Voters approved 3 amendments to Lexington's Charter. What happens next?

Voters went to the polls on Tuesday, November 3rd to make picks for Lexington's Mayor, Council At-Large and several other competitive local races.

At the same time, they also approved three proposed amendments to Lexington's Charter, which were developed by the city's first Civic Assembly.

The randomly-selected group of Lexington residents, assembled via a lottery conducted by CivicLex, met in the spring to study possible changes to the guiding document for local government in Fayette County.

The amendments voters approved Tuesday will bring substantial changes to Councilmember pay, usher in accountability and attendance standards for them to follow, and implement a new process for regularly reviewing the city's Charter, which is kind of like its Constitution.

Below, we break down what each amendment means and how it will affect Council's work. You can also read more about each amendment at Vote Local Lexington here.

Amendment 1 - Council Salary

Voters were asked whether they are for or against updating Councilmember pay to $59,987 a year.

What was the outcome?

• FOR: 61,936 votes (61%)
• AGAINST: 39,515 votes (39%)

What does it mean for Council?

This change will not go into effect until January of 2031, after the terms of all current Councilmembers have ended. This is in line with a provision of Lexington's Charter, which blocks current Councilmembers from changing their own salaries.

$59,987 is the average annual wage in Lexington. This number will also be subject to annual cost of living increases tied to the consumer price index. The number represents a boost in pay from the current $43,000 a year, which is also adjusted annually for inflation.

Because Civic Assembly members recommended that the proposed salary of $59,987 is in "2026 dollars," the actual number in 2031 will be higher based on inflation.

As many as 85% of Civic Assembly members supported this amendment on the basis that Council races should be more competitive and it should be more financially viable for a broader range of residents to run. Other reasons include the belief that a Councilmember's role has changed over the last several decades and that they should be more focused on their work as representatives.

The Civic Assembly members who voted against the amendment were concerned about a lack of accountability for Councilmembers, that increasing pay will not necessarily improve performance, and about the overall cost of the change.

There's currently about $650,000 a year budgeted to pay Councilmembers. Under the approved amendment, that number will rise to about $900,000 a year, measured in 2026 dollars.

Amendment 2 - Accountability

Voters were asked whether they are for or against requiring Council to create publicly viewable attendance and accountability expectations for its members.

What was the outcome?

• FOR: 98,166 votes (94%)
• AGAINST: 5,816 votes (6%)

What does it mean for Council?

Council will need to adopt new standards for attendance and accountability. The specifics will be decided by an ordinance (which is a local law that Council enacts).

Assembly members recommended including publicly viewable attendance records for the Council's various meetings, along with a clearly defined job description for Councilmembers.

As described on CivicLex's Vote Local Lexington resource, the most likely process for crafting the ordinance would be for a smaller group of Councilmembers to work with Council staff, the city's Law Department, assembly members and other stakeholders. The ordinance would then follow Council's process for making new laws.

This amendment won the support of 89% of assembly members when it was under development by the Civic Assembly. Supporters believed there needed to be greater transparency and accountability requirements if Councilmembers were to receive a pay raise via Amendment 1. Assembly members who voted against the proposed amendment believed the difficulty of writing and enforcing these standards would be too high.

Amendment 3 - Charter Review

Voters were asked whether they are for or against requiring Lexington's Charter to be reviewed at least once every 8 years, with the review carried out by a group of residents selected via representative lottery, much like how the Civic Assembly worked. The amendment would also create a permanent advisory body to make recommendations about what needs reviewing.

What was the outcome?

• FOR: 86,871 votes (85%)
• AGAINST: 14,743 votes (15%)

What does it mean for Council?

Like Amendment 2, the specifics of the Charter review process will need to be determined by an ordinance passed by Council.

Assembly members have several recommendations for the review.

A few examples include:

• Convene a group of 36 residents, selected at random by a representative lottery, to conduct the review. Alternatively, 24 residents could be selected by lottery and 12 others could be appointed by Council.
• A standing review committee, which could meet once or twice a year would track the need for potential Charter changes over time and ready topics for residents to work through and make recommendations on.

Of the 89% of assembly members who supported this proposed amendment, many believed in the need for a regular, public review of the city's Charter to make government more responsive to residents' needs. Delegating the review to an independent and demographically representative body also avoids the potential conflict of interest resulting from Council reviewing the Charter, supporters said.