does not mean that's automatically going to be going forward for a permanent barring policy or anything like that. We are still planning on handling those situations as we do now, based strictly on what happened at that particular park or that particular activity. So I will say we have in the past told folks, okay, you're out for six months, you're out for the rest of the season, whatever. And then unless, like the sergeant was saying, unless we get a call or a complaint, either from somebody else in the park that knows what the situation was, they call us and say, this person is not supposed to be here, they call us and then we have to deal with that. or they're doing something, that that person that has been asked not to be at that activity is, again, causing a disturbance, causing an altercation. The police are called, and then the police then are able to deal with that. Just because that happens and that situation does not mean that that situation is going to go automatically to the barring policy. If we feel like we've helped handle that, dealt with it, and are dealing with that situation, that does not mean it's going to forward and it's not going to keep that person from then going to their games. Okay. I understand that, but that creates another problem then because you're talking about if I got banned from the baseball game. But this policy right here, the first one says, violation of park rules, policies, procedures, disregard for integrity of the sport, disruptive actions, continued extended arguments with officials, vulgar and threatening language, fighting or attempting fighting theft. So I can get barred from using this policy for interaction at the baseball game. I'm not talking about this other policy you're mentioning. This policy right here gives them the ability to ban me from parks for that activity at a baseball game. if it is deemed during the investigation that it is severe enough for that. Right. And then once that happens, then I can't come back to the park with my kids for any other reason for the 1 to 12 months. The task force looked at the issue that you're addressing right now, and we have the idea that it's persistence. It's not a one-time situation. It's that persistence when you would lead into the barring policy. I understand, but that persistence would still relate to that baseball game, which then bars me from everything else in the parks. The barring policy bars you from everything else in the parks. The altercation, physical and verbal altercation policy does not. Right, but I'm not talking about the physical altercation policy. I'm talking about what you have listed in this policy. I understand. That would bar me from all the parks. And this was part of the discussion of the task force and what we tried to make a distinction of. And again, it's maybe not a perfect policy, but we intend to use our verbal and altercation policy for the circumstances you just described. Enacting the barring policy for some are very obvious crimes. Some aren't. And the ones that aren't, the word persistent kept coming up. In other words, as you mentioned yourself, if we told the coach or whoever it was, parent, whoever it was that had the altercation to cease and desist, and they chose to continue that activity, not just that game, but following games, then that would lead into barring. Okay, so you're saying then in operational purposes, you would bar me using the other policy first. And if that didn't work, then after I came back from that suspension and it continued to persist, then you'd use this policy? Yes, in the scenario you described, that's exactly true. Okay. The last question I have is what other cities are doing this? I don't have an answer for that offhand of what other cities are borrowing. I know we looked at. Did you guys look at that in formulating this policy? Yes, I did. In terms of best practice? Yes. What we looked at was the HUD program and library program locally since they were local. And we did look at state statutes to try to address the idea came up of a safe parks, not safe parks, but like a school zone type of program. Sure. So we addressed that, but unfortunately, through my understanding, I'm not a lawyer, my understanding through the state laws, we were unable to do that. Unable to do what? Unable to create a safe zone around schools that would apply to parks, a similar concept. Okay. Yeah, because some of the sexual activity is going to be taken care of in that regard, if more than likely. So can you, there's plenty of time before we pass this out. I'm sorry. Can I ask one more question? One more question. Could you follow up and do some research to see what other cities are doing this? See if there's any other cities. And then give that to all the council. Absolutely. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Thank you. Vice Mayor Gordon. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to thank Council Member Henson for chairing the task force. And I know that in the beginning, the reason that we wanted this task force and the reason that I appointed it is that there are some parks where the neighbors are desperate to be able to go to a safe park. That was the beginning of this. And I've listened carefully to Mr. Meyer's questions, and I think you've brought up some really good ones. I don't think, I mean, we vetted this pretty thoroughly in the Parks Advisory Board and actually asked for it to go back to law for some changes. And there was a lot of discussion about it. I think that when you look at the overall intent of it, the intent is not to go out automatically and start throwing down, you know, banning from the park. It's to look at the persistent people who violate the rules. It's like all of life. You know, if everybody played by the rules, we wouldn't need the police, right? But everybody doesn't play by the rules. And so these, it's my sense that these are meant to address the people who persistently won't play by the rules. I mean, this is what you've said. and so I don't really have a problem if somebody is disruptive banning them for a month. It's a consequence of bad behavior. That's kind of what we're talking about. This is how life works. You see the rules, you know the rules, you don't play by the rules, and there's a consequence, and the city would be saying, we want safe parks. So here's the consequence. if you persistently don't play by the rules. I mean, we do that as parents. There are lots of examples in life where people who don't play by the rules have a consequence. And as you get more into the one to three years, we're talking about stuff that, you know, Most people don't want people in the parks who are going to persistently have serious violations, put children at risk, or have sexual crimes committed there. I mean, I just feel like that's what we're talking about. We're not talking about the police going every day to these certain parks and looking for this. It's going to be people complaining. And I think it is, I know your task force looked at a lot of different possibilities. This is a tough issue to fix. And I know your concerns, Councilmember Myers. But I think in the big picture of this, it might actually make some of our parks safer, where people don't feel they can go right now. So just comments. I have no questions. I threw them all out at the Parks Advisory Board. Thank you. Thank you. There are no other council members in line at the moment, but before we move on to what I should have kind of recognized at the beginning as the more positive aspects of what you're bringing forward, I do want to comment. I want to follow up really on the vice mayor's comments. I happen to live two and a half blocks from one of the parks that has been most troubled I know for a fact, this is anecdotal, but I know for a fact that there are young people who have moved into the neighborhood with young families who will not go to that park because they don't think it's safe so they have essentially been barred they're excluded from the use of this public amenity so I understand what the original concern is And I believe that as with any policing policy, we have to be careful about how it's implemented. We don't want to use it as a big stick. But if it's used carefully and judiciously, I think it has the potential to prevent some of the worst kinds of behavior that we now get in some of our city parks. I regret that we can't, I don't think we can fairly single out certain parks and say you get these rules and nobody else does. You get the signs and nobody else does. we have to, as with a lot of legislation, we