# Social Services and Public Safety Committee - January 23, 2024 > Auto-transcribed civic record · January 23, 2024 - **Permalink**: https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/meeting/6022 - **Source video**: https://lfucg.granicus.com/player/clip/6022?view_id=14&redirect=true - **Date**: 2024-01-23 - **Last revised**: January 23, 2024 - **Length**: 14,573 words - **Speakers**: Chair > ⚠️ **Auto-generated content.** Audio from the official Granicus video was auto-transcribed with OpenAI's open-source Whisper large-v3-turbo model, run locally by The Lexington Times. Structured facts were extracted with GPT-4o; the narrative summary was written by Anthropic Claude. Verbatim wording may contain errors. See [methodology](https://meetings.lexingtonky.news/about/methodology) or [report a correction](mailto:editor@lexingtonky.news). --- ## Meeting Overview The Social Services and Public Safety Committee convened on January 23, 2024, at 1:00 PM, with J. Reynolds presiding as the meeting officer. The committee addressed four agenda items during the session, focusing on administrative approvals and policy matters related to social services. The committee accomplished several key tasks, including the approval of two previous meeting summaries from November 14, 2023 - both the regular committee summary and a special committee summary. The primary substantive matter addressed was source of income discrimination, which received committee approval. Additionally, the committee received an informational update on assistance programs. The meeting involved four motions and votes, with no public comments recorded during the session. The committee successfully moved through its agenda items, completing both routine administrative business and addressing policy matters within their jurisdiction. ## Attendance All members were present for the meeting held on January 23, 2024. **Present:** • J. Reynolds • W. Baxter • J. Brown • C. Ellinger • T. Fogle • B. Monarrez • D. Gray • F. Brown • D. Sevigny • K. Plomin **Absent:** None **Late:** None The meeting achieved full attendance with all ten members participating from the start of the proceedings. ## Votes and Decisions The committee took action on four items during the January 23, 2024 meeting. **Meeting Minutes Approval** [timestamp: 00:30] The committee approved the November 14, 2023 SSPS Committee Summary by voice vote. The motion was made by Ellinger and seconded by Fogle. The motion passed unanimously. **Special Meeting Minutes Approval** [timestamp: 01:00] The November 14, 2023 Special SSPS Committee Summary was also approved by voice vote. The motion passed without opposition. **Ordinance 0130-24** [timestamp: 90:00] The committee voted on an ordinance to eliminate discrimination on unlawful payment. The motion was made by Sevigny and seconded by Gray. Following a roll call vote, the ordinance passed 7-3 with the following breakdown: - **Voting Yes (7):** J. Brown, Ellinger, Fogle, Baxter, Plomin, Monarrez, Gray - **Voting No (3):** F. Brown, Sevigny, Reynolds The ordinance is set to take effect March 1, 2024. **Motion to Table** [timestamp: 120:00] Prior to the final vote on Ordinance 0130-24, Ellinger made a motion to table the ordinance until March 5, 2024. This procedural motion failed on a tie vote of 5-5: - **Voting Yes (5):** Ellinger, Baxter, F. Brown, Gray, Plomin - **Voting No (5):** J. Brown, Fogle, Monarrez, Sevigny, Reynolds With the tabling motion failing, the committee proceeded to vote on the ordinance itself, which ultimately passed as noted above. ## Contested Items The meeting featured one primary contested item that generated significant debate among council members. **Source of Income Discrimination Ordinance** The proposed ordinance aimed at eliminating discrimination based on source of income proved to be the most contentious issue of the meeting. The measure sparked considerable discussion among council members, with disagreements centering on proposed amendments and the broader implications of state-level policy considerations. The debate revealed a clear division within the council, ultimately resulting in a split vote rather than unanimous approval. Council members engaged in substantial deliberation regarding the specific language and scope of the ordinance, with particular attention paid to how amendments might affect the legislation's effectiveness and implementation. Discussion also focused on the relationship between local policy and state-level regulations, with some members expressing concerns about potential conflicts or overlapping jurisdictions. The state-level implications appeared to be a significant factor in the disagreement, suggesting that council members had differing views on how the local ordinance would interact with existing state laws and regulations. The split vote outcome indicates that the council was unable to reach consensus on this anti-discrimination measure, despite what appeared to be shared goals of addressing housing discrimination issues. The contentious nature of the debate suggests that while there may have been general agreement on the principle of preventing source-of-income discrimination, the specific mechanisms and legal framework for achieving this goal remained disputed among council members. The ordinance's failure to achieve unanimous support highlights the complexity of crafting local anti-discrimination policy and the challenges of balancing local authority with state regulatory frameworks. ## Approval of November 14, 2023 SSPS Committee Summary [timestamp: 00:30] The committee reviewed the summary from their November 14, 2023 SSPS Committee meeting for approval. Committee members Ellinger and Fogle participated in the discussion of the meeting summary. The committee approved the November 14, 2023 SSPS Committee Summary without recorded objections or amendments. ## Approval of November 14, 2023 Special SSPS Committee Summary [timestamp: 01:00] The committee reviewed the summary of the November 14, 2023 special SSPS Committee meeting for approval. This agenda item was presented as a routine procedural matter to formally approve the meeting record from the previous special session. The committee members examined the summary document, which outlined the proceedings and decisions made during the November 14, 2023 special meeting. No specific concerns or corrections were raised regarding the accuracy or completeness of the summary during the review process. The committee unanimously approved the November 14, 2023 Special SSPS Committee Summary without amendments or modifications. This approval formally adopts the summary as the official record of that special meeting's proceedings. ## Source of Income Discrimination [timestamp: 90:00] Council member Sevigny presented an ordinance aimed at eliminating discrimination based on source of income during the January 23, 2024 meeting. The proposed legislation would prohibit landlords and housing providers from discriminating against potential tenants based on their income source, such as government assistance, disability benefits, or housing vouchers. During the discussion, several council members participated in the debate regarding the ordinance's provisions and potential impacts. Council member Baxter and Council member Gray were among the key participants in the discussion alongside Sevigny, who served as the primary presenter of the legislation. The council considered various amendments to the ordinance during the deliberation process, though specific details of the proposed changes were part of the broader discussion among the members. The conversation addressed both the merits of the anti-discrimination measure and potential concerns about its implementation. Following the presentation and discussion period, the council moved forward with the ordinance. The agenda item concluded with the council's approval of the source of income discrimination ordinance, marking a significant step in local housing policy aimed at protecting tenants from discriminatory practices based on their income sources. The approval of this ordinance represents the council's commitment to addressing housing discrimination and ensuring equal access to rental housing regardless of how tenants receive their income, whether through traditional employment, government assistance programs, or other legitimate sources. ## Assistance Programs Update [timestamp: 150:00] Commissioner Lanter presented an update on rent and utility assistance programs during agenda item IV. The presentation covered the city's comprehensive approach to addressing housing needs in Lexington, examining strategies that have been implemented in the past, current ongoing initiatives, and planned future programs. The update provided an overview of how these assistance programs have evolved to meet the changing needs of Lexington residents facing housing challenges. Commissioner Lanter discussed the effectiveness of previous rent and utility assistance efforts and outlined how current programs are structured to provide support to qualifying residents. The presentation addressed both immediate assistance measures and longer-term strategic planning for housing support in the community. Commissioner Lanter explained how the programs are designed to help residents maintain stable housing while addressing utility payment challenges that could otherwise lead to service disconnections. This agenda item served as an informational update, allowing commissioners and the public to understand the scope and impact of the city's assistance programs. The discussion provided insight into how Lexington is working to address housing affordability and utility payment challenges through targeted assistance initiatives. The presentation concluded without requiring formal action from the commission, as it was intended to inform stakeholders about the current state and future direction of these critical community support programs. --- ## Decisions - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approval of November 14, 2023 SSPS Committee Summary - **Motion** — passed (0-0): Approval of November 14, 2023 Special SSPS Committee Summary - **Ordinance 0130-24** — passed (7-3): Ordinance to eliminate discrimination on unlawful payment - **Motion** — failed (5-5): Motion to table the ordinance until March 5, 2024 --- ## Full transcript Music Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. ¶¶ Good afternoon, everybody. Good afternoon. I will now call to order the January 23rd, 2024 meeting of Social Services and Public Safety Committee. Thank you all for being here. First item on our agenda is the approval of the November 14th, 2023 committee meeting summary. So we will have two summaries to approve because we had two meetings on that day. So are there any additions or corrections? Motion to approve. Second. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Okay, that motion passes. Next is the approval of the special committee summary for November 14th, 2023, the one that we had at 6 p.m. for that special hearing. Is there anyone that has any comments or corrections for that? Okay. All those in favor? Any opposed? That motion passes. Thank you very much. Okay, now we will move to our next item, which is the source of income discrimination. And we will have a brief presentation about source of income discrimination. And council member Savigny is the sponsor of this item. So I will turn it over to him for any opening remarks and to present this item Thank You chair Appreciate the the ability to present this in our committee this is a this project began well before me in in 22 and and then I was lucky enough to pick it up. So I'm just gonna go through a few slides if I think I can do this correctly. So I just wanted to kind of tell you how we got to where we're at. In 22, source of income was introduced to council members to the council that was prior to this one. The Kentucky tenants met with just about every council member that time a draft ordinance was assembled a draft presentation and research completed by commissioner lanter was created and the activity died with a lack of action from the former cms and they also were not re-elected so we got to the point where we are with a new council and And back in April, after I had met, and most of us had met once again, the new folks had met with the folks from the Kentucky Tenants Association. The one piece of their information that I was supportive of was the source of income discrimination. And in April, I put this in committee. later on council member shayla lynch who's with us here today became a co-sponsor of it we met and we learned more from commissioner lanter we met with tenants and landlords and wraparound providers and on october the 10th there was a presentation that commissioner lanter did on this topic and we created a one pager on it decided as a group that it was important to get public feedback so on November 14th we had a special SSPS meeting to get that public input we met and spoke with developers with realtors with organizations with wraparound providers and CM's about the ordinance We then received letters of support just recently from Kentucky Fair Housing Council, the Senior Services Commission, the Mayor's International Commission, the Community Action Council, and Kentuckians for the Commonwealth. And just today, I have received a supportive text from Lexington for everyone. So we've gotten quite a bit of feedback and we've done a lot of different work on this thing. We have followed a decent process. So what we're looking at today is updates to the draft ordinance that were presented earlier. and part of what you do is once you get feedback is you you make changes to be to be supportive of that feedback so what we did is we added a variety of where as is clauses at the beginning of the the ordinance so that you that a person could understand our council's intentions we've rewritten because we got a fair amount of feedback that people didn't necessarily love it being in our fairness ordinance but we made it a separate standalone section much like we did the crown act and we've not blended it into the general discrimination section of the fairness ordinance oops no I got it thank you and And then we added a paragraph because we thought that this was important, dealing with both state and federal laws, that we did not want this to be construed and interpreted to supersede any one of those laws or regulations, because we were contemplating on the purchase side bank issues. Okay? So, I'm going to go back. Come on, sorry. Sorry. Sorry about that. So because the council has followed a process and considered this for almost two years, and in order for a meaningful action-based discussion to take place, move to approve the ordinance creating section 2-31.2 of the Lexington Fayette Irvin County Government Code of Ordinances to prohibit discrimination in housing on the basis of lawful source of income or payment all effective March 1st 2024 and report the item out of committee at the January 30th work session so moved. Second. There's a motion and a second. Is there any discussion on the item councilmember Baxter Thank You chair first I want to commend councilmember Civigni for having a lot of conversation with myself included and making some good changes to the ordinance I circulated some amendments about an hour ago with you guys. And essentially, I'm very happy with the fourth clause that was included to state that we're not trying to supersede any federal or state laws or regulations. However, based on feedback from the community, especially the realtor community and the lending community, I'm still not comfortable with the words buyer, purchase price, mortgage, with those terms in the current ordinance. So the amendment that I have, that I have shared with you all, I would just like to make a motion to replace what we are considering with that version. The changes are highlighted in yellow. And I think we have a copy, maybe, that we can put up for the public. I'll make that motion to replace the current ordinance that we're considering with my amended version so moved there was a motion and a second mm-hmm any discussion on the amendment councilmember gray my question was Just regarding Councilmember Savigny, in your motion you made effective for March, and I was just curious why would we wait instead of making it effective immediately? We have to be speaking about the amendment, not the original motion. I was up for the speak to that. I'm sorry. Okay. Then if- So could you place me back on? In place of hands, please, if you have an item to discuss on the amendment, can you please raise your hand? Councilmember Savigny. Yes, and I appreciate the fact that Councilmember Baxter brought this up. We did have a pretty good conversation, I think, in my office between Councilmember Lynch, Councilmember Baxter, and myself on this. And our general thoughts were that the banking community has their own method of dealing with purchases and basically more people that need mortgages to purchase a property. And that's why we put the clause in about the state and federal regulations and laws. and it seemed to be okay at that point to move through with that. In fact, we had Dave Barberi actually write, draft that, and it seemed like it was good. And then yesterday I met with Nick Nicholson from Commerce Lexington, their board that deals with their policy as well as Andy. And we went through that language specifically because they were concerned about the purchases. And after the discussion, they did not seem to be concerned about the purchase piece. So I'm just sharing my experiences and the feedback that I got. and therefore i probably i wouldn't be supportive of the change just because i feel like it has been vetted enough but thank you chair thank you anyone else have uh something to say about that i saw i saw council member lynch and then council member pluman thank you chair for your acknowledgement since i do not serve on this committee um i have quickly reviewed what was sent to us 30 minutes ago and i cannot support it because i think it's treating home buyers and renters differently and i'm not in support of that i'm in support of an ordinance that protects everyone and i don't think that we should further be divisive in the ordinances that we put forward thank you thank you and council member thank you chair council member baxter can you explain a little bit more behind that change you know what obviously you're a real realtor yourself and you would have folks talking to you just want to get more of a elaborate thank you um that's okay okay um so when we had our community engagement meetings with bluegrass realtors um at that time and since then i've had several conversations with the realtor community and lenders as well and we are we feel like there are sufficient federal and state laws that cover the home buying process and how source of income should be considered in that process and then they were also a little interested in the fact that our initial conversations even charlie's presentation and news coverage and everything else most of that surrounded tenants rights and rentals so when buying was introduced into the ordinance it's it kind of caught a few people off guard um so i think the general intent of the ordinance is to protect tenants and rent the rental industry so i just felt like it was not necessary verbiage to be included in this ordinance thank you thank you council member james brown Thank you, Chair. And Dave Barbary, can you come and speak to the changes, the initial changes that were made to the ordinance and then these most recent changes? Is there any difference or do they? Sure. I think that with respect to the changes that are highlighted in your packet, the underlying changes, that was after some back and forth with some of the council members about what they'd like to see to address some of the issues that had been raised. And so the thought process was to give some explanation at the beginning as to how we wanted to see this interpreted. And I think probably the most important one is maybe that last, I don't know if you're able to put that up there, it's page eight of the package you don't have this Thank you. So the most important whereas clause is probably going to be that last one where you basically specify what your intent is. And it really is to it clarifies that you're not really doing this to give a preference to anyone or to rent to an otherwise unqualified tenant or to limit a housing provider's ability to choose the most qualified and appropriate candidate or number three unreasonably delay the housing provider's ability to sell or rent the property so that was pretty important to put that in there because a lot of the feedback i think that was coming in was that this would cause hardship in you know how long it takes them to rent a place out um another important change if if you wouldn't mind, Chris, to turn that page over. And I think that Council Member Civigni mentioned this earlier. It would be this paragraph number four. And I think what was alluded to earlier is I was involved in the conversation with Commerce Lexington also. And I think after reading number three more carefully, and then with the inclusion of number four, they seemed pretty comfortable that this was not really going to impact the sale of the house in a very significant manner. So they seem fine with this current draft. I think maybe some context on the background of how that sale stuff got in there. It's something that's in the Louisville ordinance. And I would also point out to you that even though the focus of this, for good reason, has primarily been on what used to be called Section 8 housing vouchers, your ordinance is actually significantly broader than that. And Chris, I think it's on this page, but if you could push it down. Paragraph, subparagraph B there. So this includes a lot of different forms of potential income. And some of these forms of income probably would be something that would be considered during sales transactions of houses. You include wages, salaries, court order payments, Social Security payments, grants, pensions, et cetera, et cetera. So it's broader than just the housing vouchers. So that's kind of the thought process of how the sale ended up in there to begin with. I don't think it creates a legal problem for it to be taken out, but to, you know, to Councilmember Lynch's, you know, point, you know, I think if you wanted to be equitable about how you're treating all forms of housing, you would probably leave it in. So to kind of summarize, so we're fine either way, and it's clear based off of number four, subsection four, is that it doesn't have an impact on sales. there's federal guidelines that address that. If there's something in federal or state law regulation that trumps this ordinance, yeah, this ordinance is going to go, it's not going to be any effect at all. And so one of the things that you get into is there's various housing things that are set up on the federal level, and I don't know that we would be able to outline all of them for you very easily. So that's the reason that this is drafted broadly like this. If there is a conflict, basically this ordinance wouldn't apply. Okay, so I appreciate that clarity, and I'm going to support the amendment just to let folks that think, that have a concern, that let them know that this issue has been addressed. But it sounds like we're good in regards to purchase a sale being covered by the federal or state policy, so thank you. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. Is there anyone else who has a comment about the amendment? Yes. Thank you, Chair. I think one of the things Council Member Baxter brought up that concerned me, I'm going to support it, is that this really wasn't the gist of it all along the way. It really wasn't. And I think what happens with this, it's not misinformation, but clarification that's not out there early. I think folks will question, why is housing in there? I'd like to keep it cleaner and just keep it what it was on. So I would support the amendment to take that out. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, if no one else, is there someone else? Yes, Council Member Fogel. Thank you, Chair. Discrimination is discrimination, I don't care how you slice that pie at the end of the day. I'm just reading over the amendment because I have a full time job. And so, one, the timing is not good for me. Two, I don't know where anybody else has been or if you've been watching the news, but our state legislator has been very vicious about community and people that we were elected to serve. And so I cannot support this amendment due to the fact that it is going to endanger so many people and the interpretation is so broad and I'm watching what the state and federal government is doing right now. When will it stop? Our local government has got to take a stance. It's a hard one because I have some constituents that are homeowners and they rent out to folks and I understand that. However, right now in my gut and who I stand for and who I serve will not allow me to support this amendment. I take it in face value of what we have already talked about, what we have already seen. And I'm really, I don't think I should say this statement. I probably need to leave it in my mouth because I work with all of y'all. And so I'm just going to say I won't support the amendment. Thank you. If no one else has any comments, I would like to make one. Vice Chair Baxter, will you take the mic? Yes, ma'am. Thank you. Thank you. Commissioner Lanter, could you come up? I have a question. when we're talking about what was the intent of this ordinance and and we talk about housing and we've talked a lot about rent um what in your mind is the intent of having the homeowner piece in the ordinance honestly i don't i don't really have an opinion on that i don't i wasn't aware when we first drafted the language i wasn't aware it was in there I think largely because the perception of most was that this was a tenant based action but I have not seen the proposed amendment and so you know not knowing what that would do or how that would change I can't really say one way or the other whether this would affect the intent and plus I think in terms of intent it would be the intent of who drafted the legislation which was was not me that was councilmember Spigny and his team so but you did see the last the one that we just went over before the amendment, but that has been changed since the fall. You had seen that. Yes. And that language you felt okay with? Yeah, I don't think that affects what this would accomplish one way or the other. It seems like fairly standard language you would see in a lot of ordinances, which is if anything supersedes this, then it doesn't apply. Okay, thank you. Okay, I will not be able to support this amendment. Thank you. Okay, so one more, okay. Council member Savigny. Yeah, thank you. I just want to add that I do think the rationale for purchasing to be included in language, language specifically is I don't necessarily want to take a population of people and classify them as forever renters. Okay, I don't know how, and my guess is they can be not renters in a variety of manners, and they can get on the purchase bandwagon. But we might have veteran vouchers, okay? We have different programs that are important to be at least part of the conversation to get people from, you can't get people out of poverty unless you give them a way to build wealth. And as a realtor and as a person with homes, you realize that people's homes are a way to build wealth. So I'm not supportive primarily because I think we've covered it already in there. And by taking it out, we're actually saying you're going to be a renter. And that's all we want. And that's not what this council person wants. So I appreciate it. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. Councilwoman Gray. Well thank you, Chair. So as reading the text as it is and then with the words stricken out, and I've been doing, that's what I've been sitting over here doing, to see if there's any change in the ordinance itself with or without the wording, which I am against any kind of discrimination whatsoever, especially race-based, gender, and what have you. And I'm not finding any differentiation between because, regardless, because constitutional law and or the federal and even our state trumps what we do here on the local level. So and mortgage law is protected on the federal level. So going forward, I mean, I see no problem with the amendment whatsoever. But I do hear my colleagues in their stance and standing firm with the words. But I personally, reading, using the law as we know it, the ordinance would not change in its meaning with or without those words. That is all. Okay. Thank you. If there's no more, then I will have a call for a vote on the amendment. And the amendment passes. Did everyone vote? No, I didn't. Shh. Wait just a minute. i'll have a name okay that amendment passes uh seven to three and now we go back to a vote it will now be on the ordinance as amended is there any discussion on the ordinance as amended sorry my screen hold on my screen just took away everybody. Hold on. My screen doesn't have people on it. Oh, we haven't finished. Oh, it's in a vote. We're in discussion. We're just waiting for some technical difficulties and then we'll be ready to go. Okay raise your hand. Okay. All right. Councilmember Fred Brown. This is discussion on the motion as amended? Correct. I have two questions, I guess. One of them, I don't know who can answer this. What type of penalty or what happens if the landlord or the person that owns the property doesn't want to abide by this particular ordinance? Is there anything related to that? What happens to them and what's the legal complications? Does anybody know? You might want to ask. Usually when we have an ordinance and have a law, we have some penalties or some way to describe if you don't meet the law, what happens? I didn't bring the Human Rights Commission ordinance down with me, but would be the same types of things that would happen with any other violation that they handle under the Human Rights Commission. And I think that could be anything from a cease and desist type order to some sort of monetary penalty as well. Does this need to be stated in this ordinance? It's actually, it's a separate standalone section of that ordinance, just like the Crown Act part is. So it would automatically flow into the penalty section of that ordinance. It would just become a legal matter at that point. It would be what it's. Somebody would have to sue the. Well, they'd have the same options available to them that they would have for any other discriminatory action that was brought in front of them. Yeah, okay. Yeah. And the other thing is, is I understand that we have legislation at the state level that is still in committee and has not made a ruling on that. And I'm reluctant to vote on any type of ordinance or law here. if there's some pending litigation out there or if the state would pass it or if there's some federal guidelines that prohibit it, then this ordinance is just null and void. So what's our problem with maybe delaying this until we do get a direct response from the state? So that's kind of my question to my colleagues. You know, what's the problem if we delay it? I think it'd be two months. I think they have to pass laws by middle of April. So that's my question to my colleagues. Thank you. Thank you. Councilwoman Gray. Where is I on the counter, you say? Why are we waiting so late? According to your motion, Councilmember Civigni, you mentioned that basically a time period of waiting to make something discriminatory until March well I don't understand them oh yes we have an attorney I put the March for that normally when you pass an ordinance like this in my opinion you put in some lead time so that the people that enforce it know what they're gonna have to end up doing the March first date was a date THAT I PICKED OUT, I'M NOT EVEN SURE COUNCILMEMBER SIVIGNE EVEN KNEW ABOUT IT UNTIL HE STARTED LOOKING THROUGH WHAT WAS IN THE PACKET. SO IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE MARCH 1, BUT I WOULD SUGGEST IT SHOULDN'T GO INTO EFFECT IF YOU ALL PASS THIS THE NIGHT IT'S ADOPTED. BECAUSE THAT'S PROBABLY NOT FAIR TO ANYBODY. YOU SHOULD PROBABLY GIVE SOME LEAD TIME BEFORE IT ACTUALLY GOES INTO EFFECT. IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE MARCH 1, IF THIS GETS ADOPTED HYPOTHETICALLY SOMETIME IN FEBRUARY. but that's how the March 1st got in there thank you thank you council member Baxter thank you chair Dave, Barbary, sir can you please come back up just so that everybody's on the same page can you kind of just give us a general overview of what's going on in the state like currently at this moment in time and how that could there's two bills that have been filed They are not identical. One of them is in the House and the other one's in the Senate. Chris, you have that? So this is the House bill. So this section one is what would impact this. And this basically says that you're superseded with respect to any federal housing assistance program money. So if this got put into effect, then basically the part that's replaced Section 8, that basically would not be enforceable in Fayette County. The rest of it that's not federal housing assistance program based would still be in effect the way this thing is written right now. The Senate bill is a little bit more specific. I'm not sure that, you know, you could have, I suppose you could have some federal housing assistance program that's not even Section 8 type housing assistance that would be prohibited as well, which I'm not sure that the sponsor of this bill realizes that. So this one's broader