[3:58] good afternoon,

[4:01] everyone.

[4:03] It is 1:00.

[4:06] Welcome to the APRIL 28, 2026

[4:08] general government and planning

[4:09] committee meeting.

[4:11] I'm calling our meeting to

[4:11] order.

[4:13] The first item of business on

[4:14] our agenda is the approval of

[4:16] the MARCH 10, 2026 committee

[4:18] summary.

[4:19] Are there additions or

[4:22] corrections?

[4:24] >> move to approve.

[4:25] >> Chair: seeing none, I'll take

[4:26] a motion to approve.

[4:32] >> second.

[4:33] >> Chair: second.

[4:33] Any discussion on the motion.

[4:34] All those in favor say aye.

[4:36] >> aye.

[4:36] >> Chair: any opposed.

[4:40] That motion passes.

[4:42] The next item on our agenda is

[4:44] our charter review presentation.

[4:45] Vice mayor wu, since this is

[4:47] your item,ly turn it over to you

[4:48] for the introduction.

[4:49] >> thank you, chair.

[4:51] First I want to thank civiclex

[4:53] for the tremendous amount of

[4:54] work that you all have done on

[4:54] this.

[4:57] It was very thoughtful, it was

[4:57] very collaborative.

[5:00] I also want to extend my

[5:02] gratitude towards the city staff

[5:04] , the council members, both

[5:05] current and past council members

[5:07] that offered up some of their

[5:09] experience and wisdom.

[5:11] And finally, I really want to

[5:13] applaud the efforts of the

[5:14] assemblymembers themselves, many

[5:17] of whom are here right now, for

[5:18] lexington's first civic

[5:18] assembly.

[5:21] This is really historic,

[5:21] honestly.

[5:23] and I'm so excited to be part of

[5:23] it.

[5:24] So thank you all so much for

[5:27] participating in this process.

[5:28] And as per the resolution that

[5:31] we passed a couple months ago, I

[5:33] want to reiterate council's

[5:34] commitment to seriously

[5:36] listening to and considering the

[5:37] assembly's recommendations.

[5:38] So, with that, I will hand it

[5:39] over to richard.

[5:41] Thank you.

[5:42] >> thank you, so much vice

[5:43] mayor.

[5:46] We are so incredibly grateful to

[5:47] be bringing these

[5:50] recommendations to you all

[5:50] today.

[5:53] Planning this schlep has taken --

[5:55] planning this assembly has been

[5:55] a lot of work.

[5:57] You will hear about the most

[5:58] recent part of the timeline but

[6:00] this is a culmination of over

[6:02] three years of work, and I just

[6:04] wanted to say up front how

[6:05] grateful I am that you all have

[6:07] agreed to respond meaningfully

[6:09] to these recommendations.

[6:11] It has been a lot of work for

[6:13] both civiclex and for our

[6:13] assemblymembers.

[6:15] And so we are grateful for the

[6:17] trust and the time that you all

[6:19] are giving this process.

[6:21] So, I'm not going to say too

[6:22] much.

[6:24] I'll turn it over to civiclex's

[6:30] deputy director kitty anderson.

[6:30] >> hello.

[6:31] Thank you so much for having us.

[6:34] I want to echo the gratitude

[6:35] richard just expressed and beer

[6:37] here to talk to you today about

[6:39] the recommendations and the

[6:42] process of lexington's first

[6:42] civic assembly.

[6:45] So just to recap, I know you all

[6:46] heard about the assembly last

[6:48] july and I'm sure you remember

[6:50] every single word of richard's

[6:52] presentation, but to sum --

[6:54] summarize, a civic assembly is

[6:57] an internationally recognized

[6:59] model of getting everyday

[7:00] citizens involved in government

[7:03] and making decisions.

[7:05] It's participatory decision

[7:05] making.

[7:07] To learn about an issue and

[7:09] learn about it extensively,

[7:11] deliberate and ultimately pass

[7:12] recommendations on a specific

[7:13] topic.

[7:14] One of the really important

[7:16] aspects of an assembly is the

[7:17] assemblymembers themselves are

[7:20] both randomly selected through a

[7:22] process called a civic lottery

[7:23] and also more or less

[7:24] demographically representative

[7:27] of the community they are

[7:28] serving.

[7:29] Assemblies can be facilitated by

[7:31] governments, or in our case, the

[7:34] third party organization of

[7:35] civiclex and they really shine

[7:36] on issues that public

[7:38] institutions are having trouble

[7:39] solving for themselves.

[7:40] And we think charter review

[7:42] might be an example of that and

[7:44] we are excited to share what we

[7:44] came up with.

[7:48] So, I won't spend a ton of time

[7:50] on the background.

[7:51] But two key things I wanted to

[7:54] highlight with our assembly

[7:54] process.

[7:56] It took three years as richard

[7:56] mentioned.

[7:59] One of the bullet points is

[8:01] fundraising and grants

[8:01] submissions.

[8:02] This assembly was done

[8:04] completely with grant money from

[8:05] national and international

[8:05] philanthropy.

[8:07] We did not use a local

[8:10] government money in this

[8:10] process.

[8:13] And the actual assembly itself

[8:15] only took a month and it was a

[8:17] complete whirlwind of a month

[8:19] this MARCH, but as richard

[8:20] mentioned, the planning was

[8:22] almost a three-year process.

[8:25] One of the most important

[8:27] aspects of an assembly is who is

[8:29] in the room.

[8:31] And our selection process was

[8:34] incredibly robust, informed by

[8:35] professors at the martin school

[8:36] at the university of kentucky.

[8:38] I'm not going to touch on every

[8:40] single demographic we used.

[8:42] We actually tracked nine

[8:43] demographics of our

[8:44] assemblymembers and I wanted to

[8:45] make sure the actual

[8:46] representation was on the record

[8:48] for you to see.

[8:51] Suffice to say the goal, pie,

[8:55] smaller wedge is based on census

[8:56] data about lexington fayette

[8:57] county.

[9:00] We know that census data is not

[9:01] an exact representation of

[9:03] lexington but it's the closest

[9:05] most accurate, most documented

[9:06] reference that we have and in

[9:08] most cases we were using A.C.S.

[9:11] Data from 2023, but the full

[9:13] methodology is available online.

[9:14] As I just flip through these, I

[9:17] want to emphasize we were

[9:18] incredibly proud of our

[9:19] selection process after mailing

[9:22] out 10,000 postcards to 10,000

[9:23] randomly selected addresses, and

[9:27] a couple thousand reminder

[9:29] postcards, we had 387

[9:29] applicants.

[9:30] And from that we were able to

[9:33] build, I think, by all cases an

[9:34] extremely representative panel.

[9:36] And I think these charts

[9:38] showcase that so you can see our

[9:41] age breakdown, our race and

[9:43] ethnicity breakdown matching

[9:45] lexington according to the

[9:47] census very closely.

[9:47] Political registration is

[9:48] important for assemblies because

[9:50] it's important to have people

[9:51] with different political

[9:52] perspectives in the room and we

[9:54] were a pretty close match on

[9:55] that.

[9:56] We also made sure to track

[9:59] people who were not

[10:00] recommending -- registered to a

[10:02] political party and were not

[10:03] typically voters.

[10:05] Will you note we had at least

[10:08] one person from every council

[10:08] member.

[10:10] 12 districts is a lot of

[10:10] districts.

[10:12] I was worried we wouldn't get

[10:12] there.

[10:14] But we did and we have one

[10:15] representative from every

[10:15] council member.

[10:17] And going through all of the

[10:19] other categories, within 5% on

[10:21] every single demographic.

[10:23] This is a quick breakdown of the

[10:23] process.

[10:26] I will highlight orientation was

[10:27] MARCH 1, not MAY 1.

[10:28] Thank you to council member

[10:30] ellinger for pointing that out.

[10:32] This the is just the flow of the

[10:32] sessions.

[10:34] And with that, I want to turn it

[10:36] over to the most important part

[10:38] of this, which is the

[10:38] recommendations themselves.

[10:41] We will be hearing from four

[10:42] assemblymembers about the

[10:43] recommendations that they

[10:44] proked.

[10:46] There are three distinct

[10:47] recommendations that could

[10:49] potentially lead to three

[10:50] distinct chapter amendments and

[10:54] to start us off we have haley

[10:54] smalls.

[10:58] thank you.

[11:00] >> hi everyone.

[11:04] My name is haley small from

[11:06] council member district 5 and I

[11:07] want to talk about compensation.

[11:10] We came to an 84.6 super

[11:12] majority to increase council

[11:17] compensation to a new cap of

[11:17] 59,987.

[11:19] That is the average annual

[11:20] income in lexington.

[11:21] So that's where that number

[11:21] comes from.

[11:23] We want that number to continue

[11:25] to increase annually with cpi

[11:29] and to go into effect in 2030.

[11:31] Why did we make this decision?

[11:32] As an assembly we recognize that

[11:34] the role of a council member has

[11:36] changed in the decades since the

[11:40] charter went into effect in the

[11:40] 70s.

[11:42] We think the most effective

[11:43] council members are spending

[11:44] nights and weekends, lots of

[11:46] energy and lots of time

[11:48] innovating, thinking of ways to

[11:50] make lexington a better place to

[11:51] live for all of us.

[11:53] W also recognize the lack of

[11:55] competition for many council

[11:56] seats.

[11:58] Too many council seats are

[11:59] running unopposed too often.

[12:02] And so we think the crime

[12:04] scene -- the increasing

[12:05] compensation will better

[12:06] compensate hard working council

[12:07] members but also bring more

[12:08] people into public office,

[12:09] bringing more people from

[12:13] different backgrounds into this

[12:14] room.

[12:16] I think that this proposal

[12:19] represents what we, as an

[12:20] assembly, want the council do

[12:21] and to look like.

[12:23] We want council to be more than

[12:24] a rubber stamp.

[12:26] We want you to be busy, we want

[12:29] you to be active, we want you to

[12:30] be innovative and imagine tiff

[12:33] but we also want you --

[12:34] imaginative, but we also want

[12:35] you to feel what it is like to

[12:36] be an average citizen in terms

[12:38] of your compensation and so

[12:39] that's why we tied it back to

[12:41] the average lexington income.

[12:42] So with that being said, thank

[12:43] you for your time and I'm going

[12:46] to pass the mic over to sophia

[12:54] to talk about recommendation 2.

[12:56] >> hello.

[12:58] My name is sophia, I'm a high

[12:59] school student at lafayette and

[13:01] I was part of the assembly as a

[13:03] youth representative.

[13:05] Our second recommendation was

[13:06] about council accountability,

[13:08] and largely stemmed from our

[13:11] discussions on compensation, ais

[13:13] we talked with many former and

[13:14] current council members and

[13:16] realized that the duties of a

[13:17] council member were not really

[13:19] that well defined legally.

[13:21] And that it was largely up to

[13:22] the individual council member

[13:23] how much time they invested in

[13:27] the job.

[13:29] So, as a result, we decided to

[13:31] amend the charter to create

[13:34] publicly viewable attendance

[13:37] expectations and increase

[13:38] transparency for the general

[13:39] election as voters will have

[13:40] more information about the

[13:41] representatives to make informed

[13:43] decisions when they're voting.

[13:45] And it also aligns with our

[13:46] recommendation on compensation,

[13:55] as a more informed -- sorry, as a

[13:57] council that is better paid will

[14:00] be able to serve our

[14:02] constituents more effectively

[14:05] and this passed by 88.8% super

[14:06] majority.

[14:07] It was effective.

[14:11] So I will pass the mic to cath

[14:14] who will talk about our third

[14:15] recommendation.

[14:16] >> hello.

[14:19] My name is katherine and I'm

[14:22] here representing district 1.

[14:24] Our other recommendation that we

[14:26] made was for a mandatory charter

[14:27] review.

[14:29] I think you all can recognize

[14:32] that if we don't keep our

[14:35] charters regularlyley view --

[14:37] reviewed they can quickly become

[14:39] out of date and lose relevance.

[14:40] We thought it was really

[14:42] important to have a regular,

[14:44] fair, public review and we

[14:45] thought that should be done

[14:47] every eight years.