have to use a slightly broad brush because we have a specific target. But I really commend the work of the committee. I think this is a good move forward, and I would be supportive, and I want to, back up, I was going to say I'd be supportive of moving this forward, but I want to check with Peggy and see what she wants to do. But before we go to the rest of this presentation, which is more about the proactive stuff, I want to check with Council Member Henson. I know we have a resolution before us. Are you interested in having the committee move that forward? Yes, sir. And I think Council Member Scotchfield will make a motion to move that out of committee, since I am not a committee member. I understand. Thank you. And if it suits the committee, I would like to take that motion now, rather than before we go to the rest of the presentation. So Councilman Scotchfield. I am going to make a motion to... Sorry. Usually people don't have a problem hearing me anyway, but I am going to make the motion for Councilmember Henson of the resolution approving the creation and implementation of a barring policy by the Division of Parks and Recreation which shall be applicable to all parks of the Lexington Fayette Urban County Government. Second. I have a motion by Council Member Scotchfield, second by Council Member Lane. Is there further discussion on the motion? Council Member Myers. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm going to vote no on this motion, and this is why. As I said, the activity that's listed in this policy is almost all criminal activity, and that's the issue here. It's not, you know, if a person is persistently, just like the Vice Mayor said, we don't want people persistently doing wrong in our parks. But the way you handle that is through the law. If I'm doing something illegal, you arrest me, and you deal with me in that way. And that's what should be happening. I will tell you, I don't have these problems in the Parks and 8th District. And one of the things that we did since I've been in office is to look at ways to put activities in our parks, which is, I think, what we're going to get to in the rest of this presentation. But I think that's really the way that we ought to approach this is how do you make a park safe? And one example I'll give you is we put a disc golf course in the middle of River Hill Park. And before that, we had a walking trail back there that people wouldn't use because it seemed unsafe because it went way back in the woods. We added playground equipment. People came to the playground equipment. Ho-hum. But we put that disc golf course in there. That opened up the park because then you had people inside the park all the time, and people knew they were safe. It's not just that they felt safe. And so without creating any kind of policy to bar people that are doing anything wrong, we put amenities in that park that cause people, children and families, to come to the park and use it. When you have children and families in the park, then the bad apples don't come to the park. And so I appreciate what you're trying to do. I agree on principle that something needs to be done. I like the other way better, and so I'm going to vote no just for that reason. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Lane. Thank you, Chair. Yeah, I just wanted to say that I am supporting this, but I would encourage the Parks Department, when they do the signage for the parks, not to come across from a negative standpoint or more of a positive, this is a safe park. If you have an emergency or need assistance or there's something, you know, inappropriate going on in the park, you know, call this number. and that to me would be real proactive and give the appearance that we're on top of our game. And maybe not even mentioning the barring aspect of it, but I agree with Sergeant Doherty that this is a supplemental way that we can control keeping people out of the park that have been determined to be doing illegal or inappropriate things. So good luck. Thank you. Council Member Beard. Thank you, Chair. Eight lines here in the ball of what we got in the borrowing policy seems a bit loose to me, to tell you the truth. I wish it could get tightened up a little bit. I would feel better about it at that point voting for it as it stands now, no. Thank you. I had my own comment. Nobody else has signed up. I'm going to vote in favor. I think this is a very positive move especially in conjunction with the rest of the presentation that we're going to hear that is really more about what I think a lot of us understand is important is putting more activity in the park and making sure that there are people in the park who are using it and using it well so that it does not become a place that only attracts people who have less than kind of pleasant intentions, I guess, for the use of the park. So thank you all for your comments. Now take a vote. All those in favor of the motion, please say aye. Aye. All opposed, please say nay. Nay. I believe everyone has voted, and that vote passes 5 to 2. Thank you. Thank you for doing that. And now, Chris, on to the more positive stuff. Thank you, Council Member Kaye. As mentioned, the task force looked at positive ways to bring in programming to change the atmosphere of a park. and the task force came up with the Opportunity Park Plan, which is intended to identify a park that needs attention and effort to create a family-friendly environment. An Opportunity Park is defined as having a recognized void or need that has experienced criminal behavior or, more importantly, has a perception of being unsafe. Therefore, it presents an opportunity to enhance the positive activity and strengthen the surrounding community. The task force recognizes the opportunity parks to be a dynamic situation that may be unique and will require communication of stakeholders, identify park usage opportunities, and consideration of park infrastructure to achieve a meaningful outcome. The task force also recognizes the need to include the respective district council member in considering the designation and implementation of the opportunity park plan for parks within their district. A key and first element of the Opportunity Park Plan is the communication team. The communication team would include the respective District Council Member's Office, the Division of Parks and Recreation, Division of Police, and community stakeholders. The communication team, along with the proposed newly created Safe Parks Program Supervisor, will develop vested community leaders to help serve on an activity board to bring positive leisure service programs to the park. Community leaders would also help identify infrastructure and park amenity needs, work with the Division of Police, help monitor and keep a pulse on the park to communicate with the divisions of park and police. This team will help develop possible solutions tailored to meet the needs of the neighborhood and their park. The second element of the Opportunity Park will consider the condition of infrastructure and its impact on the parks perception. Sometimes new infrastructure or amenities may be added that support increased park usage and adds to the park security. It's the task force belief that an active busy park encourages a family-friendly atmosphere. Amenities identified in an Opportunity Park will be added to the division's capital improvement request under our existing heading of health and safety category. While the Opportunity Park Plan is currently in a pilot stage and resources are needed for full implementation, the mayor's proposed budget does include our brick-and-mortar dugout replacement program which is funded at $150,000. The third element to the Opportunity Park Plan is to increase positive usage of the park. The task force created the program's strategies for accessible and Family Engaged Park also referenced as Safe Parks Program. The Safe Parks Program is in the pilot stage and will need funding as mentioned for a program supervisor position before we can achieve full implementation. To speak more about the Safe Parks Program I'd like to ask Reed Small who works with the division and is actively engaged in the pilot program to share more about it. Reed? Safe Parks. Strategies for accessible and family-engaged parks, Safe Parks, is a new model of providing leisure programming. Safe Parks identifies third-party service providers that demonstrate the ability and the passion for sharing talents and connecting with the community. A service provider could be an individual, instructor, organization, business, or