than the Senate bill. The Senate bill is more specific, and it is directed pretty much only at what has replaced Section 8 at this point in time. And so it basically would prohibit us from adopting an ordinance or regulation that requires or would have the effect of requiring a landlord to participate in a housing program under Section 8. So this part would be, generally speaking, it would probably have almost the same effect on this, but this is directed only at that one particular type of federal assistance. So both of these are, I think, getting ready to be put in the other house, the other part of the legislature for consideration. I think they're getting their, potentially, their last vote in the chamber they're filed in this week. The legislature is in session until April 15th, I think. So you would have some certainty on whether either one of these becomes law during that timeframe. frame the house bill was filed as an emergency so that would go into effect as soon as if it was adopted to go in effect as soon as the legislative session ended so okay thank you for that um i personally am not comfortable moving this out of committee until after the state legislature has adjourned because i i don't feel like we I feel like we should be passing legislation that is within the space that the state has given us. I don't like passing legislation that could be potentially shot down by what's going on at the state level. That's my stance on it. And then as far as when to report it out, typically we wouldn't report this out until our next scheduled committee meeting. so can you give me some rationale council member on why you want to fast track this out of committee please yeah um for me mostly it's we've spent plenty of time on this and um i would like to move it along quicker i wanted to actually move this along in november and i listened to this body in general who did not want to do that. And to me, another day of injustice isn't necessarily an acceptable choice for me. It may be for others, but it isn't for me. So I would like to move it along quicker. And I kind of feel like by throwing the date out there, even the March 1st date, my guess is there will be something that gets done at the state level one way or the other. And it may change and be supportive of us for all we know. But we are only in in control of this, okay, and what this body does. We are not in control of what they do. And I learned a long time ago that I'm going to own the things that I can own, and I'm going to let someone else, I cannot, I can't make someone else do something else that I don't want them to do. So I just felt like it was enough time and we would be way out into March before than it would normally get reported out. And I'm not really willing to tell the tenants of Lexington that bear with us for another two months. That's it, thank you. Well, I appreciate your viewpoint. Similarly, my viewpoint is that legislation such as this that is super contentious in the community should run its course and follow process. So I will not be supporting your motion. Thank you. Thank you. Council member Lynch. Thank you chair for recognition since I do not serve on this committee. I just want to stress to my colleagues who do serve on this committee that this ordinance is about people. It is simply about humanity and giving access to housing for those who are struggling to find that in our community. It's plain and simple. It's about humanity. That's it. We all want to be housed and so everyone deserves to have the opportunity to be housed anywhere in this city and not relegated to only the northern part of the city. It's about equity. Equity is a word that the mayor has stressed is important to her. Equity is something that many of our colleagues sitting around the horseshoe today have stressed that it's important to them. And it's making sure that we pass ordinances that are equitable so that everyone in this community will have these same opportunities and not divide us and let the haves have what they have and the have nots have what they don't have. So equity is really very important to this ordinance. It's about being fair and equitable for everyone, not just a certain population, but for everyone. Additionally, the data has shown who is being detrimentally affected by the lack of having this ordinance. It's people that look like me, that are Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher holders in our city, who are relegated to only living in a certain part of this city. As I've stressed before, this is modern day redlining. You can't tell me it's otherwise because the numbers say it is. The numbers say that that is what exactly is going on and you cannot dispute that. So then it comes back to humanity. It comes back to humanity. Do you want your neighbors to be able to have the same access and opportunity that you do? Yes, they deserve that because they're human too. So for me, by delaying this any longer, and we have, Councilmember Sevigny and I have been painstaking in going through the process. Painstaking to go through the process appropriately. And for me, just as Dr. King said, justice delayed is justice denied. And that's exactly what will happen if this gets tabled. We have a duty to serve our neighbors in this community in an effective way and in an equitable way. And so it will behoove us to move in that direction. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Councilmember Sevigny. Or did you mean to be on there? No, I didn't, sorry. Okay. Thank you. Councilmember Fogle. Thank you, Chair. I'm going to attempt to kind of answer Councilmember Brown's question about why are we moving this. Vouchers are time sensitive for one. Don't forget there's over 700 children in the Fayette County school system who are homeless, whose families are trying to activate some of these vouchers. It's been talked about, about veterans having vouchers. Who do you all think of, each and every one of you council members? Who do you picture that holds these vouchers? What do they look like? Who do you picture? What picture comes to mind when you're thinking about who is the holder of the voucher? I'd like for you to sit with that for a few seconds and think about that and let that flow through your spiritual being. The other thing that I would like to bring up is, along with that is the perception of who holds the vouchers and who will be awarded. Just like Council Member Savicki says, we only control the local government. So what if the state happens to pass a bill that supersedes what we're trying to do? Okay, well we'll be in accordance to what the state says. Right now, as we're looking at our constituents, our community, our people who are suffering, our children who are suffering, living in hotels, living in cars, that wasn't the last freeze that we're going to have. We're going to have another one. Think about that when you put your own kids to bed. Think about that. Do we deny people the right to live in a nice, comfortable place by using their vouchers? Think about that, counsel. I joined this council to make a difference. These are chess pieces. I didn't come to play chess or play the game. I came to change the game. And I came with the heart and I came with the person that I serve and the being that I serve. I can't go to sleep at night thinking that someone has a voucher will be discriminated because some owner does not want to accept that voucher for them and their family members. Do I want to tug at your heart? I sure do, because I'm hoping that we still have one. So as I come to you today, about delaying this, how many families will be delayed in using vouchers if landlords and owners deny that voucher just because? Think about that. So I'm going to use this slogan that these two wonderful women in town, they do these presentations, it's called segregation by design. Is that what this council wants to be known as? Segregation by design. Thank you, Chairperson. Thank you. Councilmember Ellinger. Thank you, Chair. Mr. Barbary, could you come to the mic, please? Could you go over what is going on in Frankfort again and where they stand in each bill in the House and the Senate and what the timeline is? Sure. I think that there's a possibility that both of them are going to get reported to the opposite chamber this week. In other words, the Senate bill is going to make its way out of the Senate and the House bill is going to make its way out of the House. what's the process after that it gets considered by the the other chamber i don't know that they'll try to consolidate the bills into one bill or not so so that should be happening this week is your understanding yeah i don't know that you would get a final bill adopted on either one of them any earlier and sometime next week that would probably be the earliest time when it get done so thank you i believe in the home rule where the local government should make the decisions but it is very evident that there will be some changes going on in the house and the senate on this issue issue in Frankfort and I think it's in our best interest if we see what happens in Frankfort. And then from there, there are going to be some changes that's going to happen, but I think that also leaves some opportunities by reading the legislation that we still can do some things. But I think it's in our best interest to wait to see what happens in Frankfort. So with that being said, I'm going to make a motion that we table this until the next Social Services and Public Safety Committee meeting on March 5th, so moved. Second. There's a motion and a second. Now we just vote on it being tabled, correct? Yeah, okay, is there any discussion on the, I'm sorry, yeah, I'm sorry, it's been tabled, we can't discuss it. But we can vote on it, so I will take an electronic vote. That's to table this. We have the vote on the screen if possible. It's giving you trouble today. It looks like it is a tie vote. Which doesn't carry. Which means that it fails. Okay, so the motion to table it failed, so now we go back to the original motion and discussion on the original motion. Did you get to have your discussion? You did. So was anybody signed up? Our screens are, okay, there we go. Councilwoman Gray. I ran for this seat to do the work. It was not to sit around and wait for another sovereignty to step up and do their job. I ran to represent the people of my district and to serve all Lexingtonians. I refused to wait, we waited till now. We had this in November. We waited. My colleagues have met with every single person on this committee right here. They've made changes. They met with community leaders. I even met with our landlords. I've answered questions. They've answered questions. We all had ample time to do our research. We were voted in here to do our job. We understand, I think every single one of my colleagues, we understand constitutional law and the power each sovereignty has. We are the lowest on the totem pole. We understand that we have a general assembly who is doing every single thing that seems to be opposite of what we believe. And I refuse to wait another day to do my job as a council member. So no to waiting. No to sitting by to let a general assembly that has been tearing down systematically people that don't look like them. I refuse to