[14:51] Also done by a group of randomly

[14:54] selected demographically

[14:54] selected representatives.

[14:56] We like the way civiclex picked

[14:58] a group and so that was kind of

[14:59] what we were thinking would be

[15:01] another good idea.

[15:02] That way -- I know one of the

[15:04] last times we did a charter

[15:05] review, it ended up being

[15:07] appointing people who really

[15:09] benefited from the review by

[15:10] people who really benefited from

[15:11] the review.

[15:13] So in order to make sure that

[15:16] it's fair, we thought a random

[15:18] selection representative would

[15:19] be important.

[15:20] We also thought there should be

[15:22] a time limit on the process.

[15:23] As you know, these things can

[15:25] drag on forever if they don't so

[15:27] we recommended it take no more

[15:28] than 12 months from start to

[15:29] finish.

[15:31] And I guess the reason why we

[15:33] thought that that was important

[15:35] is so that we can make sure that

[15:37] our charter stays relevant to

[15:40] all of the peep living in

[15:42] lexington -- people living in

[15:45] lexington and we agreed with an

[15:46] 88.8% super majority that that

[15:46] was necessary.

[15:49] And I'm going to pass it on to

[15:50] bob, who is going to tell -- he

[15:53] is going to represent the

[15:58] dissenting voices.

[16:00] >> hello.

[16:02] My name is bob smith.

[16:03] I'm from 5.

[16:05] And like any question, any time

[16:06] you have a question, you are

[16:08] going to have opposing.

[16:10] So I'm the opposing.

[16:12] But it's nothing personal.

[16:14] [Laughter]

[16:15] So thank you for giving our team

[16:17] the time to let you know our

[16:19] thoughts behind our one month of

[16:19] deliberation.

[16:21] I will be giving our dissenting

[16:22] report.

[16:24] We had a lot of very thoughtful

[16:25] conversations and voted on the

[16:27] issues that you charged us with.

[16:30] The first one will be I would

[16:31] like to talk to you about is the

[16:32] charter review process.

[16:36] This probably had the shortest

[16:37] amount of time in discussion.

[16:39] It was easy that we came to this

[16:39] conclusion.

[16:41] It had more to do with time in

[16:43] between reviews and what we were

[16:44] allowed to review.

[16:47] We all believe -- I believe,

[16:49] thought that there should be

[16:51] more timely reviews of the

[16:52] charter.

[16:53] In particular I was disappointed

[16:55] we not allowed to review council

[16:56] term lengths.

[16:57] We were designated for two

[16:59] particular things and that all

[16:59] we could do.

[17:00] And one of the things I really

[17:03] want to talk about was term

[17:04] lengths for you people.

[17:06] I really people like we need to

[17:07] increase it from two to four so

[17:09] you spend more time doing the

[17:11] people's business instead of

[17:16] running for office.

[17:18] So hopefully in the near future

[17:21] that you guys let us have

[17:23] another -- because we, as we

[17:25] wanted to do the charter review

[17:26] every year, we can do one

[17:27] sooner.

[17:29] By the bylaws, you can have a

[17:30] special one sooner than eight

[17:31] years and hopefully this is one

[17:33] of the items that can be brought

[17:34] up.

[17:35] Second, accountability of the

[17:37] council members was discussed

[17:39] and dissent was mainly based

[17:40] around how to set up guidelines

[17:42] since we all felt there should

[17:43] be more accountability.

[17:46] It wasn't that we didn't think

[17:47] there should be accountability

[17:49] but how we came up with the

[17:49] items.

[17:50] Last was compensation.

[17:54] I bet you would believe that had

[17:55] the most discussion.

[17:57] Dissent was based not wanting to

[17:59] make the position appealing as a

[18:00] life long job.

[18:02] We don't need more 50 year

[18:04] council members like in

[18:05] congress.

[18:06] And we really don't want to make

[18:07] this so appealing that you think

[18:09] this is a lifetime position for

[18:10] you.

[18:12] The founders of our country

[18:13] perceive government positions as

[18:14] a public service.

[18:16] Men would leave their farms or

[18:17] businesses for short-term and

[18:19] then go back home.

[18:21] We felt review every three to

[18:23] four years would be more

[18:24] appropriate keeping the cpi

[18:26] index in place in the meantime

[18:27] and at the end of three or four

[18:28] years, we thought maybe there

[18:31] should be an extra bump because

[18:33] the way economic things were at

[18:34] that time, that would be

[18:35] appropriate to address that.

[18:38] We also felt that a 50%

[18:39] increase, which is what this is,

[18:41] would have a hard time getting

[18:43] passed in the fall.

[18:51] So thank you for your time.

[18:52] >> Chair: thank you so much to

[18:53] our four assemblymembers.

[18:55] I know firsthand how nerve

[18:56] racking it can be the first time

[18:59] you are talking to this u and

[19:02] you guys did a wonderful job.

[19:04] So just to close us out and talk

[19:07] about next steps, all three of

[19:08] these recommendations would

[19:11] require a chapter amendment to

[19:11] pass.

[19:15] -- charter amendment to pass.

[19:16] Civiclex is working with the

[19:17] department of law what that

[19:18] would look like and we want to

[19:20] use the opportunity to talk to

[19:21] our assemblymembers about it so

[19:22] the language included in this

[19:24] presentation is still very much

[19:26] a draft but we wanted to go

[19:28] ahead, go on record, let people

[19:30] know what we are thinking about

[19:31] and help you understand what

[19:33] this might look like in the

[19:33] actual charter.

[19:36] The biggest kind of decision and

[19:37] thing to figure out with the

[19:40] amendment language is what

[19:43] exactly would be a charter

[19:45] amendment versus what makes more

[19:46] since as an ordinance or

[19:47] resolution.

[19:48] That's an active question

[19:50] because we learned a lot about

[19:52] how charters are structural

[19:52] documents.

[19:53] They're meant to set out the

[19:55] general kind of process of

[19:57] government but not dictate

[19:58] specific policy and we want to

[20:00] make sure we are in line with

[20:01] that with our recommendations.

[20:02] So, with that, these are the

[20:04] drafts that we have.

[20:05] In terms of compensation, the

[20:06] big open question that we have

[20:10] with this is we know that the

[20:13] spirit of the assembly is to set

[20:15] compensation according to the

[20:18] number 59,987 which is the

[20:19] annual average wage as reported

[20:19] this year.

[20:23] And so we know that the spirit

[20:24] of the assembly is to set that

[20:27] bench mark now and by the time

[20:30] 231 rolls around and it is

[20:32] implemented, the cpi will have

[20:33] adjusted accordingly.

[20:35] But we are not completely sure,

[20:37] to be transparent,,000 talk

[20:38] about that because we don't know

[20:42] what the number will be.

[20:44] -- MAY I take one more minute to

[20:47] finish the recommendations.

[20:47] >> Chair: let's do two.

[20:51] >> even better.

[20:52] That is the primary question to

[20:53] answer with the compensation,

[20:55] although we know the exact

[20:56] spirit of the recommendation is

[20:58] more about the freezing.

[21:00] -- about the phrasing.

[21:01] The second amendment around

[21:02] council accountability would be

[21:05] added on to section 47.07 which

[21:07] is the rules and procedures

[21:07] article.

[21:08] The main thing to know about

[21:09] this is that ultimately it's up

[21:12] to council to set your own

[21:14] standards of accountability.

[21:16] That is what makes sense in the

[21:16] charter.

[21:18] There is kind of a separation of

[21:19] powers question there.

[21:20] This is more about just

[21:22] requiring council to create an

[21:23] ordinance around accountability.

[21:25] It doesn't specify exactly what

[21:26] would be in there.

[21:28] I will say there are several

[21:29] things that I think

[21:31] assemblymembers feel extremely

[21:32] strongly should be in the

[21:33] ordinance and who would be happy

[21:35] to engage throughout that

[21:35] process.

[21:36] The number one thing that we

[21:38] heard throughout the entire

[21:40] assembly was more transparency

[21:42] around attendance and attendance

[21:43] records.

[21:44] And also just more understanding

[21:46] of what the actual job

[21:48] description of a council member

[21:48] is.

[21:50] So those I think are two things

[21:51] that assemblymembers feel

[21:53] strongly should be included but

[21:54] ultimately that would be a

[21:55] council ordinance.

[21:56] And the final potential

[21:58] amendment is around charter

[22:00] review.

[22:01] Again, I will flag this is one

[22:03] where we are figuring out what

[22:05] makes sense to be an ordinance

[22:06] and what makes sense to be a

[22:07] charter amendment.

[22:09] I think cat did a great job

[22:10] explaining what the assembly

[22:12] feels are most important parts.

[22:13] And one thing I will flag with

[22:16] this is we think process wise

[22:18] perhaps the best way to make

[22:21] this happen would be to have a

[22:22] standing board or commission on

[22:26] charter review, that would be a

[22:28] smaller boarder commission that

[22:30] would include council members or

[22:32] committee chiefs to keep a

[22:34] running list of topics of

[22:35] charter review and organize the

[22:37] review that would happen every

[22:38] eight years potentially.

[22:39] So with that, I just want to say

[22:42] thank you so much to the true

[22:44] village that it took to pull

[22:45] this assembly off.

[22:46] We have many in the room.

[22:48] We have a handful of

[22:49] assemblymembers in the room.

[22:51] Richard and lilly and haley and

[22:52] the civiclex team.

[22:54] This was the largest project

[22:55] we've ever done.

[22:57] We are incredibly proud of it

[22:59] and we are curious to see what

[23:00] you guys think.

[23:00] Thank you.

[23:02] >> Chair: thank you for the

[23:04] presentation, for all the

[23:04] presenters.

[23:06] Colleagues go ahead and sign in

[23:09] if you have comments or

[23:14] questions.

[23:15] Council member brown.

[23:16] >> thank you, chair.

[23:17] And thank you for the

[23:18] presentation.

[23:19] I just wanted to take the

[23:20] opportunity to thank you all for

[23:21] your work on this, all the folks

[23:24] that, the community members that

[23:25] volunteered and took time and

[23:26] participated.

[23:28] I think it was a great exercise

[23:32] in civic engagement and look

[23:33] forward to the conversation

[23:34] about the recommendations and

[23:36] how they move forward.

[23:38] The one thing I will ask -- I

[23:40] know you all were awarded grants

[23:42] and didn't use any local public

[23:44] money to fund this activity.

[23:46] But what was the total cost so

[23:48] far that you all have spent on

[23:48] this effort?

[23:50] >> yes, the total budget from

[23:54] the grants was $220,000 to run

[23:58] this assembly and that included

[24:01] for the most part included

[24:03] civiclex time but it's possible

[24:04] we went a little over with the

[24:05] hours we worked.

[24:06] >> do you foresee if this was

[24:07] something we instituted and did

[24:10] on a regular basis permanently,

[24:12] that's what it would cost to do

[24:14] the whole exercise and would you

[24:15] recommend doing it the same way

[24:17] that y'all did this?

[24:18] >> that's a really good

[24:18] question.

[24:19] I think that if the city was

[24:21] going to be conducting a charter

[24:23] review every eight years with a

[24:25] randomly selected group of

[24:26] residents, there would be a lot

[24:27] of elements of this assembly

[24:30] that I think we think would work

[24:31] really well for that.

[24:33] I don't think every single piece

[24:34] of it needs to.

[24:35] Cost wise I think there are

[24:36] various parts of it that would

[24:38] make a lot of sense for the city

[24:38] to do.

[24:42] The mailing of 10,000, you know,

[24:44] 10,000 postcards to 10,000

[24:46] randomly selected addresses, I

[24:47] think the city could do that

[24:48] even better than we do.

[24:50] There are costs with venue,

[24:51] things like that.

[24:53] I also think because the topic

[24:54] would be set as charter from the

[24:55] beginning, the organization of

[24:56] it would be simpler.

[24:59] And I think the exact model is

[25:01] based on what you think is best,

[25:02] what the assemblymembers weigh

[25:06] in on, but I see it as not -- as

[25:08] kind of a hybrid model of what

[25:11] we just did versus like a

[25:12] traditional.