volunteer. here. Safe Park seeks and identifies local community leaders to increase and lead programming initiatives in their neighborhood park. Safe Park's goal is to listen to the needs of citizens and provide communities with programming of their choice. To help achieve Safe Park's goals, the Division of Parks and Recreation will require a percentage of scholarships offered to participants rather than charging third-party service providers. Safe Parks facilitates partnerships with three identified groups. First, the service providers. Service providers will have demonstrated the ability to be a trainer, instructor, or educator. The third-party service providers will be approved by the Safe Parks supervisor through background checks, confirmation of liability insurance, established fee structure, and the proven ability to lead programs. Second, the active community leader. Active community leaders will bring the needs of the neighborhoods to the Safe Parks supervisor. Community leaders can help organize meetings, distribute useful information regarding the Safe Parks program, and help guide citizens towards this newly established type of programming. Active community leaders will be the turnkeys to open the doors for third-party service providers. Third, Opportunity Parks. That's Chris mentioned. Safe Parks will help empower neighborhoods and its leaders, strengthening community-driven programming and Opportunity Parks. In some neighborhoods, there may be no identified leaders to partner with Safe Parks. To test these three identified groups, the Safe Parks pilot program was started January 13th upon recommendation of Council Neighborhood Parks Task Force. The first to be tested, the service provider. Fit for Mom was chosen to be the first service provider for the Safe Parks program because the provider had come forward seeking a location and community to serve. Fit for Mom was granted use of Veterans Park based on scholarship offerings in lieu of facility rental fees. Fit for Mom and Lindsay Gilvin started her program April 12th at Veterans Park, and we have received nothing but positive feedback. The second, the active leadership group. Green Acres Park was chosen to participate in the Safe Parks program because an existing neighborhood association had begun to take an active leadership in promoting more family-friendly activities in the neighborhood park. The Green Acres Board and neighbors are very interested and have filled out park surveys, which Mr. Lewis Brown, Green Acres Neighborhood Association president, had collected. The surveys returned expressed a want for exercising programs and college preparedness courses. Safe Park's pilot program is organizing multiple proposals from groups and individuals interested in these programming efforts at Green Acres Park. While positive progress has been made narrowing the scope of programming interest, efforts towards appropriate third-party service providers is underway. And lastly, the Opportunity Park. Wolf Run Park was chosen to be part of the Safe Parks program because the park and the surrounding area lack a community advocacy group and host no programs outside of facilitating baseball practices for Western Little League. These factors have made Wolf Run Park the Safe Parks pilot program's most challenging project. On March 13th, Council Member Henson's office and Parks and Recreation organized the first Wolf Run Park communication team meeting at Gardenside Baptist Church to describe the Safe Parks program. Second team meeting April 16th at the Village Branch Library was successful with four community leaders coming forward to participate in the Wolf Run Activities Board. At this time, Wolf Run Park Activities Board meetings have been scheduled and Parks is solidifying the cleanup and repurposing of the building at Wolf Run Park. Having accomplished the most challenging goals and a true opportunity park has proven the need for this program citywide. Parks would like to thank Lexington Fayette, Urban County Government Police Department, and Council Offices for assisting in the Safe Parks Pilot Program. We ask for your support for a full-time program supervisor position so that the Safe Parks Program can meet its long-term goal of making Lexington Parks safer. Thank you. Thank you. Can we take questions on this section? Yes, we can. That concludes our presentation. I was going to open up for questions on the other side. Great. Council Members, Council Member Hanson. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Chris, everybody that participated in the task force. Great, great bunch of dedicated people. but I wanted to elaborate a little bit on the position that was proposed because I think back when my children, my girls were young and active in the parks, the neighborhood parks had park directors. As time went on, I think it became more difficult. Parks runs a very efficient programming and division. So the parks directors went away, and many of our neighborhood parks were left just to fend for themselves, as my mom would say. But I really think that if we can bring in the community members, the community leaders, and I use Valley Park as a perfect model, and I think that what took place at the Charles Young Center is also a perfect example. of programming and parks and the community leaders that take ownership in their neighborhood parks and council member myers is correct if you can get the activities there would be no need probably for a barring policy but what has happened over time is we need the barring policy to be put in place so people feel safe to come back to their parks. And I just, I think as we move through the budget and we look at positions, I don't really think it's unreasonable to ask for one position that would coordinate with these parks to just put another piece in the puzzle. So that's my comments, and thank you very much, Chair. Thank you. Council Member Lane. Yes, under the infrastructure area for the parks, you mentioned that that would be part of your plan to upgrade and modify and fix parts that have unsafe situations or needed replacement equipment. How much money do you have available in the budget for the coming fiscal year to do that? We have... I'm sorry to catch you a little bit off guard on that. Actually, I have it here. I just need glasses. We have, in this mayor's proposed budget in total, in all of our categories of CIP, low over $1.3 million. Okay. Okay, so, and if neighborhood parks needed some repair or some replacement, how would they approach, would they send a request to their council member for their district and have them channel it to you for review? That's one of the benefits of the Opportunity Parks Plan is that we take an active engagement in the neighborhood along with a council representative that can bring those concerns forward, and we can implement them in our existing health and safety for consideration by council. Very good. Thank you. You did a very nice job today. I appreciate your presentation. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Myers. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for the rest of the presentation. And I guess following on Council Member Lane's question, I've always said that we need a parks master plan. And I asked the question last year, is parks just going to be a land management group, or are they going to do programming and all those other things they used to do? And I think that it's imperative that that million dollars that you have in there, the council get a plan on how you plan on spending that. Because I understand that this policy would give you the ability to put priorities towards certain parks based on criminal activity or bad behavior in those parks. But I think the park master plan needs to be comprehensive for all parks across the city. And that's my other problem with this policy right here is that it puts a priority on certain parks instead of just looking at all of our park system in general. So I guess I would ask, do you guys have a plan that you're going to show the council as to how you plan on spending that million dollars? The benefit of including this in the existing category of health and safety is the fact that we would not identify opportunity parks as having a priority over other considerations. It's a part of our health and safety and needs to be identified as such. Some health and safety concerns within the parks might include as simple things as sidewalks that are cracked up, broken up, might include some athletic courts that are broken up, cracked up, and those things may or may not lead