Lexington Charter Amendments

The guiding document for how Lexington’s local government is organized is called the Urban County Charter, you can think of it like Lexington’s local constitution. This year, there will be three Charter amendments on your ballot!

The three amendments came from 30 randomly selected citizens through Lexington’s first-ever Civic Assembly. The assembly member group closely reflected the actual demographics of Lexington overall across race, age, political registration, education, and more. CivicLex organized and raised funds for the Civic Assembly. Local government did not fund the Civic Assembly. Learn more here.

Charter Amendment 1 - Councilmember Salary

Charter Amendment 2 - Councilmember Accountability

Charter Amendment 3 - Charter Review

Amendment 1 - Council Salary

On your ballot, you will be asked to vote FOR or AGAINST updating the salary of Lexington’s Urban County Councilmembers from about $43,000/year to $59,987/year (the average annual wage in Lexington), starting in 2031. 

FOR

A vote FOR means you support updating the annual salary of Councilmembers to $59,981/year, starting in 2031. This number would also be adjusted once a year according to the consumer price index, which usually results in a small cost of living increase every year.

An 85% supermajority of assembly members supported this proposed charter amendment.

AGAINST

A vote AGAINST means you support keeping the annual salary of Councilmembers at its current level of approximately $43,000/year. This number is also adjusted once a year according to the consumer price index.

15% of assembly members did not support this proposed charter amendment.

What else do I need to know?

  • Some of the most common reasons assembly members voted FOR this amendment include:

    • A need to broaden the pool of who is financially able to run for Council, and to increase competitiveness of Council races.

    • A belief that the job of a Councilmember has significantly changed since the current compensation number was set in 1972, and now requires more time spent on public meetings, communicating with constituents, and attending community events.

    • A belief that more competitive compensation will cause more effective governance, and allow Councilmembers to focus more on their positions.

    Some of the most common reasons assembly members voted AGAINST this amendment include:

    • Concerns about a lack of accountability for Councilmembers, and that increasing compensation will not guarantee better performance.

    • Concerns about the overall cost of compensation.

  • Currently, the total budget to pay Councilmembers is about $650,000 per year. If this proposed charter amendment passes, it would cost about $900,000 per year to pay Councilmembers, in 2026 dollars.

  • Neither! In Lexington, there is no formal law or policy that states whether being a Councilmember is a full time or part time job. Councilmembers are eligible to receive benefits, which are typically only available to full time LFUCG employees.

    The number of hours a Councilmember works in a week depends on the Councilmember, and on the week. Some Councilmembers have shared that they have worked up to 80 hours a week on attending public meetings, communicating with constituents, researching and reviewing legislation, attending community events, and other duties. For other Councilmembers, that number is much lower.

  • The compensation change would not go into effect until January 2031, after the terms of all current Councilmembers have ended. This is a specific rule in Lexington’s Charter, written to prevent current Councilmembers from changing their own salary.

    The assembly has recommended that the proposed council salary of $59,987 is in “2026 dollars”, meaning that the actual number in 2031 will be higher based on inflation in the United States, and measured by the consumer price index. It is difficult to predict what that inflation rate will be five years from now, but the estimated number is around $71,000/year, according to Stanford’s inflation calculator.

  • Assembly members spent three sessions (approximately 12 hours) learning about local government and hearing different perspectives on Council Compensation, before spending the next three sessions (approximately 18 hours) debating and deliberating on their recommendation. The specific number of $59,987/year is based on the Bureau of Labor Statistics data for the average annual wage in Lexington.

    You can read an education summary of all of the sessions and resources assembly members received here. Below is a list of specific materials members received throughout the assembly:

  • The assembly learned a lot about how the ultimate accountability for elected officials, including Councilmembers, is elections. It is hard to have too many rules about how Councilmembers should do their jobs, because there is no one to enforce those rules. It is also important to keep a separation of powers between Council, the Mayor, and Lexington’s judicial system. 

    Several assembly member had the same concern, so in addition to recommending increasing compensation, the assembly also recommended amending the charter to strengthen accountability and attendance expectations for Councilmembers, and to make sure that the attendance of Councilmembers at public meetings is easily accessible for the public, to inform their decisions during an election. This is Charter amendment 2, below.

Amendment 2 - Council Accountability

On your ballot, you will be asked to vote FOR or AGAINST requiring Council to create publicly viewable attendance and accountability expectations for Councilmembers.

FOR

A vote FOR means you support requiring Council to adopt new standards for attendance and accountability. The specifics of the standards would be determined by an ordinance (not a charter amendment), but the assembly recommends including publicly viewable attendance records for council meetings, work sessions, and committee meetings and a clearly defined job description for Councilmembers.

An 89% supermajority of assembly members supported this proposed charter amendment.

AGAINST

A vote AGAINST means you support keeping the Charter the same, with no requirements for attendance or accountability for Councilmembers. Right now, the Charter only has requirements for the qualifications of Councilmembers, like living in the district they file to run for office in for at least six months.

11% of assembly members did not support this proposed charter amendment.

What else do I need to know?

  • Some of the most common reasons assembly members voted FOR this amendment include:

    • If the salary of Councilmembers is increased (by Amendment 1), it’s important that Council has greater transparency and accountability. 