[25:13] >> I appreciate that answer but

[25:15] I think to some of that, as

[25:17] government could have some

[25:18] efficiencies, but I think the

[25:20] way that you all kind of

[25:21] separated this from coming down

[25:23] here and having the conversation

[25:26] and having that and making those

[25:28] decisions kind of leave what

[25:29] could be perceived as an

[25:31] influence on the process and the

[25:32] outcome.

[25:34] And I do have another question.

[25:36] So, today is just an update.

[25:38] It sounds like you still have

[25:39] some questions to be answered.

[25:42] So we are not being asked to

[25:44] make any decisions or take any

[25:45] action today.

[25:48] >> that's correct.

[25:50] We will need to bring the full

[25:53] amendment language and also the

[25:54] ballot language that will need

[25:56] to be voted on by council,

[25:57] whether or not it will be placed

[25:58] on the ballot.

[26:00] And it seems likely that the

[26:01] JUNE 2 work session will be when

[26:03] we will be sharing that out.

[26:04] >> okay.

[26:06] You said something that brought

[26:06] up another question.

[26:09] So is the council vote to put it

[26:12] on the ballot the only path

[26:12] forward?

[26:16] Do you also have a petition

[26:18] process potential for these

[26:19] initiatives as well?

[26:22] >> yes, so in the charter, it

[26:23] says there are two ways for an

[26:25] amendment question or any

[26:26] referendum question to end up on

[26:27] the ballot.

[26:29] It has to be paced by 3/5

[26:31] majority of council members or

[26:33] by a petition with the number of

[26:35] signatures that is equal to 10%

[26:38] of the voter turnout in the most

[26:42] recent mayoral election.

[26:45] I believe... Do not quote me on

[26:45] that.

[26:48] We are starting -- civiclex

[26:49] decided that going through

[26:51] council made sense because

[26:52] charter review was in committee

[26:54] and that's the path we are

[26:54] currently planning to take.

[26:56] >> thank you for your work on

[26:56] this.

[26:58] Thank you, chair.

[26:59] >> Chair: council member

[26:59] reynolds.

[27:01] >> thank you, chair.

[27:03] I want to especially thank

[27:05] civiclex for taking this on.

[27:07] I know it was a lot of work and

[27:08] a lot of years of work and then

[27:12] i want to thank all of the

[27:13] members of the assembly.

[27:14] I think it's super exciting that

[27:16] you all were able to catch a

[27:18] cross section of lexington, a

[27:19] cross section that we don't

[27:21] usually see here in chambers, a

[27:22] cross section that we don't

[27:23] usually interact with, and

[27:28] really be able to civically

[27:30] engage the average lexingtonian

[27:31] and I I think that's really

[27:32] important.

[27:34] So I'm really thankful that you

[27:35] all did this.

[27:38] I was also like surprised and

[27:41] pretty happy on my end, with

[27:42] what you all came up with.

[27:44] I think you all were super

[27:44] thoughtful.

[27:46] You went through a lot of

[27:48] different scenarios and I

[27:50] appreciate what you brought to

[27:50] us.

[27:54] I just have a few questions.

[27:55] About the council compensation,

[27:56] can you explain the rationale

[28:01] why you decided to wait until --

[28:03] I'm sorry, 231 to implement it?

[28:07] >> yes, so there is article 4 of

[28:10] the charter, there is kind of a

[28:11] specific provision about how

[28:13] compensation can be changed and

[28:14] also the requirement that it

[28:18] cannot be changed by council

[28:19] members for the term that they

[28:20] are in.

[28:21] So essentially because we knew

[28:23] this would be going on the

[28:25] ballot potentially this

[28:27] NOVEMBER, new council will be

[28:28] elected in JANUARY.

[28:29] If that new council is the one

[28:31] to pass the ordinance that will

[28:33] set the new level, we have to

[28:36] wait four years after that for

[28:37] at-large council members which

[28:40] puts us at 231 for

[28:40] implementation.

[28:42] >> that was not my understanding

[28:42] of that.

[28:43] That's interesting.

[28:44] What happens if some of the

[28:45] council members that are here

[28:48] now happen to still be on

[28:48] council then.

[28:53] >> my -- and I will defer to

[28:54] MR. Cravens, my understanding

[28:55] is it's just about the term.

[28:57] The term that the ordinance to

[28:59] change compensation is made, it

[29:02] just can't take effect during

[29:03] the sitting term.

[29:05] >> so because we are in the

[29:10] middle of a term right now.

[29:13] >> correct.

[29:16] >> and then for the council

[29:16] accountability part, can you

[29:22] help explain -- you said we would

[29:23] have to set it up because we set

[29:24] our own standards.

[29:26] So before this could go on the

[29:28] ballot, we would need to set up

[29:30] our standard?

[29:33] Or what would go on the ballot?

[29:36] >> so the language would be

[29:37] based -- the ballot language

[29:38] would be based on the amendment

[29:41] and the amendment is essentially

[29:44] requiring that -- requiring

[29:46] council to create an ordinance

[29:49] with accountability standards

[29:51] after the amendment is passed so

[29:53] that would be essentially a new

[29:55] mandate to create an ordinance

[29:56] that would then be created if it

[29:57] was passed.

[30:00] >> and the idea behind it, the

[30:04] main reason was just folks

[30:06] wanting to be able to see our

[30:07] attendance records more easily?

[30:10] >> I think the big picture idea

[30:12] was a lot of assemblymembers

[30:14] just, as kind of the

[30:18] conversation was evolving, there

[30:19] was a lot of interest in

[30:20] increasing compensation but from

[30:22] the council members we heard

[30:23] directly from in the sessions

[30:25] and public input and research,

[30:30] feeling like compensation is

[30:33] increased, the assembly was

[30:34] interested in increasing

[30:35] accountability alongside that.

[30:37] They go together quite closely.

[30:39] And this was the best way, using

[30:41] the charter, to increase

[30:42] accountability standards.

[30:44] >> so just saying we would like

[30:46] council to come up with some

[30:49] sort of transparency about the

[30:52] work that they do, maybe it

[30:55] being, you know, focus add

[30:58] round -- focused around

[31:00] attendance and what other roles

[31:01] that we hold.

[31:03] >> the ultimate accountability

[31:04] of council members is elections

[31:05] but wanting to have more

[31:07] transparency around that for

[31:09] informed voters to make

[31:09] decisions.

[31:10] >> that makes sense.

[31:10] Thank you.

[31:15] And then the last thing, so the

[31:18] charter review, I think that

[31:19] made sense and I like the

[31:20] recommendation that we set

[31:25] something up that is going,

[31:25] ongoing.

[31:27] So the hope from what you just

[31:28] said to council member brown is

[31:30] that by the JUNE 2 meeting we

[31:32] would have formalized language

[31:34] that we are voting yes or no

[31:35] on...

[31:36] >> to place on the ballot.

[31:38] Whether or not to place on the

[31:38] ballot, yes.

[31:39] >> perfect.

[31:41] Thank you, chair.

[31:41] >> thank you.

[31:42] >> Chair: vice mayor wu.

[31:43] >> thank you, chair.

[31:45] Thank you for your presentation

[31:46] and all this great work.

[31:48] I was especially impressed, if

[31:49] you go back to some early slides

[31:52] with the demographics, I was

[31:55] especially impressed with how

[31:56] this group almost overlaid

[31:59] nearly perfectly on most

[32:01] measures with folks in lexington

[32:03] and I think that's one of the

[32:04] things that we are always

[32:05] looking for when we are thinking

[32:07] about public engagement and

[32:08] input is are the people in the

[32:09] room actually representative of

[32:11] the whole city or is it just the

[32:13] people who are tuned in, who

[32:14] have the time and energy to show

[32:16] up all the time, right?

[32:18] So that's really impressive and

[32:19] I'm so happy that you all were

[32:21] very conscious conscientious

[32:22] about that.

[32:23] One of the things that I love

[32:25] about doing new stuff in

[32:27] lexington is a certain level of

[32:27] bragging rights.

[32:34] So I know that civic assemblies

[32:35] are not common in the united

[32:37] states yet and we are at the tip

[32:38] of the spear trying it.

[32:39] I think that's really great.

[32:42] Question about the charter

[32:43] review piece, the second piece

[32:46] of that amendment language talks

[32:49] about creating standing charter

[32:49] review board.

[32:51] And you had mentioned it could

[32:54] be council members.

[32:56] Just so I'm clear, this body

[32:59] would meet on a regular basis

[33:01] between in the middle of that

[33:02] eight-year cycle and basically

[33:04] say here are some topics you

[33:05] should look at.

[33:07] And then from there we take our

[33:08] hands off of it and the assembly

[33:10] happens and the assembly process

[33:12] and folks can choose to tackle

[33:13] those specific issues.

[33:14] Is that the intent?

[33:16] >> the intent is that the actual

[33:17] charter review is commissioned

[33:20] of a randomly and

[33:21] representatively selected group

[33:22] of prosecutors and that this

[33:24] standing board is keeping a

[33:26] running list of topics and

[33:27] potentially helping facilitate

[33:28] that commission review, which

[33:31] would be on the 12-month time

[33:31] limit.

[33:32] >> thank you for that.

[33:33] There was some conversation

[33:35] about the idea potentially

[33:37] combining recommendations 1 and

[33:40] 2 into one ballot.

[33:42] Can you speak to a little bit of

[33:43] what the assembly was thinking

[33:46] on that and why they're separate

[33:46] versus together?

[33:48] >> yeah, richard, do you want to

[34:01] speak to that a little?

[34:03] >> agree both of those

[34:05] amendments really, I think, were

[34:08] sort of tied together.

[34:09] Kit talked about this earlier,

[34:11] that, you know, many

[34:15] assemblymembers thought that

[34:16] compensation, you know,

[34:17] shouldn't be increased unless

[34:21] there is also an additional

[34:24] level of expectations around

[34:28] council member accountability

[34:29] and attendance.

[34:31] I think there were many people

[34:32] on the assembly that would not

[34:34] have voted for the compensation

[34:36] increase if there were not also

[34:37] this accountability piece.

[34:41] I think there are a number of

[34:43] reasons on this sort of

[34:44] non-legal side, I guess I would

[34:46] say, for why those could be

[34:50] combined or separated.

[34:52] Is ultimately we decided the

[34:53] simplest thing to do in terms of

[34:55] getting them on the ballot for

[34:57] clarity for voters was to have

[35:01] them be two sprat amendment --

[35:01] separate amendments.

[35:02] This is another great situation

[35:04] to defer to the city's

[35:05] department of law on what would

[35:09] be the most appropriate.

[35:10] >> thank you for that.

[35:13] i can see the arguments for both

[35:14] and it's a proven fact that when

[35:15] there are too many ballot

[35:17] measures on one particular

[35:18] ballot, they don't always do

[35:19] well.

[35:20] People kind of skip it.

[35:22] And looking at this year's

[35:24] sample ballot in NOVEMBER, it's

[35:27] going to be a long run, one,

[35:27] right?

[35:30] We have all 15 council states,

[35:30] national, state, mayor, who

[35:32] knows what page the ballot

[35:33] initiatives will be on but they

[35:34] will be at the end.

[35:39] Speaking to the strapped

[35:40] amendment language, it's my

[35:43] understanding that what you want

[35:45] from council in sort of

[35:48] finalizing and crafting these

[35:49] amendments is to follow the

[35:50] spirit of what the assembly is

[35:51] setting out to do.

[35:53] And I feel that we are

[35:54] relatively clear on that.

[35:55] The language you are giving us

[35:58] today is nowhere near final

[35:58] language, right?

[35:59] We are going to work with law,

[36:01] work with you all and the

[36:03] assembly to figure out what

[36:03] makes sense.

[36:05] The question of when things

[36:07] start, what that eight years

[36:07] looks like, right?

[36:08] >> yes.

[36:10] >> and the other piece, too,

[36:11] that I'm thinking about is both

[36:13] with the review and the account

[36:15] bit lang -- accountability

[36:16] lapping winning, you are

[36:17] basically charging us with

[36:18] creating the structures.