to the perception that we designate as an opportunity park. So those items will still continue. it's just that we're adding another conduit for input from you council members and from the citizens to engage in our capital improvement project that's the intent of capturing this information and translating it into our budget process so are you going to is the intent then I guess to go by council district across the city and look at all the parks and have the citizens in those districts look at their parks and say what they'd like to see happen in those parks? Part of the conversation in the council's task force was indeed to look at infrastructure across the parks. Admittedly, the division, along with input, because we get input from the public, phone calls, emails, et cetera, so forth, created a list of infrastructure that is deteriorating, may lead to the image of that definition of opportunity parks. So that list that was created in the task force exists. Now what would be great is to engage the communication team to review that list, add to it, subtract from it, and also create priorities of it. So that would be a goal of implementing this entire program. So do you feel like you have a comprehensive look at all the parks from the citizens around those parks and what they like in those, or is this just... I don't feel of the 105 parks, we have a comprehensive look of 105 parks. I feel we have a good, comprehensive look of many of the parks, several of which have been discussed in the task force. And again, one more time, how did you get the information on the parks that you have it on? The information that we gleaned on the parks we have from is from direct observation from our maintenance people, from phone calls that we receive through our switchboards, whether it's through my office or another one's office internally that we discuss, and highlight. Through maintenance requests from council offices, we get a fair amount of input there that gives us an indication and helps create a priority list as well. So we have several different conduits of that information coming in. Would you be amenable to having those meetings across the city so that council members can pull people together around the different parks in their districts and actually do public meetings and gain that information? I'm sorry. Yes, Absolutely. And that is, I'd like the idea of the opportunity park plan. And I'd like to have that kind of discussion, even if the park didn't meet that criteria, because that's valuable input to us to help define the priorities. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Vice Mayor Gordon. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Chris. I think this has great potential. I really do. And I don't really have a question at this time, but it does bring to mind our efforts in the past to create a foundation for parks. I know that many years ago, Council Member Dr. David Stevens worked on a potential funding mechanism for parks. It highlights the need we have financially is what it really highlights. Because a million dollars is a lot of money, but when you look at the needs in the parks, it is not much. And so I haven't lost hope that someday we'll have a parks foundation which will help fund the needs in our parks. I think that we shouldn't give up on that. I know we've tried, but maybe we can do it. So I think this has great potential, and I really appreciate the thought and the work that went into this. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Scotchfield. Thank you, Chair. Thank you all for all your work on this. I know it's not easy trying to pull together consensus from a group of people. with 105 parks in Lexington we have the opportunity to use the word that you all are using to use one of our best resources here when we have a Jacobson Park when we have a Shillitoe Park that are our large noticeable used parks we tend to forget about those little parks in the neighborhoods. And I think the opportunity that we're putting forth with this is a way to make sure that we don't have forgotten areas. And so I appreciate all the work you've done. I look forward to making sure that we make these parks flourish and serve the purpose that they're supposed to be doing in our communities. So thank you all again. Thank you. I'll just add my comments as well. I really appreciate the work. I think this is a really, really positive step forward. I've believed for a long time that the parks are an underutilized resource. They're an underfunded resource. I think the city itself needs to do more. And it may be that some people who are retiring from council may want to take on something like a parks foundation. You never know what's going to happen when people leave office. It's badly needed. While our parks serve a very important function, and they serve it well in many ways, I think that they're not up to the standard of our city as a whole and the kind of parks that we ought to have. So I'm very interested in supporting these efforts and other efforts to make sure that the parks get upgraded, get better use, get more use, become more of an asset for the community. And so thank you, and again, thank you, Council Member Henson, for chairing this and bringing it forward. I appreciate all of that. Thank you very much. Thank you. Okay. The next item on our agenda is the wireless device policies, and this is coming out of Lynx, but I believe that our CIO will kick this off unless would you like to say anything before she speaks? I only would like to say it's about time that we start addressing this issue. So thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Ma'am. Good afternoon. This is really probably a discussion to give you an update from the last time that I was here a few weeks ago. And to do two things. It's really an update on process and policy, the policies being developed. So it's to promote the responsible use of wireless communications. It really is to address not only that, but the procurement, the security issues, and the use of such devices. This ultimately will replace the current CAO policy that is in existence. But this one has two components to it. One of them are devices that are purchased by the city and paid for by the city. And secondly, devices that the employees bring and how they interact with the network. I don't know if you can read that very well, but I do have copies of it. So let me walk down. This is really the process right now, and actually some of it has been enhanced. The intent is that if a device is needed by an employee to do their job, the request form will be filled out and signed by the employee, the director, and the commissioner. That is then forwarded to the manager of the wireless device coordinator in computer services. Computer services will recommend an appropriate device and a plan that could be used, and will work with the employee to make sure that the device and the plan meets the needs of their position. The wireless device is then ordered by computer services. The device will come to computer services, will be shipped there. it will be inventoried, an RFID tag, a radio frequency identification tag, will be placed on it, so that, frankly, we can find it. And then the appropriate division will be billed for the device and for the ongoing usage. And the division will monitor the employee's usage and appropriate usage of that device. That is the proposed policy. Some of it actually, I think, has already been in effect, but the part that has not been in effect is the RFID tag. So in other words, in the past, I don't think we could go back and find all of these devices. These are the designated providers. AT&T, Verizon, Sprint, T-Mobile, and Cricket. Cricket, by the way, was purchased recently by AT&T, is now part of AT&T, and Parks and Recreations uses them. And they use them under an agreement that was very specific to parks, and I know we've got somebody here that can speak to that. As far as these providers, I've asked Todd to be here, so if you have any questions about the providers, he can certainly help with that. As you can imagine, the biggest concern is the security on these devices and the appropriate use. So if you look at this slide, the security is probably the part that will really jump out on us. We want the user to sign a usage agreement. By the way, that is not unusual. Many, many companies require that, especially if the device and the use of that device, continued use, will be paid by either the company or the government. Complex password will be required, and losses really need to be immediately