Council General Government Committee

Summary

Meeting Overview

The General Government Committee met on June 7, 2011, at 1:00 p.m., with Ed Lane presiding. The committee addressed three agenda items during the meeting. One motion was voted on, and four members of the public provided comments. The committee approved the Open Standards/Open Data item, while deferring both the Purchase of Energy Efficient Vehicles and Items Referred to Committee to a future meeting.

Attendance

The following individuals were present at the meeting on June 7, 2011:

• Ed Lane
• Jay McChord
• Steve Kay
• Chris Ford
• K. C. Crosbie
• Doug Martin
• George Myers

No absences or late arrivals were recorded.

Votes and Decisions

The committee voted on a resolution promoting open and transparent government and open data. 27:14

Motion Details: - Moved by: Doug Martin - Seconded by: Chris Ford - Vote type: Roll call - Outcome: Passed

Vote Count: - Ayes: 4 - Nays: 2 - Abstentions: 0

Voting Record:

*In favor:* - Doug Martin - Steve Kay - Chris Ford - George Myers

*Opposed:* - Jay McChord - K. C. Crosbie

The resolution was approved and will be recommended to the full council.

Public Comment

Four speakers addressed the council during the public comment period, discussing open data initiatives and the proposed resolution.

Chase Southard 13:47 from Open Lexington presented on the benefits of open data and civic engagement. He emphasized how making government data accessible enables civic coders to build useful applications, improve transparency, and foster innovation. Southard highlighted examples from other cities and suggested hosting a city camp to engage developers.

Jay McChord 20:03 expressed support for the resolution's intent but voted against it. He stated that he wanted the administration to present their plan for implementation before the council, emphasizing the need for clarity on how the resolution would be executed.

George Myers 20:34 supported the intent of the resolution but requested that the administration provide input on feasibility and implementation. He noted past concerns from IT about data standards and suggested the need for a formal presentation before the council.

Steve Kay 21:06 praised the resolution as long overdue and expressed strong support for the measure. He stated that transparency and open data are essential for accountability and noted that the administration would have a full opportunity to respond during the work session.

The public comment period reflected general support for open data principles, with speakers emphasizing the importance of transparency and civic engagement. However, some council members raised concerns about the need for administrative input on implementation details and feasibility before proceeding with the resolution.

Contested Items

Implementation of Open Data Resolution

The council debated the implementation of an open data resolution during the meeting. While the resolution ultimately passed with a 4-2 vote, the vote reflected a division among councilmembers regarding the timing and process of approval.

The two councilmembers who voted against the resolution did not oppose the underlying principle of open data. Instead, their opposition centered on procedural concerns: they wanted the administration to present a detailed implementation plan before the council granted final approval. This position reflected a preference for greater clarity on how the resolution would be executed in practice before committing to it.

The resolution passed despite these objections, with four councilmembers voting in favor and two voting against.

Open Standards/Open Data

0:00

Councilmember Doug Martin introduced Chase Southard of Open Lexington to present on open data initiatives. The presentation emphasized the importance of making government data machine-readable and freely available to the public.

Key Points Presented

The presentation highlighted three primary benefits of open data:

• Promoting transparency in government operations
• Encouraging civic engagement among residents
• Fostering innovation and economic development

Examples from Other Cities

The presentation drew on examples from cities that have implemented open data programs, including San Francisco and New York, demonstrating how other municipalities have approached this initiative.

Committee Discussion

The committee discussed the potential for local economic development through open data applications, exploring how making government data accessible could support business creation and innovation within the community.

Outcome

The agenda item was approved.

Purchase of Energy Efficient Vehicles

Commissioner Jamsheed Baradaran presented the city's green fleet initiatives during this agenda item. The presentation covered the use of hybrid, biodiesel, and electric vehicles as part of the city's efforts to reduce environmental impact and operating costs.

Presentation Content

The presentation included data on fuel savings achieved through the green fleet program, as well as life cycle cost analysis comparing energy-efficient vehicles to conventional alternatives. Baradaran also outlined future plans for fleet electrification and the development of necessary infrastructure to support expanded use of electric vehicles.

Council Discussion

Councilmembers engaged with the presentation by raising questions about several key aspects of the green fleet initiative. Specific concerns included cost comparisons between energy-efficient and traditional vehicles, maintenance requirements and costs for the newer vehicle types, and the long-term financial savings the city could expect from transitioning to a greener fleet.

Outcome

The item was deferred, meaning the council did not take final action at this meeting and postponed further consideration to a later date.

27:45

Items Referred to Committee

45:06

Several items were referred to the committee from the Links Committee for consideration. Doug Martin addressed this agenda item, acknowledging the referrals that had been received.

The committee decided not to pursue these referred items immediately. Instead, they determined that these matters should be revisited at a later time, specifically after the budget process is complete. This deferral allows the committee to focus on budget priorities before taking action on the referred items.

Outcome: The items were deferred pending completion of the budget process.