    • The main accountability for Councilmembers is reelection - but many assembly members felt that voters need more accessible information about the performance and reliability of their representatives.

    • The job of being a Councilmember has changed since 1972, and the standards for accountability should increase accordingly.

    The main argument AGAINST that the assembly discussed was the difficulty of writing and enforcing these standards.

  • If Charter Amendment 2 passes, Council will be responsible for creating the ordinance (a local law) that outlines the specific rules around attendance and accountability. The assembly will provide a list of suggestions for these standards, and can potentially work directly with councilmembers to create these standards. 

    The most likely process to create the accountability ordinance would be for a smaller group of councilmembers to work with council staff, LFUCG’s Law Department, Assembly Members, and other stakeholders to draft an ordinance. This ordinance would then follow the same legislative path as all new local laws in Lexington.

Amendment 3 - Charter Review

On your ballot, you will be asked to vote FOR or AGAINST requiring Lexington’s local government to conduct a review of the Charter at least once every eight years, by a group of Lexington residents selected through representative lottery (much like the Civic Assembly). This amendment would also require local government to create a permanent advisory body to make recommendations for amending the Charter.

FOR

A vote FOR means you support requiring the Charter to be reviewed every eight years by a representative body of residents, chosen through a random lottery. It also means you support creating a permanent group inside local government to organize and make recommendations about the Charter reviews.

An 89% supermajority of assembly members supported this proposed charter amendment.

AGAINST

A vote AGAINST means you support keeping the Charter the same, with no requirements for how often and who can review the Charter. There is an option for Council to create a commission to make recommendations on Charter amendments, the only requirement for this body is that there are 20 citizens.

11% of assembly members did not support this proposed charter amendment.

What else do I need to know?

  • Some of the most common reasons assembly members voted FOR this amendment include:

    • The need for regular, public review of the Charter through a participatory process could help make local government more responsive to the needs of the community.

    • A review body of everyday residents that is demographically representative of Lexington would avoid the potential conflict of interest that could arise if the Urban County Council were to review the Charter itself. 

    • Other parts of the Charter are outdated and in need of review.

    • A permanent body keeping track of potential topics for charter review would help organize the process every eight years.

    • The opportunity for everyday residents to meaningfully participate in a charter review process could increase participation and trust in local government.

    Some of the most common reasons assembly members voted AGAINST this amendment include:

    • Arguments against requiring the charter to be reviewed on a specific timeline - some assembly members felt that charter review should be done on an “as needed” basis, rather than being required to happen every eight years. 

    • Arguments against the charter review group being selected through a representative lottery, from everyday residents - some assembly members felt that the charter review group should also include experts and city staff, in addition to everyday residents.

    • Arguments for different review requirements - some assembly members felt that the charter should be reviewed more or less frequently than every eight years, or that there should be a specific number of residents required to be on the review body.

  • Assembly members spent three sessions (approximately 12 hours) learning about local government and hearing different perspectives on Council Compensation, before spending the next three sessions (approximately 18 hours) debating and deliberating on their recommended changes.

    You can read an education summary of all of the sessions and resources assembly members received here. Below is a list of specific materials members received throughout the assembly about Charter review:

  • If this amendment passes, the specifics of the required charter review, like how the lottery would be conducted, what experts and community input would be involved, and how many residents would serve on the review body, would need to be determined by an ordinance passed by Council. The assembly has a list of recommendations about the specifics of the charter review, including that:

    • The Assembly recommends a deliberative body of 36 residents selected by representative lottery, and also considers a body of 24 lottery-selected residents and 12 residents appointed by Council to be sufficient.

    • These recommendations would supplement existing Charter review options.

    • The Standing Review Committee, suggested to meet once or twice per year, would allow LFUCG to track the need for potential Charter changes over time and prepare topics for the citizen body to deliberate and make recommendations on.

    • The Assembly is also interested in exploring whether, if legal and feasible, the recommendations of this deliberative body would be able to be protected from Council adjustments or changes in the process of being placed on the ballot for public referendum.

Where did these amendments come from?

Your neighbors and fellow citizens of Lexington created these amendments! Through a process called a Civic Assembly, 30 randomly selected residents from different backgrounds and perspectives came together to learn, deliberate and recommend potential changes to our local charter. The demographics of this group closely reflected the actual demographics of Lexington overall, so it was like putting a mini Lexington into a room! The selection of the assembly members was done by a civic lottery, learn more about that process here.

The actual Civic Assembly was in March of 2026 with the assembly members working together for a total of 33 hours to create and pass the three changes you will see on your ballot. This looked like learning about the role of a Councilmember, what goes into the charter, and what peer cities do, then discussing and working on the actual recommendations. If you want to hear directly from assembly members about their experience, check out these articles!

All three changes were approved by the assembly by a supermajority (over 70%). Once passed out of the assembly, the three changes were presented to Council who has the power to put them on the ballot. On June 18th, Council passed an ordinance that created a ballot referendum for each change to the Charter. This is what you will see on your ballot!

CivicLex, a local nonprofit, organized and raised funds for the Civic Assembly. Local government did not fund the Civic Assembly. Learn more about CivicLex, the assembly process, and more here.