determined and appropriately communicated to the Division of Computer Services so that the device can be basically wiped or disabled. And the reason for that is that there is concern about use of appropriate or information that actually should not be in anybody else's hands. Employees must use discretion on what they're going to use device for and what kind of communication of the information that takes place over that device. They must return the device when they leave their work or they leave the city. In other words, they move on to a different position. And if they leave the city employment, that there is an exit form with a checklist of all the things that need to be turned back in. By the way, that is pretty standard operating procedure for most organizations. Okay, let me get now to the bring your own device policy. When an employee brings their own device policy, it's really to have most employees that bring their own device, of course, want to get on the network, want to be able to do not only their personal business, but also to do city business. So what we want to do is make sure that we protect the user and that we protect city data and systems that might be accessed. Allow the employee to be connected anywhere. So in other words, if they work in this building, if they work in another building, the ability to communicate. It has the possibility of providing additional productivity because, in other words, you're not restricted to the use of the device for a specific purpose, but you can use it everywhere. By the way, when I came to work, I brought my own device. In fact, I brought three of them. I brought two iPads, and I brought my own BlackBerry. it generates savings in other words the city did not have to buy my devices and does not pay my bill I pay for those clearly defined so with what we need to do then from a security perspective and how computer services will actually support my device so from a security perspective the user has to sign an agreement of acceptable usage. Complex login password is required. By the way, I have a password on every one of my devices. It may require certain antivirus software to be applied and to be installed. And upgrades to more secure browser will be encouraged. So for instance, if you're using a browser that might not be very secure, computer services will make a recommendation that a more secure browser be applied. And losses, and this is the part that I think is most sensitive, losses must be reported immediately to computer services so that the city can basically wipe the data that contains city information. And then employee must use a discretion on the types of data that they access on their wireless device. By the way, bring your own policy is an issue for almost every single state, city, county government across the nation. Everybody's wrestling with this issue. For a long, long time, many, many governments actually prevented employees from bringing their own device. That is no longer the case. Preventing an employee from bringing their own device does not control the issue. actually makes it worse, because then there's no policies in place, and then there's no way to understand exactly what can be done if there is a loss. So the city will only request access to the device to implement the security. In other words, they don't come around and ask to look at your device, but they want to make sure that it is enabled. Timeline. the timeline that we're looking at is to complete the draft of the policy, and we intend to have that done in June. By the way, we wanted to present this to you first as the work that we have done and for you to be able to comment on it so that we can start drafting the policy or actually change it where it may not need any change or add to it where it may need a change. And we will meet with the stakeholders, by the way, as you can imagine, in order to get even to this point, we've had many, many organizations involved. We've had a lot of conversations about the coverage that's needed, about the devices that are needed, about how to proceed with the security issues. The final draft is to present it for review by the administrative officer, and then finally to be published in August. As you can imagine, we'll have a communications plan. The intranet, we have a governance committee in place now, and then the presentation of the revised CAO policy at the director's meeting. Questions? Council members, questions, comments? Please log in. Council Member Myers. Thank you for an excellent presentation. I just have one question on page 43. It's the designated service providers. Correct. Yes. do you anticipate that we're going to continue to use multiple providers or we'll streamline that down eventually when contracts expire? I've asked Todd to be here and help in answering that question. I think the biggest issue we've got is we've got about 700 plans or devices across government, and you have different needs from each division. You know, fire has certain coverage requirements that maybe building inspection doesn't have. So I think you're always going to have multiple plans. Now, whether or not we can get the majority of our employees on one plan or not is a big question. But we get the pricing that we're using now is based off of state contract pricing. So it's about the best rates that are going out there right now. So when you say plans, I was more thinking of providers. Right. And, yeah, out of the right now we actually have Cricket, T-Mobile, Sprint, and AT&T are the providers that we use. And there's about 700 different plans that are spread out over those carriers. So you think we'll still have multiple providers at the end of the day? Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Can I add to that? From what I've seen, it probably will be almost impossible to narrow it down to one or two, primarily because of the requirements. And if you look at the providers right now, they're very competitive. They're all trying to provide unlimited number of minutes, and then really try to recover it on the data plan. So in most cases, that's probably the most sensitive one that we may have to look at, is the data requirements. But right now, they're all vying for new customers. Okay. Thank you. thank you I see no other council members signed up so I'll just thank you for the presentation very much look forward to the timeline being implemented yes thank you thank you and the next item on our agenda is branding the name Lexington and even though it has councilmember Clark's name against that he has pleaded innocent and I believe that Scott Shapiro is going to make a presentation welcome Scott I Hi. Yes, thanks. So this came up during the discussion of the use of the name Lexington, and I was asked at the time to come give some context for the debate over the name Lexington and talk about the sort of larger branding Blue Horse project that I've been working on. So this presentation is to share with you where we are with that project. So we'll talk about why we're looking at the blue horse as a symbol for Lexington, where we are in the project, and what we can expect. So before I start, I just wanted to thank Stacy Diamond in communications, who's been working with me closely on this project. We've been a team on this. A lot of work has gone into it, and we'll explain sort of where we are on this, but Stacy's been amazing on this. So there are three reasons I wanted to talk about in terms of why we're exploring this use of the blue horse as a symbol of Lexington. One is to end logo confusion. So we've, this is not all of the logos that the various parts of entities in Lexington and the part of the city government uses. This is only a sampling of them. In fact, one of them that's not on here I wanted to talk about. So there's a great event that Parks puts on called Kite Fest, where hundreds of people went. Folks in my office went, said it was an amazing event. They have this logo that they've been using for some time that says Kite Fest. But nowhere on that logo or on any of the signage did it say that this was an event put on by the Lexington Parks and Recreation Department, or the City of Lexington. That's one sort of type of problem that we're seeing, is that there are things that the city does that you all, as council members, fund that the people of Lexington don't know that the city is responsible for. Another one I'd point out So for example, you see some of that with the senior center right there Certainly we'd want the citizens of Lexington to know that you all funded that That the city is behind that Similarly