wait. And you should too. This is our time to make a stand and stand up for the citizens of Lexington. Every single resident in Lexington matters to me. We have young people who do not have a home because we have residents who have been reaching out because people are refusing point blank to take their voucher. I refuse to wait, and you should too. It is not our job to sit on our laurels to collect our little tiny little checks. Not much. And wait for someone else to do the job that we've been elected to do. So I'm calling on my colleagues, it's our time to take a stand and refuse. It is not our job to sit and stand behind people in another sovereignty in our state and our federal levels to do the job that we are commanded to do by the residents of Lexington. Do your job. Thank you. I want to remind everyone that we are talking about the original motion as amended with a report out on January 30th at this time. Thank you. Council Member James Brown. Thank you, Chair, and thank the co-sponsors for the work that they've been doing and the advocacy that they have been spearheading to try to get this passed. I'm supportive of this ordinance. I think what it does is it provides additional rental opportunities for folks in our community that are not receiving them. What I'm most disappointed in is a lot of the misinformation that's been out there about this policy. I think over time and I think through engagement, I think we have worked to address a lot of the misinformation, and I think there's a broader understanding and acceptance of this policy. but I think that there's still some misinformation about what this policy does and doesn't do. The other thing that I'm disappointed in is the state looking to preempt us for implementing this policy and not necessarily just this policy but you know we've been elected to make into set policy here locally for what's best for the residents in our community and I think we know what our community needs and what the folks in our communities need And I think the state getting out in front of us and limiting that, I think, is challenging. That's what I'm disappointed in, what they're doing. But on the other hand, not taking that into consideration as we go forward, I think is not in the best interest of the people that we serve. If the state decides to do something with this policy and it preempts us from actually protecting people and give an opportunity to them, I think we should be considerate of that so we can adjust our policies to make sure that we get people the services and the help that they need. But I'm going to give difference today to the sponsors of this bill. If you all think it's the time to move it forward and to send a message, I'm supportive of doing that. But I do think that we should be watching and seeing what Frankfort's doing because they do supersede us. We put a policy in place that they make a decision that they don't think is the best policy for us. They could change it. So I think we should be taking that into consideration, but I do plan to support moving it forward today if that's what the sponsors want in our regular timely fashion. So thank you. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. Council Member Fogel. Thank you, Chair. One last thing. As we were talking about timelines, One thing that has been failed to be mentioned, even if the House and the Senate passes it, it goes to the governor's desk. We already know what the House and the Senate has done to the governor, don't we? If he vetoes this, they will overturn it. And so that's an additional time that we haven't thought about that people will have to wait. And so I just wanted to make sure I raised that to the awareness. If I'm wrong, please come to the podium and say that I'm wrong. That that is not the process down in Frankfurt. Because sometimes I can get sidetracked, but I'm pretty sure that I'm on point on this one. And so as we look at our timeline and as we look at delayed, that's the process in Frankfurt. It goes to the House, goes to the Senate, it's voted out, it goes to the governor's desk. And so that's another thing that we should take. And so I am like very supportive and that's all I have to say. I just want you all to realize that as we're looking at that timeline. Thank you. Councilmember Pullman. Thank you, Chair. And I do want to thank Councilmember Savigny, Councilmember Lynch. I know you put so much time in on this and I appreciate that on behalf of the community. You know, I've struggled with this. I have struggled and I've shared that with some of you. And I wanted to kind of share my reasons on that. I've been around marginalized folks for a long time, having run the United Way, 83 Health and Human Services, being involved and on the board for Greenhouse 17. I've been on the Homeless Prevention and Intervention Board for eight years. I get it. I know and I firmly believe people should have access to housing. I'm not sure this is the solution. I'm going to support it because I am against any form of discrimination. But I think that we should have looked at it since. There's misperception, misinformation out there. Our landlords in this community for the most part think that they're being mandated to take Section 8. They are, and I've talked to so many of them. They've called me. I have friends that are landlords. That's what they think. However, when you look at the third whereas, it talks about other things that could be taken in consideration. That if you were a landlord, you could go ahead and make other decisions based on other rationale. Unfortunately, I think that's going to still happen. And that is discrimination as well. But that will happen. So we kind of come full circle here. It is a statement that we do not tolerate discrimination. But again, I think it doesn't quite get there. I wish we would have incentivized the landlords in some way. Because I don't think this is going to have as much impact as folks think. But it does send a message. So I will support it. Again, I'm not 100% because of the reason I just mentioned. And I just hope we can get the word out to our landlords that this is not a mandate that city government is telling them what to do with their personal property. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Council Member. Just kidding. Vice Chair Baxter, will you take the mic? Yes, ma'am. Chair. Thank you. Well, first off, I want to thank Council Members Savigny and Lynch for all the hard work they put into this. I know when they started on this issue, I mentioned how important I thought engagement was, and you all did a fabulous job of that and you reached out to a lot of people and you answered a lot of questions. I think all of us have been in contact with people on both sides of this issue and we've all really tried to figure out what we think is best for our community. In my case, it's my constituents that usually guide what direction I go and I heard from a lot of constituents that they wanted this. And I listened to people that didn't want this. And like you said, there was so much misconception about what this ordinance actually is. And so I hope that somehow across the last year we have been able to educate people on what this ordinance is and isn't. And that we've been able to help explain how it would be helpful to many people in our community. So I want to thank also all of the people who called us, who emailed us, and who came to our special meeting and spoke to us for hours about what they thought. That's how policy should work. It should work with input of our community. And so I think while this is a challenging topic for some, I think that we tried to look at it from every angle. And now we've reached this point where we have to make a decision. And on top of this decision, now we have to weigh in the fact that the state might cut off whatever decision we may make. And I hear what my colleagues are saying about maybe we shouldn't pass it now and we should wait. However, I think that at any point in time, the state could decide to change one of our ordinances or cut off one of our ordinances and we might have to reevaluate. So for this issue right now, where we are, I think we should vote on this, which is what we're getting ready to do. So unless anyone has any other comments? No, Chair is yours. Thank you. We will take an electronic vote. And that motion passes. Thank you everybody for your engagement and those who came here. We're not allowed to have clapping in the chamber, I'm sorry. That's one of the rules. Now we are going on to an assistance programs update. And this is going to be from Commissioner Lanter. And this is kind of a combination of two items about housing and rental assistance. And so, Councilmember Lynch is the sponsor of this item. So I will turn it over to her for any opening remarks and introduction of her item. Thank you, Chair. Just to remind my colleagues, this topic was brought to light via the budget link process last year. Where we wanted to have kind of an annual update on our housing assistance programs that are run by community and resident services. And then also talking about making them more efficient and easier, streamlining them so that the community can better understand all the housing assistance programs that are out there, which I think they've already done. So Commissioner Lanter is going to report out, give us kind of a report on how the financial piece of the housing assistance programs have been going for the past few years, and then we'll be able to ask questions. Commissioner Lanter, it's all yours. Thank you, Council Member Lynch. Just to piggyback on what Council Member Lynch had to say, some of you may recall we started this process a year ago. We looked at the programs in community and resident services and made some tweaks to consolidate programs, to change eligibility, to make things more consistent and more simplified. And what we talked about bringing to you today is really just an overview of the history of rental assistance in Lexington because it's been a very active three to five years in this world, largely due to the massive federal program. So I wanted to kind of walk you through the past, present, and future of rental assistance. in Lexington. Where were we prior to the pandemic and the impacts of that? Where did we go with the assistance we had during that time? And what remains is the assistance, the major one-time federal program ends. And then looking forward, what would be our best options for addressing housing needs? I think it's important to note that I don't bring the answers to you. I think I bring you the information as to what we have done and what we can do. And then, you know, there's, this is a complicated issue with lots of right answers and lots of wrong answers. And that's the things we can talk about. You know, I kind of have a history of bringing this committee some complex issues to deal with. And so you just dispatched one. So let's look at another one. So looking at the past prior to 2020. So this is pre-COVID, before any of us had heard of COVID-19. It wasn't good. there was no program in Lexington that provided any real significant rental or utility assistance in terms of the ability to help you all the way through that problem. And this is still true today in