[36:19] You are not telling us what the

[36:20] structures are necessary.

[36:21] >> I correct.

[36:23] We wanted to build the hoof all

[36:24] structure with the amendment

[36:27] language and then allow the sort

[36:30] of specifics to be determined by

[36:30] council.

[36:32] I think our assemblymembers have

[36:33] a lot of thoughts they would

[36:34] like to share with you all about

[36:37] what those specific requirements

[36:39] would be, what would go into

[36:40] ordinance and resolution.

[36:42] But in terms of actually putting

[36:45] that on the ballot, and in the

[36:46] charter, and our conversations

[36:47] with the department of law, it

[36:51] seemed that restricting what is

[36:54] in the amendment to the sort of

[36:57] macro structural pieces is what

[36:59] would be most in keeping with

[37:00] the tradition of the charter.

[37:00] >> thank you.

[37:02] Thank you, chair.

[37:04] >> Clerk: council member lynch.

[37:06] >> thank you, chair.

[37:07] Thank you to civiclex for doing

[37:08] this.

[37:10] This was huge.

[37:14] Very excited that it was super

[37:14] successful.

[37:16] Thank you to all the

[37:17] assemblymembers for volunteering

[37:19] your time and your expertise and

[37:21] thanks to the volunteers and

[37:23] everyone that made this assembly

[37:23] happen.

[37:26] I'm just excited it has gone so

[37:27] well and thank you for the

[37:28] representations you have put

[37:29] before us.

[37:32] My questions are about the

[37:33] demographic information.

[37:35] You all did like an outstanding

[37:37] job of getting a great cross

[37:41] section of folks in our city.

[37:43] I think should all of this move

[37:45] forward, I would love for us to

[37:47] continue to work with you all to

[37:49] see how you all did this so that

[37:52] we can replicate it for not only

[37:54] the charter review board or

[37:56] commission, but in other ways

[37:57] throughout government, because

[38:00] as you know, vice mayor and i

[38:02] are working on making sure

[38:04] boards are equitable and true

[38:05] representative of the true

[38:05] population.

[38:06] I would love to get the formula

[38:09] and do a deep dive on that.

[38:10] I look forward to working with

[38:11] you on that in the future.

[38:13] My two questions are on the

[38:14] housing status.

[38:15] 7% of the group were other.

[38:19] I was just curious what other

[38:19] was.

[38:22] Was that unhoused or marginally

[38:23] housed?

[38:25] >> I believe it's yeah, living

[38:27] with family or friends, between

[38:29] you know, living situations,

[38:31] things like that, which is not

[38:32] tracked in the census.

[38:33] And actually housing status is

[38:36] not really in the census either.

[38:39] So we just went with the rate of

[38:41] owned occupants and rented

[38:42] occupants.

[38:44] Rented units in lexington that

[38:46] was our benchmark number.

[38:47] But that's what that other is

[38:49] referring to, is alternative

[38:50] housing statuses.

[38:51] I think we had somebody apply

[38:54] that lived in a parsonage.

[38:55] So they wrote that in.

[38:56] Things like that.

[38:56] >> thank you.

[38:58] My last question is regarding

[39:00] the political registration.

[39:02] On the gold pie there was a gray

[39:04] section that was not represented

[39:06] in the actual...

[39:09] >> yes, that is, I believe that

[39:11] is other parties.

[39:12] Like a combination of green

[39:13] party, things like that.

[39:15] And that was something we just

[39:16] did not have applicants to.

[39:19] So that was, yeah,...

[39:21] >> kudos to you all and thank

[39:22] you for all of your work.

[39:23] This is awesome.

[39:24] thank you, chair.

[39:25] >> Chair: I'm going to call on

[39:28] committee members first and then

[39:29] non-committee members.

[39:30] Council member sevigny you are

[39:30] next.

[39:31] >> thank you, chair and thank

[39:33] you so much for the

[39:33] presentation.

[39:35] Thank you all for spending your

[39:37] time working on this.

[39:39] It's really cool to have a group

[39:46] of people who really, this is

[39:48] some of you the first brush of

[39:49] being asked these kinds of

[39:51] questions and you had to get up

[39:52] to speed and that's great.

[39:53] Thank you for all of that.

[39:55] My questions are around a couple

[39:55] of things.

[40:01] One is, I generally believe that

[40:02] the questions that are at the

[40:05] end of the ballot are like the

[40:07] hardest to get to and, to be

[40:10] honest with you, they take a

[40:12] huge initiative by some

[40:13] organization to get people to

[40:15] actually vote on them or even

[40:17] think about them.

[40:19] I don't know who -- like we

[40:21] certainly wouldn't do that.

[40:22] Like it's kind of -- I'm kind of

[40:23] curious if you thought about

[40:25] things like that.

[40:27] And then the other thing that I

[40:31] wanted to talk to you is, I kind

[40:35] of feel like if we took the

[40:37] accountability measures and we

[40:39] did an ordinance of our own by

[40:40] talking with you about

[40:42] accountability measures, and

[40:44] then we put them into place,

[40:46] proo irto putting something --

[40:48] prior to put something on the

[40:50] ballot, we should be able to

[40:53] check a box that says like, hey,

[40:55] we are doing some

[40:56] self-accountability and we are

[40:58] making it a very public

[40:58] dashboard for you.

[41:03] we've agreed this is important.

[41:05] I don't knowsly know that all of

[41:06] them need to be a ballot

[41:07] initiative.

[41:08] I absolutely know that the

[41:11] income salary one has to be.

[41:14] But the other ones, I think, if

[41:16] we show good stewardship, and if

[41:18] we put those out there in an

[41:22] ordinance form, it can be part

[41:23] of our policy.

[41:24] Let me just ask you, did you

[41:26] think about that even deeper or

[41:29] what?

[41:32] >>

[41:35] >> so, yes, to answer your

[41:37] second question first, I won't

[41:38] always defer to law.

[41:40] I wish one of us was a lawyer,

[41:42] but as far as I know, I don't

[41:44] see any reason why council

[41:45] couldn't adopt accountability

[41:47] measures in advance of the

[41:49] ballot initiative and I do think

[41:51] many people might think that

[41:52] would be a gesture of good

[41:53] fades.

[41:55] I think the assembly was

[41:56] interested in mandating council

[41:57] produce an ordinance on

[41:58] accountability as that's kind of

[42:02] an extra level of chops, you

[42:03] know, potentially for future

[42:04] councils.

[42:05] One of the things we talked

[42:05] about.

[42:06] This is not just for lexington

[42:07] now.

[42:09] It's for lexington in 20, 30, 40

[42:09] years.

[42:11] I think that is why the assembly

[42:12] was interested in having that

[42:15] being mandated in the charter.

[42:17] And then to the question of the

[42:19] ballot question and campaign,

[42:20] it's a really good question.

[42:22] And as each of you know,

[42:24] civiclex does not advocate for

[42:25] issues and we are not going to

[42:27] start on this.

[42:29] i think we, as you know, cover

[42:31] local elections and can

[42:32] certainly cover what will be on

[42:36] the ballot, and I think/hope

[42:37] that some of the assemblymembers

[42:40] might be interested in helping,

[42:42] you know, inform people about

[42:43] these and potentially

[42:45] campaigning on them.

[42:46] Our assemblymembers are not

[42:47] civiclex staff.

[42:49] We have one assemblymember who

[42:50] is committed to campaigning

[42:52] against the issues, which is

[42:52] also great.

[42:54] That's what we are here to do.

[42:56] >> I would think we would have

[42:57] both.

[42:57] >> indeed.

[43:01] Civiclex, we are committed to

[43:01] educating about what will be on

[43:03] the ballot but beyond that, we

[43:05] will not be running I campaign.

[43:09] >> one more thing was and I did

[43:10] speak with richard before this,

[43:12] so I kind of was trying to get --

[43:14] what was in their head about 9 --

[43:17] I know you picked a current

[43:18] average.

[43:21] I don't believe the way this

[43:23] reads, like I think you picked a

[43:25] number and in five years that

[43:27] number, if you look at just the

[43:30] 2% cpi, is going to be about

[43:33] $6,000 short, and to me that

[43:34] doesn't seem fair.

[43:36] Like it seems if I were going

[43:38] for a ballot initiative, that

[43:39] would start, I like to start

[43:41] with something that is fair.

[43:42] And I think we are already

[43:45] putting people at a disadvantage

[43:48] and I don't particularly like

[43:48] that.

[43:50] So, tell me kind of how you got

[43:52] to this, if you don't mind?

[43:54] And I only have about 30

[43:54] seconds.

[43:55] I don't have another question.

[43:58] Just keep it succinct, thanks.

[44:00] >> yeah, I think I will say we

[44:01] are actively trying to figure

[44:02] out how to put that on the

[44:03] ballot and we also do not want

[44:04] to be misleading.

[44:06] And also legally cannot be

[44:07] misleading.

[44:09] There has been a recent mercy's

[44:11] law case about misleading ballot

[44:13] language and we do not want to

[44:14] stray in that direction.

[44:15] What I can say is we know the

[44:17] spirit of the assembly was to

[44:21] set the new baseline at that

[44:23] $59,987 and to adjust it

[44:25] according to rubber dollar every

[44:26] year.

[44:28] As it is right now in the actual

[44:30] charter it says council salary

[44:30] is $6,000.

[44:32] We are still figuring out a way

[44:33] to frame that that is not

[44:35] misleading but we know that is

[44:36] the spirit of the

[44:38] recommendation.

[44:39] >> thank you very much.

[44:41] That's all I have, chair.

[44:41] >> Chair: council member curtis.

[44:44] >> thank you, chair, and thank

[44:46] you, kit and richard and all the

[44:48] participants and everybody

[44:49] involved for being here today

[44:53] and the work you put into the

[44:54] civic assembly.

[44:55] It is a remarkable thing when we

[44:58] are able to inform our decisions

[44:59] through more democratic means

[45:01] and that is at the core of what

[45:04] you are doing and it's very much

[45:07] appreciated from my perspective.

[45:10] I don't have questions for

[45:10] y'all.

[45:14] I just have to take a second and

[45:16] just express my appreciation for

[45:18] being willing to dive into these

[45:20] thorny subjects because they are

[45:22] often times ones where were we

[45:24] to get into discussions about

[45:26] them solely on our own accord in

[45:27] this legislative body, there

[45:29] would be a question that I

[45:31] think, at least with the ones

[45:32] that y'all explored this go

[45:34] around, hopefully the first of

[45:37] many, that would raise questions

[45:40] about conflicts of interest, our

[45:44] ability to hold ourselves

[45:45] accountability.

[45:46] -- accountable and as you have

[45:48] seen over the past sever years,3

[45:49] you cannot always trust council

[45:51] members to hold themselves

[45:52] accountable so increasing any

[45:57] sort of accountability public

[45:59] trust is a tangible good and we

[46:00] are lucky to have y'all here and

[46:02] I'm looking forward to working

[46:03] with y'all and supporting

[46:05] whatever language comes forward.

[46:06] So thank you.

[46:10] Thank you, chair.

[46:11] >> Chair: council member morton.

[46:11] >>.

[46:12] Thank you.

[46:13] I also want to give my sincere

[46:16] appreciation and gratitude to

[46:19] civiclex for hosting and spear

[46:20] spearheading this and all the

[46:20] members vfd.

[46:22] There was a list of thank yous.

[46:24] So I will give my gratitude to

[46:27] everyone involved with this

[46:30] process and yes, you can put it

[46:31] back up there.

[46:33] >> it's an important list.

[46:35] >> thank you to anyone listening

[46:36] and in the crowd who took part

[46:38] in it.

[46:39] Regarding -- I don't have any

[46:39] questions.

[46:42] I will just speak my thoughts

[46:43] regarding council compensation.

[46:44] Me specifically I'm a firm

[46:45] believer no matter what position

[46:47] you are in, you should be paid

[46:47] your worth.

[46:50] That's just what I believe.

[46:50] Period.