with the family care center Live Green Lexington is another example So here we've got, see the logo up there An enormous amount of money is put into promoting Live Green Lexington which is an amazing program. But nowhere on the logo does it suggest that it's part of the city. The city has created this program. And I'd say that if you look at the... Where's there? There's a pointer on here. There we go. The Department of Emergency Management. So this is a logo that I think has a higher bar than others. Certainly we would want folks in Lexington to know that we were sponsoring behind Kitefest, but here you have the Department of Emergency Management that does not... I think it's debatable whether folks would think that that's part of the city government or not. It could easily be a corporate logo. It just says Fayette County Emergency Management. And I think that's Vice Mayor looking at that logo right there. So what we have is this proliferation of logos with no standards. Waste management has been using this and I think continues to use this logo. So one reason why we're thinking about adopting the Blue Horse is to consolidate everything that the city does under this one recognizable logo, the blue horse. So anywhere you see that, people would recognize that this is something that the city is doing, whether it's something in parks, waste management, emergency management. So the second reason why we're looking at the Blue Horse, I know that when I first started this project, I spoke with most of you about this and got great feedback on the Blue Horse. It's something that's been in use for a while by the Convention and Visitors Bureau. I'd say rarely in a branding makeover Or do you have the ability to sort of test a brand long term? We're lucky to have had the CVB VisitLex out there testing this, and they get just tremendous feedback about it. So the idea behind the Blue Horse, which you guys have seen, there's two variations on it. One is the framed version here, and one is sort of the silhouette that is much more flexible. and you can use text around it more readily. The idea behind the blue horse is that this reflects Lexington, sort of the unique juxtaposition that Lexington is, the urban and rural juxtaposition. So there's the horse that represents our farmland, our equine heritage, the thoroughbred industry that they're proud of, part of our history and our present and our future. and turning it blue and putting this sort of interesting frame around it reflects what's inside the urban service boundary, this university city that we have where there's a lot of creativity and innovation going on. So what brands also do is they capture and reflect emotion so that when you see a logo, it registers with you subconsciously in many ways. There was a Gallup poll out not too long ago. 89.8% of Lexingtonians are satisfied with their city. We ranked really high in this list of 196 cities that were surveyed by Gallup. And what this would help do is sort of capture that emotion. And as I said before, it's something that VisitLex has been using for some time. So we would be joining forces with them so that both organizations would be using it to represent the city. So whatever each organization does would support and enhance the other. And in no time are we talking about not using the SEAL. There's always a role for the SEAL, and it's in our charter. What we're talking about is subordinating the role of the SEAL. So, the third reason we're talking about using the Blue Horse is that we wanted this to be part of raising the production values of a lot of what the city does, not just by consolidating under one logo, but also having templates and other designed pieces from our designer that uses the new logo that then could be used by the various departments and divisions. And I'll talk a little bit about what that means more in terms of PowerPoint presentations or a template, newsletter templates, that sort of thing. We wanted what the departments and divisions issue, how they interact with the public, We wanted that to ensure that that, to the degree we can, reflects the great work that the city does. If a division or department is handing out something, a brochure, for example, that looks sort of poorly designed or maybe was designed 20 years ago and is Xeroxed a couple times, what that does is it doesn't reflect the great work that that division does. So as part of this project, I'll talk about later, we're creating some templates for folks to use. So where we are in this project. So I had initial meetings way back when with most of you to talk about this idea. We contracted with Bullhorn, who has been working to adapt the Blue Horse to something that would be flexible and usable by the city government. We've had, when I wrote this, it was 22, but since then we've had one more. So we've had 23 meetings, Stacey and I, with various divisions and departments to talk through what our plans are, what the idea is, and how it might work for that given division. I will say that some divisions, this is, it's easy. It's applying the blue horse and the word Lexington to some of their materials. For other divisions, it's a little more tricky. say, for code enforcement, where you need to project authority in a certain way. For Live Green Lexington, I don't think we'd want to change this logo that they've invested so much in, for example. You might want to just put the blue horse next to it. So we're working through some of those ideas with the divisions and departments. I will say we've gotten some great feedback and ideas for other ways that we can use the Blue Horse from the various folks that we've talked to. So right now we are in negotiations with Visit Lex to use the Blue Horse. They have the ownership of the Blue Horse. So that's part of what we're working on right now. I will say that while there's very little cost to this that I'll talk about in a second, One cost that would be formed by the city if we were to adopt this is that we would share with VisitLex in defending the trademark. The costs of that have fluctuated. Usually they're low. One year recently it was higher. They expect it to come down lower. They think it would be less than $10,000 in the foreseeable future, perhaps much less than that. We haven't come to terms on the sharing of the defense of the mark, but that's really important. I think as if we adopted the blue horse and shared it with the CVB, with Visit Lex, we're going to see this more and more places. It's going to become more and more attractive, and that just might entice someone who's not part of the city government or the CVB to come try and use it. And that's not something we'd have to defend that to make sure that it does continue to just symbolize the city. So we've had the 23 meetings. We've got four more, about 13 more meetings to hold with various departments and divisions. We've got to finalize this agreement with Visit Lex. I'd like to come talk to you about that. after those two things are done. I'd love to come back and individually chat with you guys to give you an update on where we are in advance of a council vote on adopting this. So one of the things that Council Member Lane brought up in the last meeting was the cost of rolling this out. So he's right. In general, when you do a rebranding, and I've been involved with them in the past, my former life, What you usually want to do is spend a good deal of money to make sure that you change things over all at once. And that's what corporations tend to do. What we're suggesting is something a little bit different here. I think that would be, in terms of branding strategy, that would be the best way to go. But what we have here, I think, in the city government are two things that would make the turnover pretty quick to the Blue Horse if we adopted it. One is that a lot of what we do is electronic. So from the designer, we'd be getting electronic versions of letterhead, envelopes, business cards, e-mail signatures. Aldona is working on a beginning to think about a website redesign, and you'd see it up there. So there are all these places where there's natural turnover. When folks start to update their materials, print new brochures, print new business cards, replace signage, there is this natural turnover that happens, and that's where we'd look to replace the seal with the blue horse. So on the side of a car, for example, a fleet vehicle, you might see the horse and Lexington right there instead of the seal over time. But what comes with that is support and monitoring, and we've got a plan for that we'll talk about. So