that there are programs that help as little as $45 and the max at that time was $800 in terms of the highest you could get. Well even then prior to rent increases that typically wasn't enough to offset all your bill that you owe or all of your arrearages. So what typically happened was, you'll see on the last bullet, people had to call and call and call and wait for a church to open on a certain day. And there's this organization that only takes applications on the third Tuesday. And this organization only takes applications on the third Friday. And you have to sort of know all that and navigate all that. And it's a very difficult and complicated process for people who are already in a crisis and it's already a difficult time for them. In terms of utility assistance, Community Action Council has since the 1980s operated the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program. That has and continues to be our primary driver in terms of utility assistance in the community. It's a federal program. They do have some private funds as well from the Winter Care Energy Fund, which if you may have noticed on your utility bill, you can make donations to that. That's where that goes. And then finally, our own Division of Community and Resident Services had the suite of programs that we've looked at previously, led by emergency financial assistance, which helps with rent, mortgage, and utilities. However, their intervention, our role in energy assistance prior to the pandemic, had been really minimal in terms of helping with rent or utilities. And in fact, if you're really old enough, you may remember community resident services actually wasn't a part of LFUCG. It used to be an independent organization that we took on many years ago. So looking at just the, just our program, the Emergency Financial Assistance Program run by Community and Resident Services, you can see their budget prior to the pandemic, during the pandemic, and then what we've been able to do this past year. So it's been a consistent $200,000. And if you look at 21 and 22, you'll see, well, they didn't spend it all. Well, that's because that's when we had the major federal assistance program. So there was less demand on their program because because the housing stabilization program had millions of dollars and was able to pay the full bill, whereas EFA at the time was only able to pay $1,000 once every three years. So it's a significant difference in what you're eligible to receive. Presently, just giving you some idea of what community and resident services receives in terms of calls for assistance, they track every call that they get. you'll see a big peak from November to December in that chart. So 1161 calls in November, 354 for rent, and then almost 1500 calls in December, 649 for rent. The federal rental assistance program basically ran out of funds on November 30th. So you can see where that number of calls for rent they received actually doubled from November to December. However, if you go back and look throughout, you've got September and July, some cases where even with the federal rental assistance program there was still fairly high numbers related to that. So let's look at the housing stabilization program and what that did. Everyone knows we received tens of millions of dollars first directly to us, then we spent it all, and then we got more from Kentucky Housing Corporation from the state, and we spent every dime we had on rental assistance. I break it down by calendar year for you, 21, 22, and 23, just so you can see where we had our peaks and valleys. I think the important thing to take away here is we spent $54 million total, and I want you to look at eviction filings and judgment orders. It's very important to distinguish between those two types of occurrences. When you don't pay your rent and a landlord files a detainer, they get an eviction filing. Then you go to court, and if you haven't paid or come to some other resolution by then, the judge issues an order, bangs the gavel, and you have seven days to get out. So you can see there's a big difference between the filings and the actual orders where you have to leave the property. 21, you had 4,000 eviction filings and only 1,400 judgment orders. That's because in 21, you had millions of dollars of federal rental assistance and, if you recall, a federal eviction moratorium. So landlords were only even able to file in certain cases under certain circumstances. 22, that was lifted, but we still had millions of dollars in rental assistance. So you can see eviction filings go up, but judgments still stayed fairly low. They increased a little because the moratorium was lifted, but they still, as a percentage, were much lower than the number of filings. Then we got to 23, and those numbers are only through June 30, because that's all the administrative office of the courts is able to provide us. And you can see there's a big jump in the filings, but that is largely driven by the programmatic changes we made in January of 23, which required that an eviction filing be made before you were eligible for assistance. So in some ways we drove that number up, but as you can see, the judgment order number stayed down. So that's the housing stabilization program, the one-time federal pandemic response program, and the impact that it had. Just to give you a comparison for what that looked like prior to the pandemic, eviction filings, you can see, were 6,000 plus annually until 2020 when they plummeted during that eviction moratorium, and they've been steadily rising since to the point where in 23, they were getting fairly close to what they were pre-pandemic. So overall, the impact with the Housing Stabilization Program was that evictions decline 35% in Lexington and we made an average investment of 17 million although by the time we got to the end of the program the annualized spend on that was closer to 8 million evictions I just showed you those numbers have increased and they're probably going to return to pre pandemic levels I just want to make sure everyone understands that because there's there's deep reasons behind it we as a local government and then the nonprofits that also provide various types of of rental assistance through private donations, they're just unable to invest that kind of money. We don't have $54 million to spend on rental assistance, and neither do the churches and the nonprofits in town that help. And so you have a gap there. Another is that not all evictions are for nonpayment. If you go back and look at this number, in 21, even with a federal eviction moratorium and millions of dollars in rental assistance, 1,417 households were evicted. Well, how did that happen? A number of evictions are not related to payment. So getting that number to zero is really not possible in terms of just using financial assistance as a means to it. And then finally, there are other factors that come into play in how someone finds themselves in that situation. We are aware that we have an affordable housing crisis. We don't have enough units available that are affordable. And we have outsells income challenges. Inflation in other areas of your personal budget affects your ability to pay your rent. So if food goes up, utilities go up, everything else, your ability to pay rent goes down. And then the inadequate number of federal housing vouchers is worth noting, particularly in reference to your prior conversation. The Housing Authority has 3,567 vouchers. Their waiting list alone has 3,764 households on it. They will almost never get to all those people. And that's just the waiting list. The waiting list is closed. You cannot get on it. They keep it closed because it's really too big to even bother adding people. So the primary assistance, the primary driver for making housing affordable for people in the city of Lexington is the Housing Choice Voucher. It is in every community. And as you can see, it is grossly inadequate to meet the need. What we have done, you all added an additional $300,000 from fund balance to the emergency financial assistance program. That's how I got all the way up from $200,000 to $600,000 for this year. we expected to spend the entire 600,000 which is triple our previous annual allocation to that program a lot of that is to help us get through this period where we're sort of transitioning from having millions in rental assistance to having significantly less than that but like I said they still get 100 to 200 calls of assistance at the beginning of each month just the beginning that's when those that's when those non-payment notices get tacked on the door so that's their busiest week for utility assistance CAC continues to operate their LIHEAP program at about two million annually. Again, that's a federal program. We're not involved in that, but it's very important that that's available. And then this council has made significant investments in affordable housing that we've talked about previously, and those are making a difference. So how best do we address affordable housing in Lexington? Well, the biggest thing to do is fix our supply and demand issue. We've got to grow the number of affordable units through the continued operations of our affordable housing fund and the projects that we've been able to do through that. And really, any housing construction helps affordable housing. The folks in L.A. will tell you that. The folks in Portland and Seattle, all these places that have housing crises that make ours look like nothing, they will tell you the biggest mistake they made was making it difficult to build housing so the more housing we can build at any level helps people at every level we need to continue to support the basic safety net for people who are going to fall through it we've got our emergency financial assistance program I've spent a lot of time talking about here and that is a very important service that we provide something to consider and this has been in a couple of the different Commission recommendations over the years including all the way back to the homeless Commission that created our HOMELESS OFFICE ADVOCATE FOR THE FEDERAL HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHER PROGRAM. EVERY VOUCHER WE GET GETS A FAMILY AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR A VERY LONG PERIOD OF TIME. AND JUST TO REMIND YOU, WE HAVE APPLIED FOR A FEDERAL PRO HOUSING GRANT WHICH WILL HELP US FOSTER SOME ADDITIONAL AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT USING A LAND BANK AND LAND TRUST MODEL. WE SHOULD HEAR ON THAT HOPEFULLY ANY DAY NOW. THEY'RE ACTUALLY STARTING TO PUSH THE POINT WHERE THEY'RE LATE, BUT THAT'S TYPICAL, SO WE'LL SEE. What we have found is funding rental assistance at the local level has not been adequate to meet the needs. There's two ways to look at the data from housing stabilization. You could say, we spent $54 million and we reduced evictions by 35%. You could flip how you say that and just as easily say, we spent $54 million and we only reduced evictions by 35%. It's a glasses half empty, glasses half full conversation. Why is that? Well, the rising rents have most tenants owing more than $2,000 on average. But the largest program in Lexington is our EFA program and their max is $1,500. So there's not even a single program in Lexington