[46:51] On the other hand, these council

[46:53] positions are pretty broad

[46:55] positions, baded on, you know,

[46:56] the philosophy of the council

[46:58] members, based on discretion and

[47:00] based on what we decide, what we

[47:02] want to do, how much time we

[47:04] want to spend and we know a lot

[47:06] of us spend a lot of time, full

[47:07] time on some of these, you know,

[47:10] on this work.

[47:11] See so I'm interested in, you

[47:14] guess, pushing it to the ballot

[47:15] and see what the constituents

[47:15] say.

[47:17] They know their council members.

[47:19] They are represented by council

[47:20] members and know the work that

[47:22] has been put in recently and in

[47:23] the past and I'm interested in

[47:26] seeing the decision they make.

[47:28] I won't speak personally, I was

[47:29] a legislative aide so I worked

[47:31] in the 1st district and made

[47:32] double almost what I'm making

[47:33] right now.

[47:35] So I totally understand the

[47:35] divide.

[47:37] And I understand both sides of

[47:40] that topic.

[47:43] Regarding council

[47:45] accountability, I'm a strong

[47:46] believer in transparency and

[47:48] accountability and you know,I

[47:49] think what, me specifically,

[47:50] I'll speak for myself again,

[47:54] when I ran, one of my number one

[47:55] principles was accessible

[47:55] leadership.

[47:57] Being attentive, available and

[47:58] showing up, showing up in the

[48:00] community, showing up to council

[48:01] meetings and showing up to

[48:04] boards and all the different

[48:06] things that we are on.

[48:07] Some of the information is

[48:08] already available.

[48:09] It's just not plastered out

[48:11] there and I don't think there

[48:12] should be nothing wrong with

[48:13] showing attend ansz of council

[48:14] members showing, what we are

[48:15] doing.

[48:17] I think a step further and going

[48:18] to show the legislative items we

[48:21] are work on and the commitments

[48:23] we have in the community in our

[48:25] district because then as you

[48:26] stated, it goes back into the

[48:27] number one recommendation to

[48:29] show, yo have increased the

[48:31] pay, what work are they actually

[48:31] doing.

[48:33] How much time are they actually

[48:33] putting in.

[48:34] I don't think there is ever an

[48:36] issue to are me specifically

[48:38] when it comes to transparency,

[48:40] or ctbility for this role.

[48:42] And -- accountability for this

[48:42] role.

[48:45] And I would support there is

[48:47] nothing wrong and it could only

[48:49] benefit the city to ensure there

[48:50] are regular opportunities to

[48:52] reflect and evaluate and make

[48:54] the updates to meet the evolving

[48:55] needs of our community.

[48:56] I look forward to this moving

[48:58] through the process and the

[48:59] residents to be the ones to make

[49:01] the decision hopefully.

[49:01] Thank you.

[49:04] >> Chair: thank you.

[49:05] Council member eblen.

[49:07] >> thank you, chair.

[49:09] My questions have been answered

[49:11] by the questions from my

[49:11] colleagues.

[49:13] I want to thank you for this

[49:13] process.

[49:15] I came into this role as a big

[49:16] fan of civiclex.

[49:18] I think the way it was thought

[49:20] out and the commission members

[49:22] who put a lot of effort into

[49:24] this and your recommendations

[49:24] were outstanding.

[49:26] Thank you for the work and I'm

[49:27] just really impressed by all

[49:29] that went into it and especially

[49:30] what came out of it.

[49:30] so thank you.

[49:34] >> thank you.

[49:35] >> Chair: I want to take a

[49:37] couple of moments to share my

[49:38] thoughts and comments and then

[49:40] I'm going to turn it over to

[49:42] vice mayor wu to wrap things up.

[49:45] But again, I extend my thanks to

[49:46] everyone who has been involved

[49:50] in this.

[49:52] I have -- I'm really excited

[49:53] about the level of engagement

[49:55] that we have gotten from the

[49:55] community on this.

[49:57] So you heard a couple of us

[49:59] already say like we tend to hear

[50:00] from the same people over and

[50:03] over again.

[50:08] And and it's great and we want

[50:10] to hear from them, we also want

[50:11] to hear from the broader

[50:11] community.

[50:13] I'm interested to do a year from

[50:15] now, where are they now on our

[50:16] civic assemblymembers.

[50:18] Like did you stay engaged or

[50:20] like how did you get involved in

[50:22] local government in other ways?

[50:26] Did we get you into a board or a

[50:26] commission?

[50:28] Or participate in some other way

[50:30] with our local government?

[50:32] But I would also be interested

[50:35] to see if there is a way for us

[50:37] to engage over 300 people that

[50:38] returned their postcard that

[50:39] said they would be willing to

[50:41] give of their time in this way

[50:45] because we definitely want that

[50:46] broader caption, like vice mayor

[50:49] wu was talking about, the pie

[50:52] charts and how well represented

[50:55] the assembly was based on the

[50:56] data that we have about our

[50:58] community and my researcher

[51:00] heart was like, yes.

[51:01] I love to see it.

[51:03] But I would like to see that in

[51:06] all of our issues that come

[51:07] before council when we get

[51:08] feedback from the community.

[51:09] I want to see the data that

[51:11] looks like that when we are

[51:14] looking at the demographics.

[51:15] I applaud ow that effort because

[51:17] I know it was not small.

[51:19] I want to see how we can keep

[51:22] people engabbinged that spent --

[51:23] engaged that spent all this time

[51:25] learning about government and

[51:27] keep them involved.

[51:28] And then.

[51:31] I will be interested to see how

[51:33] the conversation and definition

[51:36] around attendance goes on the

[51:43] accountability piece we have our

[51:45] standing committee meetings,

[51:47] work seases and budget meetings

[51:48] that are fixed.

[51:49] Quite often we also serve in

[51:50] council member seats on boards

[51:51] and commissions.

[51:53] So likely that be a part of the

[51:54] attendance reporting?

[51:56] Like how will we define that

[51:57] piece.

[52:03] I will follow along I think

[52:04] that's interesting.

[52:05] If we are going to talk about

[52:07] this at the JUNE 2 work session,

[52:08] we will need to discuss how this

[52:10] moves from committee to work

[52:10] session.

[52:12] So I'm going to turn the mic

[52:14] over vice mayor wu to discuss

[52:16] what actions we MAY need to

[52:16] take.

[52:20] >> thank you, chair.

[52:23] Just adding to chair sheehan's

[52:24] comments about partnerships, I

[52:26] feel like we have activated 30

[52:27] something potential community

[52:28] champions for lexington.

[52:30] So I hope this is not the last

[52:33] time you will show up in council

[52:33] chambers.

[52:35] We love for you all to get on

[52:36] boards and commissions.

[52:37] We have 70 boards and

[52:38] commissions in the city.

[52:39] anything you are interested or

[52:40] passionate about, there is

[52:41] probably a board out there for

[52:43] you and you are always welcome

[52:45] to contact me or the rest of

[52:47] council on questions and kind of

[52:51] how to manufacture in that

[52:51] direction.

[52:53] I want to address one comment

[52:54] council member sevigny made

[52:56] about the accountability piece

[52:56] of it.

[52:58] Like could we not just do our

[53:00] own thing in terms of creating

[53:05] our own ordinances and

[53:07] resolutions.

[53:09] I like the idea of putting

[53:10] something on the ballot that

[53:12] gives us a little flexibility

[53:15] and also holds us account.

[53:17] Changing the ballot is harder

[53:19] than changing an ordinance.

[53:21] It can be undone fairly easily.

[53:23] As opposed to a ballot

[53:24] initiative if we didn't like

[53:25] that particular item in the

[53:28] ballot, you know, hopefully in

[53:29] eight years, somebody will make

[53:30] a different kind of

[53:31] recommendation.

[53:32] So I like things being codified

[53:33] that way.

[53:36] Before I make my motion,

[53:37] MS. Anderson, can you talk us

[53:39] through, if this item moves out

[53:40] of committee today, can you give

[53:42] us a quick timeline all the way

[53:44] to election day in NOVEMBER?

[53:51] >> yes, so working backwards,

[53:53] election day is novemberment

[53:54] deadline for questions in the

[53:55] ballot is the first week of

[53:55] AUGUST.

[53:58] I believe this year it is AUGUST 3 or 4.

[53:59] And that is when the language

[54:02] has to be turned over to the

[54:05] count clerk to end up on the

[54:06] ballot.

[54:07] So council would just need to

[54:10] make their final -- your final

[54:12] vote to meet that deadline.

[54:15] In terms of crafting the

[54:18] language, I think that we are

[54:19] still interested -- this is

[54:21] really the first time we have

[54:22] convened the assembly since our

[54:23] final session.

[54:24] And we are certainly also

[54:26] willing to help work on the

[54:28] language, but that would be the

[54:29] ultimate timeline.

[54:30] >> I appreciate that.

[54:32] I think with that timeline, if

[54:34] it is the intent of this council

[54:37] to potentially put things on the

[54:38] ballot, my recommendation would

[54:40] be that we do it before summer

[54:41] break because we are not back

[54:44] the first week of AUGUST into

[54:44] session.

[54:47] So with that in mind, I move to

[54:49] accept the recommendations of

[54:51] the civic assembly regarding

[54:53] council compensation council

[54:54] accountability and charter

[54:58] review as set forth in today's

[55:00] presentation and refer the

[55:02] amendments regarding the same to

[55:04] full council on work session

[55:05] JUNE 2.

[55:06] >> second.

[55:07] >> Chair: we have a motion and a

[55:07] second.

[55:10] Any discussion on the motion?

[55:11] Council member brown.

[55:14] >> thank you, thank you, chair.

[55:16] Just to be clear.

[55:18] This is not accepting the

[55:19] recommendations as presented.

[55:20] This is just moving it forward

[55:23] to the full council to consider.

[55:24] >> that's correct.

[55:29] >> thank you.

[55:31] >> Chair: can we clarify because

[55:33] you say I move to accept the

[55:39] recommendation.

[55:41] >> I think -- I mean ultimately

[55:44] like this committee can't make a

[55:45] final vote on putting things on

[55:46] the ballot.

[55:48] so I'm okay with that language

[55:50] if it is the understanding of

[55:51] council that we are moving it

[55:53] out of ggp, into full work

[55:55] session for that discussion on

[55:57] whether or not we want to move

[55:59] these potential ballot measures

[56:00] forward.

[56:02] >> Chair: and then to be clear,

[56:03] the JUNE 2 reportout we might

[56:06] have changes to the language

[56:07] that could be presented to the

[56:09] full council during that report

[56:12] out discussion and then JUNE 4

[56:14] and 9 would be first and second

[56:19] reading if it passes on JUNE 2.

[56:19] MR. Cravens.

[56:21] >> yes, I think accepted in this

[56:24] context means you are receiving

[56:25] their recommendations.

[56:27] You are not actually approving

[56:28] their recommendations.

[56:29] You are accepting them.

[56:31] And just so you are aware, what

[56:34] I would like to do to facilitate

[56:35] your conversation on JUNE 2 is

[56:38] have a draft ordinance with the

[56:40] changes that we worked on with

[56:42] civiclex to kind of capture as

[56:43] best we can and resolve some of

[56:44] the discussion points talked

[56:46] about today so that we are not

[56:48] just talking a vacuum on JUNE 2.

[56:50] We have something we can

[56:53] actually act upon or you can act

[56:53] upon.

[56:54] >> thank you for the

[56:56] clarification on the language.

[57:00] Any other discussion?

[57:02] All those in favor?

[57:04] >> aye.

[57:06] >> Chair: any opposed?

[57:07] That motion passes.

[57:08] Thank you everyone.

[57:10] And I just want to add one quick

[57:12] thanks as well to lex tv because

[57:16] I know that they worked very

[57:17] hard on live streaming and

[57:20] making the session are available

[57:22] to folks outside of the meeting.

[57:25] so thank you.

[57:25] Okay.

[57:30] Our next item on our agenda is

[57:32] the landlord and tenant advisory

[57:37] groups presentation on how this

[57:37] initiative is going.

[57:43] This is council member lynch's

[57:44] item in committee.

[57:45] I'm going to turn it over to

[57:46] director lanter and council

[57:48] member lynch will give us some

[57:49] closing remarks toward the end.