here's what we can expect next. finishing up the brand guidelines with the designer. They're creating this sort of package of templates for us that would then be put up on an intranet page. There would be a rollout plan that, again, reengages with all the divisions and departments that we've worked with so far to develop this to help them start the transition. there would be support and monitoring from the department of communication so stacy diamond would be i keep saying i'm going to get her a badge she would be the the brand cop to help the divisions and departments make a a transition a couple things i i forgot to put on here that i'd like to add in terms of what we can expect under support and marketing and that's a style guide that there would be a branding, set of branding guidelines, pretty thick document from the designer. But in addition to that, Stacy's working on a style guideline, sort of how to use text, whether it's the city of Lexington or Lexington or Lexington-Fayette, Urban County Government, sort of work through those nuances. So people have a general idea of word usage in documents. But also there may be a set of, there will be a set of CIO policies that we'd recommend in relation to signage, stickers on vehicles, that sort of thing. So that's part of the broader support and monitoring to make sure that we've controlled usage of the Blue Horse throughout the city government. So that's the update. I'd love to take any questions that you have about it. Thank you for that. We do have a few council members signed up. Council Member Beard. Thank you, Chair. Scott, do you know the history of Lexington the horse? I know a bit about it. I know that the picture of the blue horse is the horse named Lexington, the picture from Edward Troy. There is a statuette of Lexington on the 12th floor, if somebody might want to look at it, because it does not look like the plow horse that is sitting inside that frame. It is really a sad situation to put that horse in clown attire and look like he's 30 years old. We've heard that. It's not there. We'll continue to hear it. There are thoroughbreds that are certainly more attractive than this one. So what is the deal on blue? What's special about blue? Is that UK blue? Is it bluegrass? Is it just blue because somebody likes blue? I don't think it's necessarily bluegrass or UK blue, although I think the association is. And why is it blue? Why isn't it brown like the horse? So the reason why it's brown is that if it's brown, it's sort of any horse. And the idea behind turning it blue is to visually symbolize the creativity and innovation, the kind of city that Lexington is surrounding this university. I think I've done some research recently on Lexington as it compares to pure cities that I can share with you. But the idea is that Lexington, with this massive research university at the center of it, that sort of changes the contours and the characteristics of Lexington itself. Cities that have major research universities at their center tend to have a much higher number of arts and cultural institutions per capita, for example, than other cities the size. they tend to have more business starts, more entrepreneurialism, for example, than other cities. It's kind of things that we sort of naturally feel being in Lexington and maybe don't even notice anymore. But Lexington is different that way, and it is a more creative place. And that's really what the turning it blue is meant to symbolize. so are we going to write a letter or whatever to everybody who's going to see this as to why it is what it is as opposed to and attach that to the back of our stationery so that they will be able to figure out why this horse is blue and why he looks like he's 30 years old I assume I mean it really isn't funny to me at all Well, I mean, the reason why I laugh is that I think the CVB encounters this all the time. They've been using this for years since the World Equestrian Games. They have an explanation on their website that sort of explains the history of the horse Lexington, of Big Lex, they call it, and of the reason behind the design. They're out there marketing Lexington every day to the rest of the world. and they get just tremendous, tremendous feedback about it. Whenever I'm outside Lexington for a meeting, I'll wear the blue horse lapel pin and I can't keep it on for more than an hour because people say how much they like it and I'll just give it to them in hopes that they wear it. I don't think it's... I mean, you're right. I don't think it's funny at all in the sense that Lexington's image is very important to this council and to this city. How we appear to our own citizens and how we appear to the outside world is very serious. And that's what this whole project is about, is to try to sort of professionalize that look and feel and have it all come under sort of one recognizable symbol. recognizable for those of us who live in Lexington, but if somebody in Seattle horsen it, we'll just scratch their head and figure out what that's all about, I think. If you could flip that horse inside the frame, you notice that there is a difference between the two horses as far as its structure concerned. And I would love to see that cleaned up somewhat so that it looks like something that is not pulling a carriage around downtown Lexington or whatever, that it is a racehorse, a fixation sire, and extremely important to the horse world, thoroughbred horse world. Otherwise, it's insulting in my mind. We did, when we first started this project, at the vice mayor's suggestion, we went and talked to, we were concerned about, not concerned, we wanted to explore the idea of Lexington versus Lexington Fayette urban county government. And she suggested that we talk with members of the horse community. So we talked with Knox Van Noggle at Fade Alliance about this, and she set up a meeting with a number of prominent folks from the equine industry and showed them this and talked them through it. And they were excited about, none of them commented on the shape of the horse. They were excited about the idea of Lexington adopting anything related to the horse as part of the symbol of the city. They also didn't mind if we used Lexington instead of Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government on a potential logo. So they were... That test group was in favor of it. I can give you that feedback. Well, as you can tell, I'm not. And that isn't going to change. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Ford. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have a few questions, and then I have a few comments. The first question I have is I know that Council Member Clark brought us a resolution, I think, or something not long ago that allowed us to simply use Lexington for purposes of simplicity, I would say, and for branding. I wasn't of the understanding that it applied or would lend itself to apply to the overall rebranding of the seal. And so I'll ask for clarification on that. What does the charter say? Our government is 40 years old. You mentioned the charter very briefly in regards to not eliminating but subordinating. What does the charter say in regards to the seal and brand of our government? There is a section of the charter that says that the seal should appear on official documents. And in our first draft of the design of letterhead, we would preserve that. So there would be the blue horse and also the seal. We're also, when we're talking with divisions of Lexington, just as an aside related to the SEAL, divisions of Lexington that need to project a certain amount of authority, we would want to preserve the SEAL in some fashion. So when it's convenient to show authority, we would use it. But when it's not, we would. That's right. That's right. When it would be helpful. I disagree with that. I think. Not one or the other, sorry. If we use the blue, the seal, it would be in tandem with the horse. I think it's important that everything use the horse. That's going to, if we agree that that's going to become the symbol of the city, it's got to be the symbol of the city. Let's talk. I only have three more minutes. Let's talk about this. So apparently this is a partnership with the Convention and Visitors Bureau. valuable organization to our community. Their job, I would guess, in lay terms, is to sell the beauty of the city. That's not necessarily our job here at City Hall. We're an institution. Our job is to provide basic services for everybody in the old city proper and in Fayette County as it goes. I did support, again, the use of the word