[{"_1":2,"_87":-5,"_88":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6568220,"mediaKeyId","3206113-fd1a3b070c78acdedfdf53e473c64b83","parentId",3206113,"title","Lextran presents $37.97 million FY2026 budget, outlines microtransit pilot and fleet priorities","audioSeconds",1709,"startMs",556000,"endMs",2265000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3206113-fd1a3b070c78acdedfdf53e473c64b83&start=556&end=2265","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3206113-fd1a3b070c78acdedfdf53e473c64b83/thumbnail_556000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6568220/Lexington-City/Fayette-County/Kentucky/Lextran-presents-3797-million-FY2026-budget-outlines-microtransit-pilot-and-fleet-priorities","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6568220-0fa52f1cea87da886895f31c0fe07a54/orig.mp4?Expires=1771140503&Signature=EZEnEkLgojgxui4PL6reT4KzyGXkiLomuCJShOM3~UDc2kvSi0x77P83659FCdlWn2uQLi4gdmrarhB0yltGHYmzENUfn08Mgw5W5tW8nSlN3sIqYtGAr1acGPip0xjoIaA2lEg4huwnBy8IkD9SWuM~6Ke99ZI6a-JuMIZUhd8op4cGBqWVo8ijI7gy-Kd89LgBXV2YUFoj4qA~qtO9b5mdGClD-QYyrJllT5q5gzlLrS1NZ6u~23O2B2zAV81S1fljdbAGSNGs-vRF-jRLFSRbX~AOXzeKgM4ySjcADWueUxjNiboDZKNIE~88GABFDL4r1FDau-SkRYI8ewaCag__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Lexington","date","2025-05-06T00:00:00Z","article","Lexington-Fayette Urban County Council heard a presentation on the Transit Authority of Lexington-Fayette (Lextran) fiscal year 2026 operating and capital budget at its May work session and voted to place a resolution approving the budget on the May 29 council meeting docket.

Fred Combs, general manager of Lextran, told the council the FY26 proposal is a balanced budget of $37,968,002, with about 70% of revenues driven by property tax and a roughly $6 million reserve. Combs said the authority expects about 3.5 million fixed-route trips next year and about 170,000 paratransit (Wheels) trips.

Why it matters: Lextran’s budget sets spending and capital priorities that affect transit frequency, paratransit service quality and the timing of fleet replacements. Combs warned tariffs and uncertain federal funding add pressure to costs and capital planning, especially for paratransit vehicles the authority says are its most significant unmet need.

Combs highlighted capital and service items included or planned in the FY26 package: a transit center interior renovation already under way; completion of compressed natural gas (CNG) fueling and maintenance improvements; ten fixed-route buses and ten paratransit cutaway buses currently in the budget; one additional electric bus covered by an existing grant; and backend technology upgrades for real‑time information. He said the authority has ordered vehicles aggressively because unit prices are rising: “we did take the step of adding to our materials and supplies budget just to be safe.”

On-time performance and paratransit capacity drew sustained council attention. Combs said recent gains moved Lextran’s unaudited monthly paratransit on‑time performance above 80% in April for the first time in years, and he framed that as a step toward a 90% goal: “if that holds to the audit, we’re gonna be very happy. We’re going to celebrate, but we’re gonna remind ourselves that that’s just a stepping stone to the goal of 90%.” He repeatedly tied on‑time performance to fleet capacity for Wheels, noting many of the existing paratransit vans were leased as a short-term measure and the system needs larger vehicles to improve reliability.

Microtransit feasibility and potential pilot
Combs reviewed an ongoing microtransit feasibility study funded at roughly $75,000 and described five candidate zones for a pilot. He cautioned the public survey used in the study was not demographically representative and emphasized a communications challenge: many respondents indicated they would use microtransit but fewer said they would use it to access fixed-route bus stops. Combs gave planners’ back-of-the-envelope operating cost assumptions: roughly $100 per vehicle per hour, excluding marketing and overhead, and noted most proposed zones would need two vehicles while a South Side zone would need three.

Combs said the budget submitted for council consideration does not include new recurring operations for a microtransit pilot because operating funds were not identified; he asked for council support for follow-up outreach if the authority proceeds. Council member Ehlinger said he intended to move the budget be docketed for May 29 and scheduled for a June 12 vote; after discussion that motion was made, seconded and approved by the council.

Council questions and context
Council members pressed staff on several items: the make-up of Lextran’s operating cash (Combs said large property-tax receipts are received each November and spent throughout the year and that the authority must hold liquidity to match federal grants), the $6 million reserve (Combs described it as an economic contingency “do not touch until it’s an absolute emergency”), staffing and collective bargaining progress, and how tariffs and supply chain uncertainty might affect vehicle procurement. Combs said Lextran pushed to get 10 paratransit vans on order because vendor pricing is expected to rise.

Combs outlined unfunded priorities that would require future capital or operating dollars: additional paratransit vehicles, transit center exterior safety upgrades, and replacement of an aging fare-collection system. He said service improvements (more frequency or new direct routes) are not in the FY26 operating budget but remain policy priorities if funding becomes available.

Public comment and stakeholder remarks
Several public speakers at the work session urged faster progress on microtransit and broader transit access. Gail Swanson, board member of BUILD, said transportation is a major barrier to health care and employment and urged Lextran to adopt a microtransit pilot that serves people with mental‑health needs. Pastor Adam Jones described church-led van transportation and said many congregation members had stopped using buses because service was unreliable; he urged a pilot sooner than later.

What’s next
The council voted to place a resolution approving Lextran’s FY26 budget on the May 29 council meeting docket; the motion was moved by Council member Ehlinger and seconded by Council member Morton. The council will take up first reading on May 29 and second reading on June 12 per the motion on the floor.