[57:51] Take it away, director or

[57:52] commissioner, sorry.

[57:55] >> did you want to do an

[57:56] introduction?

[57:56] Great.

[57:58] I will begin with the

[57:58] presentation that is

[57:59] significantly less interesting

[58:00] than the charter.

[58:02] I appreciate you all having us

[58:03] out to talk about this.

[58:05] The landlord-tenant advisory

[58:07] group this is a straightforward.

[58:08] You MAY recall something we have

[58:09] been working on in our office

[58:12] really since the inception phs

[58:13] office almost four years ago and

[58:14] that is just to make sure that

[58:17] we are building feedback loops

[58:18] into the divisions so that the

[58:22] work they do is informed by both

[58:23] of these groups because those

[58:25] are the two groups that their

[58:26] work impacts the most and also

[58:29] that we are hearing from them,

[58:30] what their needs are in the

[58:39] community.

[58:43] 2023 we originally had this as a

[58:46] more inform al group, and they

[58:48] met quarterly.

[58:50] The landlord and tenant groups

[58:51] each met quarterly.

[58:54] It started when we had some

[58:56] requests for more tenant

[58:57] representation on boards and

[58:58] commissions which itself is a

[59:01] complex issue that we can talk

[59:04] about that we have been working

[59:04] on.

[59:06] The biggest barrier to that

[59:07] often is memberships on boards

[59:09] and commissions as all of us

[59:11] know, can be very time consuming

[59:16] and require a lot of meetings

[59:18] and not always conducive to

[59:19] people's personal schedules and

[59:20] family schedules so we tried to

[59:22] make this as simple and easy for

[59:23] these folks as we can to be

[59:25] heard and to influence our

[59:36] policy as an office not formally

[59:38] reporting and the agenda is fed

[59:40] by the division so they feed up

[59:44] into the commissioner's office

[59:45] and back down from the meeting,

[59:47] the feedback that we get from

[59:48] the two groups.

[59:50] Just taking a look at the

[59:50] landlord advisory group.

[59:52] This one started out with a

[59:52] group of 12.

[59:54] And we worked really hard to try

[59:56] and choose the different sort of

[59:58] sectors of the market to make

[1:00:00] sure that the different types of

[1:00:02] landlord were represented.

[1:00:06] The issues that a corporate

[1:00:09] owner with 400 units faces are

[1:00:13] significantly different than a

[1:00:14] rental units.

[1:00:16] And we, we are successful at

[1:00:17] building a group that

[1:00:19] represented all of them.

[1:00:21] These are some of the topics

[1:00:23] that the group has looked at.

[1:00:23] Basically everything you can

[1:00:24] think of.

[1:00:26] We have spent some time on with

[1:00:29] both the landlord and the tenant

[1:00:29] groups.

[1:00:32] As you can see, it is most more

[1:00:34] focused on building and property

[1:00:35] maintenance, code enforcement.

[1:00:36] Code is there every time talking

[1:00:37] to them.

[1:00:39] We have had other divisions come

[1:00:40] in, planning has come in and

[1:00:43] talked to them about the urban

[1:00:43] growth management zota and so

[1:00:45] it's just a great way to reach

[1:00:47] that group without having to,

[1:00:51] you know, do it so informally.

[1:00:52] More recently we are looking to

[1:00:55] kind of revitalize this group.

[1:00:57] As you can imagine, they can be

[1:00:58] difficult to get together.

[1:01:01] We have tried different meeting

[1:01:01] times.

[1:01:03] We feed them, buy them lunch.

[1:01:05] And we get good attendance from

[1:01:08] certain groups, not so good

[1:01:08] attendance from others.

[1:01:10] What I have tried to do is

[1:01:13] branch out and so for the groups

[1:01:15] that we are not seeing which

[1:01:17] tend to be the larger ones, the

[1:01:18] more corporate entities that

[1:01:19] don't come in, I'm going to

[1:01:20] them.

[1:01:22] And so we recently joined the

[1:01:24] central kentucky apartment

[1:01:26] association's advisory committee

[1:01:27] for public advocacy.

[1:01:30] I sit in on all those meetings

[1:01:31] to hear what their issues are

[1:01:33] and bring them back to the

[1:01:33] group.

[1:01:34] We MAY not be able to meet with

[1:01:36] everyone in the group but we are

[1:01:36] still hearing them.

[1:01:38] And we are going to revitalize

[1:01:40] that membership because some of

[1:01:42] our folks have fallen off and we

[1:01:44] are replacing them with new

[1:01:46] groups and we'll get the new

[1:01:48] group kicked off this summer.

[1:01:50] Probably healthy, to be honest

[1:01:52] with you, that we do flush out

[1:01:55] the membership every so often.

[1:01:57] Flush out is probably not the

[1:01:58] best word.

[1:02:01] Transition or turnover, for

[1:02:03] fresh ideas and new

[1:02:03] perspectives.

[1:02:05] Tenant advisory group, same

[1:02:06] approach.

[1:02:07] We wanted to represent as many

[1:02:08] different groups as possible

[1:02:10] within the subset of renters.

[1:02:13] So you've got families with

[1:02:14] children but you also have

[1:02:16] people who experienced

[1:02:16] homelessness, seniors, people

[1:02:18] who live in housing authority

[1:02:19] property.

[1:02:22] We tried to account for every

[1:02:25] possible angle for a renter;

[1:02:26] which can be difficult.

[1:02:28] You can imagine we had our

[1:02:29] biggest attendance challenges

[1:02:29] with this group.

[1:02:34] We have tried offering night

[1:02:38] meetings, food, child care.

[1:02:39] We have offered everything you

[1:02:41] can offer and we tend to get

[1:02:44] about 50 to 30% attendance on a

[1:02:45] good day.

[1:02:47] So that was extremely

[1:02:47] challenging.

[1:02:49] We had one meeting that we went

[1:02:50] to and none of the members

[1:02:53] showed up for the meeting.

[1:03:06] None.

[1:03:07] So we went to the organizations

[1:03:08] that work with the tenants and

[1:03:10] said can you give us people or

[1:03:13] staff to come talk about these

[1:03:13] issues?

[1:03:15] It's not as pure as a pure

[1:03:16] tenant advisory group is because

[1:03:17] it's largely organizations

[1:03:19] although we have added folks who

[1:03:20] are grassroots as we have

[1:03:21] encountered them.

[1:03:23] We have a very low barrier to

[1:03:24] you joining us in this group.

[1:03:26] It's very informal but we do at

[1:03:28] least get people to come and so

[1:03:30] we are getting some productive

[1:03:31] conversations out of those.

[1:03:32] The last one was actually quite

[1:03:32] good.

[1:03:34] And we are going to continue to

[1:03:36] work with that group to bring in

[1:03:37] more actual tenants and make

[1:03:43] sure the tenants they work with

[1:03:45] to make sure they're all

[1:03:45] represented.

[1:03:47] they have met now five times.

[1:03:52] This is the newly reconstituted

[1:04:11] group.

[1:04:12] You both fell off at different

[1:04:13] points along the way and had to

[1:04:15] be picked up and rejuvenated and

[1:04:17] we are still in the process with

[1:04:17] one of them.

[1:04:19] The landlord group although we

[1:04:20] are very much in communications

[1:04:23] with those members.

[1:04:24] Happy to take questions but that

[1:04:32] is where we stand as of today.

[1:04:34] >> Chair: colleagues sign in if

[1:04:36] you would like to have a comment

[1:04:37] or a question.

[1:04:38] Council member brown.

[1:04:39] >> thank you, chair and thank

[1:04:43] you commissioner for the

[1:04:44] presentation.

[1:04:46] Was today's presentation fyi, to

[1:04:47] let us know your efforts.

[1:04:49] >> an update on how it has been

[1:04:49] going.

[1:04:52] >> okay.

[1:04:53] Commissioner, what do you think

[1:04:54] moving forward?

[1:04:55] Do you think these groups need

[1:04:58] to be codified in some form of

[1:05:06] an official board or commission

[1:05:08] to maybe give recommendations.

[1:05:09] >> I would caution against that.

[1:05:11] We are having a hard enough time

[1:05:13] pulling it together in an

[1:05:14] informal basis.

[1:05:16] Formalizing it would make it

[1:05:17] more difficult and would create

[1:05:18] an obligation for the office and

[1:05:20] if the group doesn't meet, I

[1:05:23] have to find them and pull them

[1:05:24] together and reschedule it to

[1:05:25] meet the ordinance requirement.

[1:05:27] I think the informal nature of

[1:05:30] it allows it to be more flexible

[1:05:32] with memberships, with topics,

[1:05:33] all of the things because so far

[1:05:35] we have not been able to get

[1:05:36] either of these groups into

[1:05:38] enough of a routine that I would

[1:05:39] be comfortable saying that if

[1:05:41] you codified this, I could

[1:05:42] promise you in two years it will

[1:05:45] be running like a train.

[1:05:46] The two groups themselves are

[1:05:47] not super engaged with the

[1:05:48] government.

[1:05:50] You have to really massage that

[1:05:54] to get it.

[1:05:56] >> would you rather leave these

[1:05:58] as unofficial ad hoc groups that

[1:06:00] you bring together and have the

[1:06:03] opportunity to bounce ideas off,

[1:06:05] and policies and get feedback%

[1:06:06] and see if it is something you

[1:06:06] can grow?

[1:06:09] >> that's worked well for us so

[1:06:09] far.

[1:06:10] >> let me ask this.

[1:06:11] In regards to because it sounds

[1:06:13] like you are really having a

[1:06:15] hard time convening the tenant

[1:06:17] group and you tried everything

[1:06:18] as far as bringing them here.

[1:06:20] Have you tried going out to them

[1:06:21] like having them attend a

[1:06:23] meeting in a public accessible

[1:06:23] space?

[1:06:25] >> we have and we actually do

[1:06:26] that.

[1:06:27] I didn't add it to this

[1:06:29] presentation, but I know you all

[1:06:31] are aware we have our landlord

[1:06:33] and tenant rights and

[1:06:34] responsibilities forum that take

[1:06:35] place throughout the district.

[1:06:37] Those have been enormously

[1:06:37] successful.

[1:06:38] And they serve a similar

[1:06:39] function in that we are still

[1:06:40] engaging with the populations

[1:06:41] and presenting programs to them

[1:06:43] and we are hearing feedback from

[1:06:43] them.

[1:06:45] I go it way better attendance at

[1:06:47] those than I do the formal

[1:06:48] committees and groups.

[1:06:50] Part of that is because we are

[1:06:51] going out in the community but

[1:06:52] we tried that with the tenant

[1:06:52] group.

[1:06:54] we held that out in the

[1:06:55] community and nobody showed up

[1:06:56] for that.

[1:06:58] A lot of it is how are you

[1:06:59] engaging with them.

[1:07:01] If we say do you want to be on a

[1:07:02] big formal government committee,

[1:07:05] they MAY not be as interested in

[1:07:07] that but if I say I'm going to

[1:07:10] have a forum where you can be

[1:07:11] heard on housing, that seems to

[1:07:12] have more appeal.

[1:07:13] >> I can see that, where folks

[1:07:15] are invited to be part of this

[1:07:16] more official group and they're

[1:07:17] not comfortable with speaking

[1:07:19] about their personal

[1:07:19] situation...

[1:07:21] >> I think that's a lot of it.

[1:07:23] Because a lot of people, their

[1:07:25] experience as a tenant and

[1:07:26] things they would want to talk

[1:07:28] about in a group setting are

[1:07:28] very personal things.

[1:07:31] It has to do with your finances,

[1:07:32] medical history sometimes,

[1:07:33] things that you MAY not want to

[1:07:38] openly share about.

[1:07:40] >> I'm interested in seeing what

[1:07:41] my colleagues say.

[1:07:43] I appreciate you taking the

[1:07:44] initiative and convening the

[1:07:45] groups and trying to get

[1:07:46] feedback and elevating the

[1:07:48] voices as we deal with housing.

[1:07:50] Thank you, chair.

[1:07:50] >> Chair: council member curtis.

[1:07:51] >> thank you, chair.