Lexington. When I talk to most folks, I'm from Lexington, but I sit here in this chair at times when I'm making comments and I speak to Fayette County. But in ease, it's Lexington. Is there any other city in America that uses the description of an animal as its official seal? And we know how special horses are, and I'm definitely not as versed as other counselors. Does any? Don't answer that. My time is up. I think we're going a little too far. And I agree with Council Member Beard. He mentioned it. He hit it dead on the nail on the head. We in this area would understand perhaps with time, I guess, what that blue horse would mean. But folks from outside of Lexington, And I would imagine that our government sends a lot of correspondents outside of Lexington, Atlanta, with the federal agencies down there, Washington, other areas. was there consideration perhaps for the mayor's office to not eliminate the seal, but to subordinate the horse and its correspondence from the mayor's office? I guess each mayor can do what he or she pleases, but to impose such drastic change on the entire government, numerous departments and over 48 divisions seems a bit much. Thanks, Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. I've got three more people in line, but before I recognize anybody else, two comments, or a question and a comment. First of all, Scott, you're not looking for a decision today. No, I'm not looking for a decision. You'll be back with more information, I presume, in the future for this committee. Is that correct? That's correct. Okay, given that and given the time, I would encourage the three people, now four people, now three, do I hear two, who are in line to be as brief as possible? Thank you. Council Member Scutchfield. Thank you, Chair. I will be brief. I voted in favor of us being Lexington. Now, we talk about there being no monetary expense we're going to replace as we move along, But there is expense in our minds being used to come up with, I just, there's a lot more expense here involved than I was told about when I met with different people. And I'm a little concerned that we're kind of growing too big with this. And Lexington is different than a horse. And we need to make sure we stay Lexington. And I think this is going to get too expensive. Thank you. Vice Mayor Gordon. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Scott, for your presentation. So I like the Blue Horse itself. I've worn the Blue Horse pins and given them out, and I think it's unique. And I've been in other cities where my husband has been wearing the Blue Horse sticky thing, and people have asked, what is that? And I was thinking about the same question that Councilmember Ford asked because I also like our seal. It says a lot about our history. It says we're merged. It says we were formed in 1775. Was there any thought given to subordinating the Blue Horse and using the seal? Because that would work. I think. I think there was lots of thought that went into various permutations of this. I think where we ended up, the idea of using the blue horse first and foremost was this is what the CVB is using right now. It's a highly successful campaign. when they use the blue, they're eager, proud to, and spend a lot of money toward using the blue horse to communicate with the rest of the world. And I think that we, as a city, have been, I guess I shouldn't speak for everyone, but my understanding is that we've all been in support of that, support of the Visit Lex doing that. Okay. I mean, I'm just looking up there. You could reverse the horse and the seal and have a similar thing. You could potentially do that. What I think the horse does, what I think the blue horse does, is, again, sort of captures a lot about Lexington that the seal does not capture. So when you have the blue horse next to Lexington, it captures this gallop hole. this very, there's all this pent up sort of positive feeling that individuals clearly have about Lexington and its government. I'm not sure that the seal captures that or reflects it. I think what it does is it's a statement of the authority of the city and our history. And I think it does capture that, which is why we're suggesting subordinating it. But when I think if you're looking at Kite Fest, for example, and you see Kite Fest and the Blue Horse, I think what that tells you is this is part of this amazing city. You see the Blue Horse doing other things as well. The great things that the city does to make Lexington this amazing place that folks clearly love to live in. If you were to see Kite Fest and the seal right next to it, it sends a slightly different message. So two more quick questions. Have we, the city, spent money yet on this? No money with Bullhorn, no money with? Oh, with Bullhorn, yes. So we've spent, I think, $17,000 to explore this. Okay. And then if this were enacted, I think somewhere in here I read about the standards that the city would be working on. would each individual division be printing things? And if so, everybody would need a color copier, which everybody doesn't have. So what we're, that's some of the feedback that we received when we went to go talk to all the divisions. So one of our to-do items is to think through a letterhead that would print well in black and white. there are divisions that don't print anything or much of anything in color. Never order letterhead. Right. But are you saying the blue horse would be black and white on some occasions? On some occasions, if someone were printing something out in black and white and a division did not feel like they had enough money to order letterhead, then in some cases it might be black and white or if it were photocopied. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Council Member Lane. Thank you. Hello, Mr. Shapiro. How are you today? Yeah, I just wanted to make a couple of comments. I like the blue horse, and I think it could serve very well for our brand, but I definitely like the idea of having one brand for the entire city and not everybody having a separate brand. I have a little bit of angst about the one in the frame because that is for color, and there are two issues there. One, printing it in four colors is very expensive on stationary, any kind of printed materials. And two, when it's Xeroxed, it becomes very distorted and it's not very crisp, whereas the Blue Horse would be less expensive to produce, and it would scan or Xerox copies that could be made of it without any problem. The issue about approving the logo is that most companies have a brand manager, and every single logo usage gets approved by the brand manager. And I know, for example, even the University of Kentucky, which is not a corporation, like a commercial corporation, but their marketing department approves every single use of their logo to protect the integrity of it. and that I think would be a very positive thing here for the Irvin County government. So anyway, I encourage you to keep working on that and thank you for your report today. Thank you. Can I speak to that briefly? So the idea, you see two logos here. What we're talking about is largely using this one. It's just much more flexible for materials. You can put text around it more easily. This would be used, it is more expensive to produce, and it would be used very sparingly for those reasons. Okay, thank you. Scott, thank you for the presentation. I think, obviously, we are as a committee out of time, And I believe it might be useful to continue this conversation, I believe, in this format. So if you can, we'll schedule you back. Rather than having you speak with individual council members, we'll kind of have this conversation in this committee if that's acceptable. Sounds great. That's acceptable to the committee. I think that's great, and that way the public gets to stay abreast of what's happening as well. Great. Thank you. Thank you very much. the last item on our agenda is the pending items referred i believe that every single one of them is waiting for action from someone else but if anybody has a motion about adding or subtracting vice mayor jordan would would it be appropriate i was going to take off the neighborhood parks task force are we expecting anything else from them i don't think so i moved to remove that from committee motion to remove the neighborhood parks task force is there a second i have a motion in a second any discussion all in favor please say aye any opposed that motion carries any other motions seeing none i'll entertain a motion to adjourn second motion a second without objection we stand adjourned thank you you