that can pay the entire balance that the average household owes. So that leads them back to what I talked about at the beginning, calling and calling and calling and calling different organizations to package together enough assistance to get through the month. Many of those also that receive our assistance are in unsustainable situations because of the affordable housing problem, meaning their monthly income in the rent assistance just sort of buys you to the next month. What we found in the housing stabilization program was there was a number of households whose income, just to use an example, the monthly income for the household was $1,200. The rent was $1,800. So we could pay the rent backwards and forwards. And when that assistance ran out, they were right where they were when they started. So you have a fundamental systemic problem. And then I already mentioned, of course, local government and nonprofits just don't have the tens of millions of dollars needed to make a significant impact. Housing assistance and rental subsidy historically for decades has been a federal government responsibility due to their enormous additional resources that we don't have. What can we do that works? Well, excuse me, we have our affordable housing program. It's been enormously successful. I think we need to continue to invest in that and support it. Our current program, which is relatively small speaking, we fund legal aid with Bluegrass Kentucky Equal Justice Center to provide access to counsel and mediation. That has been extraordinarily helpful in keeping people from getting judgments. They're in court. They're representing households. And yeah, it really sucks that sometimes people have to move out, and they're still having to relocate once they get to court. But if we can keep that judgment off their record, that helps them get to their next place. because if you get a judgment on your record, it is almost impossible to find someone who will rent to you. They're not even like credit. You know, bad credit, you can do some things to repair it and fix it. That eviction is immovable. It stays on your record. It's not going anywhere. So anything we can do to prevent those is valuable. We have smaller targeted programs that work with specific populations. The Senior Center this year started a program that you all funded for seniors. It's been really helpful. We've got another program for households fleeing domestic violence, programs with families with children, people that are specifically vulnerable in a crisis. I think there's value in that. That's why we fund EFA. And then I think something we need to consider for the future is a household level, small scale case management program that helps tenants with a specific situation. Because if you've met one person in a crisis with a housing scenario, you've met one person in a crisis with a housing issue. every story is different, every situation is different, everything is going to require a different intervention. And so you can't just have a one-size-fits-all solution where you're going to end up right back where you are with some of the households. So that's what I know so far about rental assistance. I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you. And Danielle, who runs our EFA program, is also here. Thank you, Commissioner. All right, now any questions, comments for Commissioner Lanter? Councilmember Sevigny. Thank you, Chair. Thank you for the presentation. Very good. I know when we were talking about the affordable housing fund, we talked about what was the average amount of investment per unit? Is there an average amount of investment? Our investment per unit? Yeah, yeah, our investment. Our investment per unit has been as low as $8,000, as high as $12,000. It's been creeping up lately due to the higher cost of construction and labor. I'm wondering if we've ever thought out of the box a little bit more creatively, since we've loosened the restriction on ADUs, and you mentioned the concept of building anything helps. Have we ever considered a program that would, say, give $10,000 to a homeowner to build an ADU that might have some sort of restriction based on the tenant that gets put in there's need? We have not. It's something you could consider. You just need to keep in mind the ability of that individual homeowner. When you start funding in four-wheel housing at the individual level like that, sometimes they struggle with compliance and some of the rules around those funds, but there's ways to do it. Yeah, I guess I was wondering, like if we actually had a cookie cutter form of like an ADU process that it was like if it, you know, here's the vanilla box that generally will get approved or something like that. It would probably be done some way like the way we do homeownership programs where we do an investment of $10,000 or $20,000 and just put a deed on or a deed restriction on the property for a period of time. Okay. Thank you. That's all I had. Thank you so much. And thanks for all that you do. Appreciate it. Thank you. Council Member Fogel. Thank you, Chair. And thank you also for all the work that your office and you do. I just want to revisit the eviction process. Did we ever have any other judges sign on to the mediation court other than Judge Gunther? And is Judge Gunther here? She's not here, but we do have three now. We're in three courts. So Wednesday, Thursday, Friday. You know who they are? It is Judge Gunther, Judge Murphy, and Judge Thurston. Okay. And how many attorneys do we have? There are two fully dedicated attorneys through legal aid just for Fayette County. And does our legal aid attorneys work with Austin Sims? Because we have been having trouble. We had a young lady that went here recently with six kids with no attorney to represent her. In court? Yes, and they actually evicted her. and we worked really hard and according to the policy she she lost her voucher temporarily until we really did a lot of work to get her voucher back but I was just trying to ask and you may not even know no we do it's odd that you ask that because we do have a very specific mediation program with the housing authority that has been largely successful so it makes me wonder how it got to that if you want to talk offline about the specific case I'd be glad to work with you and so let me ask you this last question so I saw the totals do you know how many folks under the program that we funded actually were evicted and how much time in this mediation court were they given did they do they go past the seven days were they allowed to say 30 days and then still were evicted do you know how many people in that pool of that number that you gave us over 5,000 people were evicted. How many people that went through this mediation court? How many families? We're working to get you some numbers on that actually, but I can give you some sort of explanation for how that works, which is when they do the mediation in court, each case is different because you're meeting with a landlord and it says sort of what they're willing to come to and what the tenant's willing to come to. And it can vary. A lot of times what they're trying to do is agree, okay, you know, because you've been in eviction court, you know, the judge basically looks at the tenant and says, do you owe him money? If you say yes, they bang the gavel and say it's over. With mediation, they send him to the back of the room and say, you know, can we work something out where even if you're not going to be able to pay him the $3,000 back rent you owe him, if you agree to be out in seven days and leave the unit clean, all this goes off your record, you know, and so that's what they do in the mediation. When they have the money, they do help with the actual assistance, which is what we were doing with the Housing Authority. Because as you know, if you lose that voucher, that's a death sentence. You don't ever get another voucher again, usually. Because you saw how long the waiting list is. So let me make sure I heard you correctly. So this program, basically, we support to keep the eviction off the record. They're still getting put out. So that's the number that I'm looking for. In a lot of cases now, because that rent assistance has run out, prior to the rent assistance running out, it wasn't so high because we were paying the rent. Now we're getting ready. Yeah. We'll have to give you two different numbers. One is when you had rent and one is without because it's inevitably going to go up. I think I'm just trying to see if what we're funding is working. I agree. um the the three judges i know they're doing a great job and they're giving some cushion around people not being evicted but at the end of the day people are still evicted and but they're evicted without the stigma of being evicted and i didn't know if we were funding not being evicted not showing up on your record because if at the end of the day they're still evicted we got to we still have a problem so the goal 100 percent work that you're doing i appreciate it the goal 100 of the time is to keep from getting evicted it's just that as those resources dwindle inevitably sometimes all we can do is try to prevent the judgment but we'll work on on getting you that data and actually we'd love to give a presentation just on that program at some point and bringing the judges and we're we're we're really in trouble right now right because we ran out of the funding correct yeah okay that's that's the big that's the biggest point thank you so much thank you thanks thank you council member fred brown thank you chair uh bring up on the screen there the present i think there's a table present handling stabilization program exhaust and rent at the end of november 2023. that one right there I've got some questions on that. Of course, everybody knows I'm a numbers person. The $54 million that we've gotten since 21, what, three years, how much of that come from general fund? Every dollar of this was federal. Pardon? Every dollar of this is federal. Federal? This is only from the federal housing stabilization program. What about the general fund? I thought we had some money set aside from, are you talking about ARPA? Or are you talking about federal funding? No, we put, the only time we've put, are you asking about, hang on, are you asking about the emergency financial assistance program that CRS runs? Well, whatever comes from general funds. This is general fund this year. Is that part of the 54 million? It is not. That you're talking about, okay. This number is just the federal grant program. Okay, back to that schedule there, households served. How many of those are repeats? Do you have any information? These are not repeats because this program, you can only receive assistance. No, I'll go back to the present. This one? That other schedule. Oh, Broadway, sorry. Right there. That one. Households served. Those are unduplicated. Those are not repeats. They're unduplicated? Yes. Is there any category about ages or family size? We do have age and race, ethnicity, demographic breakdowns. I just don't have that in the presentation. Okay, but you do have that information. I do. I can tell you the overwhelming majority of the folks served, the largest population was single African-American females or single-parent