[1:07:53] And thank you, commissioner

[1:07:56] lanter for all of your work on

[1:07:57] this, council member lynch as

[1:07:57] well.

[1:08:00] I have been very impressed by

[1:08:02] the flexibility y'all have shown

[1:08:04] in just making this work one way

[1:08:05] or another.

[1:08:08] I did have a quick question for

[1:08:09] you, commissioner, if you might

[1:08:11] be willing to expand on

[1:08:12] something which was you talked

[1:08:14] about the importance of having

[1:08:19] not just the property owners but

[1:08:20] property managers showing up to

[1:08:21] the landlord group.

[1:08:23] Could you speak to the

[1:08:24] significance of that and to the

[1:08:26] changes that, you know, come as

[1:08:27] a result of that?

[1:08:28] >> that's actually a really good

[1:08:30] point because those are two very

[1:08:31] different constituencies, you

[1:08:33] know, and in some cases very

[1:08:35] small property the owner MAY be

[1:08:37] the property manager but in most

[1:08:39] cases the average citizen deal

[1:08:40] when they're renting, are

[1:08:41] dealing with the property

[1:08:42] manager.

[1:08:43] They MAY never know who the

[1:08:43] owner is.

[1:08:46] So what we really like to do is

[1:08:47] engage with whoever the person

[1:08:50] the tenant is interacting with.

[1:08:51] Is it the owner?

[1:08:51] Great.

[1:08:53] If not the property manager.

[1:08:55] Property management is a whole

[1:08:56] different ball game.

[1:08:58] A lot of changes in that

[1:08:58] industry.

[1:09:00] It's very difficult, short

[1:09:00] staffed, under funded.

[1:09:02] A lot of times just getting

[1:09:04] their time can be difficult,

[1:09:04] too.

[1:09:06] But we've had a really good

[1:09:08] experience working with the

[1:09:09] central kentucky apartment

[1:09:09] association.

[1:09:10] They have been very

[1:09:11] collaborative and they represent

[1:09:13] a lot of those large property

[1:09:15] managers and they feed into that

[1:09:17] group so we are getting a lot of

[1:09:18] good feedback from them.

[1:09:20] >> I'm glad to hear that,

[1:09:22] speaking as a renter myself, I

[1:09:24] can tell you I have interacted

[1:09:25] with my property managers

[1:09:28] several times and I have never

[1:09:29] once actually met a landlord

[1:09:33] that I have had in person.

[1:09:35] I think that is often left out

[1:09:36] of the discussion and I

[1:09:38] appreciate you all highlighting

[1:09:38] that.

[1:09:40] Building off what council member

[1:09:43] brown had to say, I do just want

[1:09:45] to add that when we are having

[1:09:47] these conversations about

[1:09:51] tenants showing up and what not,

[1:09:56] there is a fundamental inkwik

[1:09:59] between -- inequity when between

[1:10:03] tenants and landlords when it

[1:10:04] comes between the economy of

[1:10:06] money and time and energy so I

[1:10:08] don't want anybody in the public

[1:10:10] or on this legislative body to

[1:10:12] mistake the difficulties with

[1:10:16] attendance for that group as a

[1:10:19] lack of need or lack of interest

[1:10:20] from tenants in the community

[1:10:21] because I can tell you for a

[1:10:23] fact that is not the case and

[1:10:25] I'm sure commissioner lanter and

[1:10:27] council member lynch, not to put

[1:10:29] words in your mouths, I'm sure

[1:10:31] would you say the same things.

[1:10:33] So I want to make sure that we

[1:10:34] are considering that.

[1:10:34] >> absolutely.

[1:10:36] I think it was clear but I want

[1:10:38] to make sure and reiterate the

[1:10:40] two groups are very separate and

[1:10:42] distinct for that railroad

[1:10:42] reason.

[1:10:44] We did not want to put the two

[1:10:46] in the room together and say

[1:10:47] okay y'all, fight it out.

[1:10:48] That wouldn't work well.

[1:10:50] We keep them very separate.

[1:10:50] >> thank you.

[1:10:52] I appreciate your dedication to

[1:10:53] this work, commissioner because

[1:10:54] we are better for it.

[1:10:55] Thank you, chair.

[1:10:57] That's all.

[1:10:59] >> Chair: council member

[1:11:02] reynolds.

[1:11:03] >> thank you, chair and thank

[1:11:04] you, commissioner.

[1:11:05] I really appreciate your

[1:11:06] willingness to try to make this

[1:11:08] work in one way or another, and

[1:11:10] to include the voices of both

[1:11:12] the landlords and the tenants.

[1:11:14] I will echo -- I feel like over

[1:11:16] my time on council, one of my

[1:11:18] greatest challenges has been

[1:11:20] communicating with tenants.

[1:11:22] It's really hard because

[1:11:23] sometimes you don't have access

[1:11:25] to leaving flyers at their door,

[1:11:29] you don't have access to

[1:11:30] gathering people from an

[1:11:32] apartment complex.

[1:11:33] It's just really challenging on

[1:11:35] a lot of levels.

[1:11:37] I see a little bit of your goals

[1:11:41] in here with the groups, but do

[1:11:43] you have like a specific goal

[1:11:45] and mission that maybe or maybe

[1:11:47] is there a way to incorporate

[1:11:49] that a little bit more firmly

[1:11:51] that would make people feel like

[1:11:53] they really have a buy-in both

[1:11:55] on the tenant and landlord side?

[1:11:56] >> yeah, I think it's good you

[1:11:57] brought that up.

[1:11:59] One of the things that tiffany

[1:12:01] and I talked about as we

[1:12:04] reconstitute it and bring life

[1:12:05] back into the groups was

[1:12:06] specifically that.

[1:12:08] And I think groups work best

[1:12:10] when that comes from them.

[1:12:12] So our first agenda item with

[1:12:14] each one in the landlord one we

[1:12:16] haven't done this with yet is

[1:12:17] what do you want to know and

[1:12:19] what do you want to talk about?

[1:12:21] What do we want to discuss?

[1:12:24] I will put things on there that

[1:12:26] I know we need to hear from and

[1:12:27] feedback, but we try to make

[1:12:29] sure that it is driven by what

[1:12:30] are the issues that the tenants

[1:12:32] themselves are facing.

[1:12:34] Often what that ends up look

[1:12:38] looking like in the meeting is

[1:12:42] very specific complaints.

[1:12:44] Tenants talking about, I had

[1:12:46] this issue or I had this issue

[1:12:47] because it's very difficult for

[1:12:49] an individual to sit back and

[1:12:51] have a policy conversation when

[1:12:53] their water heater doesn't work

[1:12:55] or their A.C. Doesn't work.

[1:12:57] And so what I'm trying to do is

[1:12:59] work through the context to say,

[1:13:01] okay, you are telling me your

[1:13:03] water heater doesn't work and

[1:13:04] that there is mold in your

[1:13:04] apartment.

[1:13:06] I think what we are hearing for

[1:13:08] the purpose of this meeting is

[1:13:09] the property manager is not

[1:13:11] responsive.

[1:13:12] So let's talk about how do we

[1:13:14] work on responsiveness of

[1:13:16] property managers opposed to how

[1:13:17] do I fix your water heater

[1:13:19] because that's not something we

[1:13:20] can personally do although we do

[1:13:21] try to help when we can.

[1:13:24] >> I think that makes a lot of

[1:13:24] sense.

[1:13:26] I also think that when we are

[1:13:29] asking people to have a buy-in,

[1:13:32] whether it's a time, an hour,

[1:13:33] four times, you know, a year or

[1:13:37] whatever that is, if they don't

[1:13:38] have a clear understanding from

[1:13:41] the very beginning of what their

[1:13:43] time and energy is going to help

[1:13:47] with or change or I think it

[1:13:48] could include time where you

[1:13:50] talk were what are their needs,

[1:13:52] but something that catches their

[1:13:55] attention to even be a part of

[1:13:57] it, then I often see it doesn't

[1:13:58] work because often times

[1:13:59] neighborhood associations, you

[1:14:01] can say come to this

[1:14:02] neighborhood association meeting

[1:14:04] and we will have pizza.

[1:14:06] We will have child care,

[1:14:07] whatever, but why are they

[1:14:07] coming?

[1:14:09] They don't know why, going to

[1:14:11] the neighborhood association

[1:14:14] meeting, why taking their time

[1:14:16] what that is going to do to make

[1:14:18] a difference in their iferred

[1:14:19] lives and these people are busy.

[1:14:21] These people are working a lot%

[1:14:23] of hours and they need to know

[1:14:23] their why.

[1:14:25] Why should I be there

[1:14:27] specifically, in addition to

[1:14:30] having a chance to talk about

[1:14:32] whatever you feel like is a

[1:14:32] concern.

[1:14:36] So that's a suggestion that I

[1:14:37] have because I think people want

[1:14:41] to do good things, but we are

[1:14:43] all so busy and tired, that

[1:14:45] unless there is I specific

[1:14:47] reason, we might not be willing

[1:14:49] to buy into whatever that is.

[1:14:50] >> I think you are absolutely

[1:14:50] right.

[1:14:51] I think I understand what you

[1:14:52] are saying.

[1:14:54] There is a big difference of

[1:14:57] asking someone to come to a

[1:14:57] general government business

[1:14:59] meeting about housing.

[1:15:01] If you reframe that ask as would

[1:15:02] you like to tell me about the

[1:15:03] problems you are having as a

[1:15:06] renter and with your landlord,

[1:15:07] you are giving them a chance to

[1:15:08] discus something specific they

[1:15:10] can connect with.

[1:15:11] But I think you are -- what you

[1:15:14] are saying there has to be an

[1:15:14] outcome.

[1:15:15] There has to be a goal.

[1:15:17] >> it can't just be a general

[1:15:19] come tell us how to make things

[1:15:19] better.

[1:15:20] I think you are right.

[1:15:21] I think that is part of the

[1:15:22] issue.

[1:15:23] Hey, do you want to be on our

[1:15:24] feedback group.

[1:15:25] Without them knowing what the

[1:15:26] group is going to talk about,

[1:15:27] there is less interest.

[1:15:28] >> exactly.

[1:15:28] Thank you.

[1:15:30] Thank you, chair.

[1:15:30] >> Chair: vice mayor wu.

[1:15:31] >> thank you, chair.

[1:15:33] Thank you, commissioner for all

[1:15:35] of this work.

[1:15:37] In the list of the organizations

[1:15:39] for tenant advisory group, you

[1:15:41] said there are 12 organizations.

[1:15:43] I count nine here.

[1:15:45] Kentucky tenants is a part of

[1:15:45] this advisory group?

[1:15:47] >> they have been.

[1:15:49] They have not participated

[1:15:51] regularly once it got going.

[1:15:52] But they're invited.

[1:15:54] >> and thinking about kind of

[1:15:56] your role in sort of

[1:15:58] facilitating both these groups

[1:16:00] who have obviously a lot of

[1:16:03] friction and conflict, kind of

[1:16:04] inherently, have you been able

[1:16:05] to or do you feel like it's your

[1:16:07] role at all to not necessarily

[1:16:10] mediate but to convey the

[1:16:11] complaints or challenges or

[1:16:13] issues that one group has sort

[1:16:16] of like citing the other because

[1:16:18] I know landlords will complain

[1:16:19] about their tenants as well for

[1:16:21] all these reasons and vice

[1:16:22] versa.

[1:16:23] Have you felt like that's a part

[1:16:24] of your role?

[1:16:26] Should it be a part of your

[1:16:26] role?

[1:16:27] Are you able to do that?

[1:16:29] >> that's a really excellent

[1:16:30] question because we've dabbled

[1:16:33] in that with these two groups

[1:16:38] and it doesn't always go well.

[1:16:39] If tenants are giving me a

[1:16:40] consistent theme of something

[1:16:41] they're complaining about and I

[1:16:44] go to landlords and I say hey,

[1:16:45] tenants are saying you guys are

[1:16:47] doing this, x, y, z.

[1:16:49] They just immediately go into

[1:16:50] defensive mode of no we are not

[1:16:52] or the tenants are not telling

[1:16:54] you all the facts amend of.