Details clarified at the meeting: the FY26 budget number ($37,968,002); the $6 million reserve; an anticipated 3.5 million fixed-route trips and 170,000 paratransit trips; planned procurement of ten fixed-route buses and ten paratransit cutaways; one electric bus funded by an existing grant; and the microtransit cost assumption of about $100 per vehicle per hour.

— Reporting from the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Council work session","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Lexington - Council Work Session - May 06, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","Fred Combs, general manager of Lextran, presented a balanced FY2026 proposal of $37,968,002 to the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Council work session and described a microtransit feasibility study, a push to replace aging paratransit vehicles and recent gains in paratransit on‑time performance.","taxTitle","Lexington City, Fayette County, Kentucky","taxId",5707,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6568214,"Council delays final action on HB443 zoning text amendment after hours of public comment",2184,2310000,4494000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3206113-fd1a3b070c78acdedfdf53e473c64b83&start=2310&end=4494","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3206113-fd1a3b070c78acdedfdf53e473c64b83/thumbnail_2310000.jpg","/articles/6568214/Lexington-City/Fayette-County/Kentucky/Council-delays-final-action-on-HB443-zoning-text-amendment-after-hours-of-public-comment","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6568214-e8778f25f82e3a389e70631e7fdfa630/orig.mp4?Expires=1771140503&Signature=UJX-RZp5b-4DbbsjjTHqdHsAkjPgPvLTgMRV27Vp-LYFss0vK4mk0Egc4X5JcEYWrL0I9~PpgyddU6lqlMEEdzTe9zPJe4GscfFso9mQA0GAbRyVdK2GINxr9cWfnYkSdK1oVrtGlT9FUlyS-ku-~J~WmzLD3WjtOT0aoxiunwhf4RcwMkXRJt3j48YVOtUeayFVJYP-LQLmpRgfCsmDIa9sA2qLJTJUHAGMDxm91UW9-yI2EGmwUsMwwWPr6niWja8ya9CP49e6n-D4J~7~WiZaQdjIUKdN8B9xp0qCwcUGbGVtBWtX1GlCV6tpPO5jdX3M4Jmj85Ht-mjPhN0dEw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Lexington-Fayette Urban County Council paused formal action on a zoning ordinance text amendment linked to 2024’s House Bill 443 after a prolonged public-comment period and questions from council members about notice, public engagement and how the state law changes local review procedures.

Public concerns raised at the work session centered on whether the local ZOTA would reduce opportunities for neighborhood input on final development plans, allow broad ministerial review without hearings, and increase development costs through new objective standards. Dozens of residents, neighborhood leaders, and business representatives addressed the council during the meeting’s public-comment period.

Commerce Lexington board chair Carla Blanton urged caution and asked the council not to fast-track broad regulatory changes. ‘‘Higher costs equal less infill and redevelopment,’’ Blanton said, arguing the proposal could lengthen and raise the cost of projects the city wants to encourage.

Neighborhood representatives and advocates said the proposal could curtail meaningful review. Patty Dross of the Joyland Neighborhood Association warned that a ministerial-only process could leave residents unaware of projects until construction had started: “If the correct zone is present for a proposed project, … we will not know until the shovels are digging what is being built,” she said.

Retail and business stakeholders raised separate concerns about specific regulations. Shannon Stiglitz, a retailers’ representative, said provisions limiting drive-throughs and prescribing building entries could pose public-safety and merchandising challenges and urged the council to preserve appropriate public input and process.

Legal and technical points
Attorney Richard Murphy, representing several developers, told the council that the draft ZOTA requires notice for waivers and that the changes reflect state law distinctions between discretionary zone changes and ministerial development standards. Representative Brown, a member of Lexington’s state delegation who joined the meeting, said he voted for HB443 in the legislature and told council members he did not intend for the state bill to remove public engagement. He said he had not communicated with local government staff before the vote.

Planning staff described the local drafting work as partly ‘‘cleanup’’ and partly new text required to translate previously subjective standards into objective, numeric standards that comply with the statutory language. Planning staff said the largest amount of new text is concentrated in Article 16 (vehicle and access standards) where traffic, drive‑through and access standards must be converted from sign‑offs to measurable requirements.

Council action and next steps
Council member Brown moved to table the current docket motion so the council could hear the remaining public commenters and that motion passed. Later in the meeting, Council member Reynolds moved to remove item 7 (ordinances, first reading) from the current docket and to suspend the rules to allow continued discussion at a work session on May 13; that motion passed. The council also approved, by separate motion, an amendment removing the word “temporary” from the ordinance’s definition section (motion by Council member Brown, seconded by Council member Baxter).

Why it matters
House Bill 443 requires local governments to apply objective standards ministerially in certain parts of the development review process; how Lexington defines those objective standards and preserves opportunities for neighborhood review will change whether some final development plans are handled administratively or continue to require public hearings at the Planning Commission. Several speakers said the proposed text shifts too much discretion to staff and adds new technical requirements that could make infill redevelopment more costly.

Council members requested additional time and work with staff to reconcile objectives, clarify notice and waiver rules, and make targeted edits. The council voted to continue discussion at a May 13 work session; staff indicated they will bring refined language and that technical review meetings will be streamed going forward.

— Reporting from the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Council work session","After more than an hour of public comment and debate, the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Council voted to remove the HB443 zoning ordinance text amendment (ZOTA) from the current docket for further work and discussion at a May 13 work session; council also approved a narrow amendment removing the word “temporary” from a definition.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Lextran presents $37.97 million FY2026 budget, outlines microtransit pilot and fleet priorities

Council delays final action on HB443 zoning text amendment after hours of public comment