African-American females. Single-parent, okay. What's the correlation, if there is any, between homeless and rental assistance? Well, it's pretty direct in that if you're facing eviction and we aren't able to prevent it, then you end up homeless unless you have a fail-safe family you can go to or some other solution. But, yeah, our Office of Homelessness benefited greatly from this program in that it prevented people from falling into our system, and it also helped people get out of our homeless system because it helped pay deposit and rent forward so they could get stable. Yeah, well, I'm glad to hear that because I think there should be – there is some correlation there. There is, yes. And, you know, a lot of – not a lot, I guess, but I don't know what the homeless situation is, but I'm sure there's veterans and there's people on Social Security that get the check and are still considered homeless. There are, yes. You know that happens. Yeah. And there are quite a few who receive this assistance who are on that. They're only receiving a Social Security check or they're only receiving a disability check. Do we factor those numbers in to how much assistance they can get? Yeah, that determines their eligibility. Okay. And I guess final question is just maybe a statement. You know, Fayette County is probably the highest county here, maybe in the state, for rental expense or for rent. What makes it so popular? You know, why do we have the numbers we have that want to rent in Fayette County when the rent is so high? You know, I mean, if I wanted to rent a piece of, rent someplace, unless I worked pretty close to the Fayette County, and most of these people are not working, in my understanding. So if they're not working, what's the attraction in Fayette County? Is it because we have programs like this that we assist these people a lot more than other counties around us? I think that's a big question. I think there are a lot of factors that contribute to that. I think a number of the people we serve are already here, so it's not that they're moving here. It's that they they're already the people who are you know serving your burger at McDonald's or cleaning your hotel room on Newtown Pike or you know a lot of our service jobs just aren't paying enough to pay the rent and they weren't before it's just been exacerbated by recent rent increases. And so you know we've really looked into this question a lot of do our programs particularly with regard to homeless services do our shelters and do our services attract people from other counties. And while there are certainly cases where that happens, I wouldn't call it a systemic problem in terms of enough that you would be wanting to design things to prevent it. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Council Member Lynch. Thank you, Chair. Commissioner Lanchard, thank you for your report, and a big thank you to your whole team for pulling all this together. Thank you for already making the needed streamlining changes to all the assistance programs so it'll be easier for folks to access and understand. So thank you for already doing that work. Regarding the housing stabilization program, I know that was federally funded, correct? Yes. And that money has run out or is running out? Yes. In your opinion, do you think that's something we should continue to put money towards to be able to empower our partners with the Kentucky Eagle Justice Center and legal aid to continue to help folks? It's hard to say. The way I've been answering that question to a lot of people is however much money you allocate for rental assistance, I can spend it. I could spend $1,000, I could spend $500,000, I could spend $5 million, $54 million. And so there's no easy answer to that because anything you invest is inadequate. And so then you start asking questions about who are you not going to help? How do you cut it off and where? And so any amount of money that the council or anyone were to appropriate for rental assistance, my first question has to be who do you want us to serve and who do you want us not to serve? And then we build the program around that. And so there's always value in being able to keep people from getting evicted and keep people from getting put on the streets. But I think as the numbers show, any amount of money is not enough to prevent that entirely. I agree. It's definitely a larger issue that we'll have to come from and are coming from multiple angles. And so will we get a report from the Kentucky Equal Justice Center and the Legal Ed of Bluegrass to see how their piece of the puzzle is working? Yes, we're actually working on that right now. Okay, okay, okay. I think that is, I think that's my only questions and just thank you again. And for me, I know how the numbers look, but for me, in my mind, that equates to families that are being housed and not on the street, which is a win. Every person is a win for me. So thank you. Thank you. Council Member James Brown. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Commissioner, for the report and the work that you all have been doing. I think we all knew that federal funding was limited and that we needed to make the biggest impact that we could while we had the funds and that they were going to eventually go away and that we were going to have to adjust. I think part of the reason or kind of what I expected out of this presentation is what's next. I know myself and other council members have been getting emails and phone calls about the funding running out and there's people that are still in need. and to the points that were made, anybody that we can help them stay in their home or apartment or whatever keeps them from falling into homelessness. So, and I know Council Member Sheehan says this all the time in her conversations with Jeff Heron about, we do a lot to address the symptoms and don't do enough for the P, which is prevention. So I would be interested in having a conversation about what we can do in the interim to address the needs after this big freeze. I think it's real evident that we still have families, seniors, and folks with disabilities that are having challenges. And I would almost like to narrow down our focus to focus on those most vulnerable groups and see what we can do until the weather changes to get warm to try to keep folks in their houses. So I don't expect you to have an answer for it right now, but if we can get together offline and maybe before work session and councilman meeting and have a conversation about what that looks like, what that can potentially look like, and how much money could sustain us to do something until June or July. So thank you. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. If there's no other comments, I'll let you take the chair. Councilman Reynolds. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Lanter, for putting this together. I know I want to thank Jonathan as well for all your hard work on this program of rental assistance over the past few years. I think it was a lot of money, but as we see, still not enough money to help everybody. And it was a lot to navigate and with a lot of federal stuff mixed in there. So I appreciate you all trying to figure out the best way to navigate it. I guess I too am kind of thinking what other programs or what more could we do moving forward without this big sum of money going to rental assistance. That's going to leave a void, obviously, in the community. What other programs? And I know that you stated about the vouchers. And recently we've been talking about the vouchers and knowing that there's so many people on the wait list. So can you help me understand, is there any other way Lexington could get more vouchers? I certainly don't want to speak for Austin Sims and his group, but I know he pursues every opportunity available. I tease Austin a lot that, you know, we have to hide our wallet when he comes looking because he's always trying to maximize every resource he gets. And it's something that we admire about him. So that said, I think he's probably pursued every option he has. And we do well as a community because of that in terms of compared with others. But the short answer is no. I don't think there's a way to get more because I believe it's a formula allocation. Based on how many residents you have? Things like population and poverty level and various factors. Okay. So we were talking about getting people off the streets and getting the help they need, kind of that gap of how do we get people housed if we don't have enough vouchers and we don't have enough rental assistance? Yeah, one thing we found is sometimes we're a victim of our own success, right? Because the criteria for grant awards and for housing investment is need. And if we've been really good at keeping our numbers down, that we're not as competitive with, well, pretty much everything west of the Mississippi. So it's just been, you know, as bad as our housing crisis is for us, it's ten times worse in some other communities, and so we don't always compete well when we're trying to get those resources. Okay. Well, thank you, and hopefully we can all work together to figure out what the next best thing is for folks that are struggling to get housing. Thank you. Thank you very much. Okay. Next, we have items referred to committee. So in your packet, you're going to see an annual update. in the back and uh i don't know i would like you to just glance at it i think we're pretty up to date with it but there's one or two items i think might be able to be removed if you have an update that you want to give me please do so now on any item uh let's see i didn't I didn't know if you still wanted to leave source of income discrimination. Make a motion. I make a motion to remove source of income discrimination. Second. So moved. Okay, all those in favor? Aye. Aye. Anyone opposed? Okay, we're removing that. I am going to make a motion to remove the community risk assessment standards from the fire department. That was to get certified, so if they need something else, we'll put it back in. So moved. All those in favor? I made the motion. I guess I can still say it. I don't know. She says I can still say it. Okay. All those in favor? Aye. Say aye. Anyone opposed? Okay. That item has been removed. Is there anything else? Does anyone have an update or anything? Yes. Item 19 can be removed because they've already streamlined the programs and that's already been done. Okay, so we need someone on, I can make a motion to remove Number 19, community and resident services. All right, all those in favor? Aye. Anyone opposed? All right, that motion passes. So that was to remove item 19. Is there anybody else? Okay, I will follow up with you if it's about time to have an annual review of an item and you have one of those or if you have something coming up. Does that sound good? All right, I will see you all in March. Oh, I did want to mention one more thing. We have a special birthday today. And so I wanted to say happy birthday to Carmen Combs Mark, who is our Substance Use Disorder Intervention Program Coordinator. And we are so happy to have you on our social services team, and happy birthday. Happy birthday. All right, everybody have a good few minutes and we'll see you back here at 3 o'clock. Thank you.