[1:16:55] And the reverse is true as well.

[1:16:57] Like if I go to the tenants and

[1:16:58] say well the landlords are

[1:17:00] saying you guys destroy their

[1:17:02] units or whatever, they give me

[1:17:03] the exact same thing.

[1:17:05] There is such a divide between

[1:17:07] the two, just trying, a

[1:17:09] government office trying to

[1:17:12] mediate two esoteric groups is

[1:17:12] really hard.

[1:17:14] I think we have had more success

[1:17:16] in trying to do that in a

[1:17:18] smaller one on one or two on one

[1:17:19] kind of setting.

[1:17:21] We have had conversations emerge

[1:17:24] from the groups that led to

[1:17:24] that.

[1:17:26] But probably what I would say is

[1:17:27] one of the things we've learned

[1:17:29] not to do is that because it has

[1:17:30] led to some hurt feelings.

[1:17:33] >> to build on what council

[1:17:34] member reynolds was saying, kind

[1:17:35] of, I feel like you were

[1:17:37] speaking to kind of what is the

[1:17:42] purpose or mission of these

[1:17:44] groups have there been any

[1:17:45] concrete recommendations from

[1:17:48] the groups, towards lfucg or our

[1:17:53] policies, things like that.

[1:17:56] >> a good example would be the

[1:17:57] housing stability program which

[1:17:58] I will be presenting on next

[1:17:58] week.

[1:18:00] The lalled program that -- legal

[1:18:03] aid program that provides access

[1:18:03] to council.

[1:18:06] That program was designed with

[1:18:07] these two groups.

[1:18:10] As this program was originally

[1:18:13] built, both groups gave feedback

[1:18:15] on the program design as it was

[1:18:16] built.

[1:18:17] Both groups have things in there

[1:18:19] that they asked for, both groups

[1:18:20] have things in there that they

[1:18:21] did not ask for.

[1:18:23] that has been an enormously

[1:18:26] successful program.

[1:18:27] One could argue one of the

[1:18:29] reasons it was successful is it

[1:18:31] was informed by the two groups

[1:18:32] it impacts the most.

[1:18:35] >> I appreciate that.

[1:18:37] Coming off the heels of the

[1:18:38] assembly, the work they, did

[1:18:39] bringing the recommendation to

[1:18:41] us, woo we decide what to do

[1:18:42] with it.

[1:18:44] I was thinking about that, too.

[1:18:46] Would there be a process formal

[1:18:47] or informal if members of a

[1:18:50] group or majority of the

[1:18:51] landlords or tenants say you

[1:18:53] know what needs to change is

[1:18:54] blank, something we would

[1:18:55] effectuate, I would be

[1:18:57] interested in to see is there a

[1:18:58] process for that?

[1:19:00] Is that just you bringing a

[1:19:01] recommendation to council saying

[1:19:02] hey, we've heard a lot about

[1:19:03] this issuing tisch.

[1:19:05] I think there are some tweaks we

[1:19:07] can make to, I don't know, code

[1:19:08] enforcement regulations whatever

[1:19:12] it is: I would be interested in

[1:19:14] see that because would I hate

[1:19:16] for your time being used as just

[1:19:17] sort of the person receiving

[1:19:20] complaints from one group or the

[1:19:21] other.

[1:19:23] I definitely take your point

[1:19:24] `about these complaints do lead

[1:19:28] to you thinking about either

[1:19:29] widespread issues or common

[1:19:30] issues with either group.

[1:19:32] I just want to make sure that

[1:19:35] your time is used well and the

[1:19:36] folks in these groups are not

[1:19:40] just using it as a venting

[1:19:42] session that MAY or MAY not be

[1:19:42] productive.

[1:19:44] >> that's a serious risk.

[1:19:45] It happens.

[1:19:47] We have had some of the members

[1:19:48] complain about the other members

[1:19:50] saying they would just come in

[1:19:51] to vent ayou will their

[1:19:52] grievances with the government.

[1:19:53] That's true and that's part of

[1:19:55] the reason we are doing some of

[1:19:56] the gasps with the membership,

[1:19:59] to be more productive.

[1:20:02] But there are two ways that

[1:20:02] things come out of this.

[1:20:04] Most of it is incidental.

[1:20:06] It's quick things that we can

[1:20:06] fix.

[1:20:08] They're saying oh, the process

[1:20:14] for getting a new hrbie is this.

[1:20:16] Before the end of the day, I

[1:20:18] have called manage many and we

[1:20:20] fixed it because it was a minor

[1:20:21] miscommunication.

[1:20:23] A lot of that emerges from both

[1:20:24] groups that we can make tweaks

[1:20:26] here or there and make their

[1:20:28] lives easier and respond to

[1:20:28] incidents.

[1:20:29] And then what I try to do over

[1:20:31] the course of the conversations,

[1:20:32] that's where I look for the

[1:20:33] larger policy recommendations.

[1:20:36] I think the process, to your

[1:20:39] speaking to and we have to watch

[1:20:40] for, those two groups rarely

[1:20:41] agree.

[1:20:43] If you have an exit policy

[1:20:44] strategy, have you to make sure

[1:20:46] it accounts for the fact that

[1:20:48] the two of them are saying we've

[1:20:51] reviewed this and we have two

[1:20:51] very different opinions about

[1:20:52] it.

[1:20:53] >> I appreciate it.

[1:20:55] It's very challenging work but I

[1:20:56] appreciate you doing it.

[1:20:58] >> council member sevigny.

[1:20:59] >> thank you, chair and thanks

[1:21:03] so much for the presentation.

[1:21:06] I've got a few ideas.

[1:21:09] And I appreciate what you are

[1:21:10] doing.

[1:21:15] One thought is have you done

[1:21:16] anything virtually?

[1:21:17] Have you done virtual a lot, too

[1:21:18] or not?

[1:21:21] >> not with these groups.

[1:21:22] That's something we have

[1:21:22] considered.

[1:21:25] >> that's one thing.

[1:21:30] And then have you guys thought,

[1:21:32] landlord registration concept is

[1:21:34] kind of -- it doesn't get a lot

[1:21:37] of excitement in general have

[1:21:39] you thought of a tenant

[1:21:45] registration system that would

[1:21:46] strictly be optional that you

[1:21:48] could push and we could push to

[1:21:50] gain tenant information so that

[1:21:52] you have a tenant pool but they

[1:21:53] tell you who the property

[1:21:54] manager is.

[1:21:55] Like where they live, who the

[1:21:59] property manager is and how to

[1:22:00] contact that property manager

[1:22:03] and if they know the owner.

[1:22:06] Or if we can find the owner from

[1:22:07] the address through a cross

[1:22:08] references.

[1:22:10] I'm just kind of wondering if we

[1:22:13] are -- if we enter it from that

[1:22:17] level, like say you had a pool

[1:22:18] of -- say a thousand tenants

[1:22:19] signed up.

[1:22:22] You would at least have a pool

[1:22:24] of people that you might say

[1:22:29] hey, I'm curious on the landlord

[1:22:32] content: you might have a

[1:22:33] survey for them.

[1:22:34] There might be something to fill

[1:22:37] out the survey you entered into

[1:22:45] a 50-dollar gift card trying to

[1:22:47] think of things to drive it from

[1:22:49] the other direction, to get the

[1:22:50] tenants to opt in.

[1:22:52] >> a quick response process.

[1:22:54] And then you have a way to kind

[1:22:56] of at least pump hey, I would

[1:22:59] like to know if tenants are

[1:23:00] feeling x and you send it out

[1:23:07] and see what response you get

[1:23:11] seems super simple.

[1:23:14] I think crowd sourcing any type

[1:23:16] of information we all

[1:23:17] unfortunately we have next door

[1:23:18] and we can look at that.

[1:23:22] So it's just another crowd

[1:23:24] sourcing concept and you might

[1:23:26] do it as a bulletin board.

[1:23:28] >> just want to make sure we

[1:23:29] have all the technological

[1:23:31] pieces in place to make everyone

[1:23:32] comfortable as far as personal

[1:23:36] identity and that kind of stuff

[1:23:42] and they can use they don't have

[1:23:44] on give a last name if they

[1:23:44] don't want to.

[1:23:45] So just a thought.

[1:23:48] I just think it would help you

[1:23:49] get some tenants.

[1:23:51] And you might be able to get

[1:23:53] some information.

[1:23:55] Thanks.

[1:23:56] Appreciate it.

[1:23:57] >> Chair: council member that

[1:23:59] sounds similar to what we do

[1:24:00] with engage lexington, right.

[1:24:02] We can most feedback

[1:24:02] opportunities, people register

[1:24:05] and give us some of their

[1:24:05] information.

[1:24:09] And then they can respond to

[1:24:11] different particular inquiries

[1:24:14] for feedback.

[1:24:16] I think when you say registry,

[1:24:19] sometimes it feels bigger than

[1:24:21] that because when we talk about

[1:24:22] short-term rental registry or

[1:24:26] any kind of like long-term

[1:24:27] rental registry it's a much

[1:24:28] bigger program but I can see

[1:24:29] what you are saying there.

[1:24:32] >> to give you an etch how the

[1:24:34] two groups differ, in very

[1:24:37] distinct incidents, the tent

[1:24:40] groups -- the tenant group has

[1:24:42] strongly asked for a rental

[1:24:43] registry, which there are legal

[1:24:46] questions around and the

[1:24:47] landlord has simultaneously

[1:24:48] insisted that we never do a

[1:24:52] rental registry.

[1:24:53] I have two groups that say don't

[1:24:56] do what the other one says.

[1:24:57] >> thank you, commissioner for

[1:24:58] the presentation but I'm going

[1:25:00] to turn it over to council

[1:25:02] member lynch who had some

[1:25:03] remarks to wrap us up.

[1:25:06] >> thank you, chair and

[1:25:08] commissioner lanter, medicines

[1:25:09] masden for taking this on and

[1:25:12] working with both advisory

[1:25:12] groups.

[1:25:19] Thank you for staying the course

[1:25:21] both groups voices need to be

[1:25:26] heard thank you for the

[1:25:27] facilitation and I will keep

[1:25:29] this item in committee for an

[1:25:31] annual update.

[1:25:32] >> Chair: colleagues, the last

[1:25:34] thing on our jabbed is items

[1:25:36] referred to committee.

[1:25:39] Does anybody have any domestics

[1:25:41] they would like to make about an

[1:25:49] item or remove an item council

[1:25:50] member reynolds you are up

[1:25:50] first.

[1:25:52] >> would I like to remove

[1:25:56] planning and development study

[1:25:58] recommendation eight and

[1:25:58] recommendation 10.

[1:26:00] That looks like it is item 3-z

[1:26:02] and 4 on the items referred list

[1:26:03] so moved.

[1:26:05] >> second.

[1:26:06] >> Chair: motion and second.

[1:26:10] Any discussion on the motion all

[1:26:14] those in favor say aye.

[1:26:16] Any opposed?

[1:26:20] Motion carries.

[1:26:22] >> is that all for yours,

[1:26:23] council member reynolds.

[1:26:24] >> yes.

[1:26:25] >> Chair: council member brown.

[1:26:26] >> thank you, chair.

[1:26:27] Since we just discussed the

[1:26:29] efficiencies in our development

[1:26:30] process and compliance of house

[1:26:32] bill 443, I'm comfortable with

[1:26:35] removing that item if we need to

[1:26:37] get some updates, I think we can

[1:26:43] put this item back in committee.

[1:26:45] A motion and a second.

[1:26:49] Any discussion on the motion?

[1:26:50] okay, all those in favor say

[1:26:51] aye.

[1:26:53] >> aye.

[1:26:54] >> Chair: any opposed?

[1:26:56] That passes as well.

[1:26:58] I don't see anyone else signed

[1:26:58] in.

[1:27:03] I'm going to say my window for

[1:27:06] item discussion is closing: it

[1:27:07] is closed.

[1:27:08] Thank you, everyone.

[1:27:10] Now that we are at the end of

[1:27:12] our agenda I am going to adjourn

General Government & Planning (GGP) Committee

Agenda

Transcript