The City Budget
The City Budget is one of the most important (and complicated) documents in city government. It determines how much gets spent on the things you care about - be it street trees, housing, or the police. Learn more about how it works here.
The Comprehensive Plan
Lexington’s Comprehensive Plan, titled Imagine Lexington, is the vision document for the city’s long-term planning strategies and goals, and our city’s growth and land use. This is built to help you understand how the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government’s Comprehensive Plan is structured and created.
EPA Consent Decree
In 2006, the EPA and the Commonwealth of Kentucky filed a lawsuit against Lexington for violating the Clean Water Act, arguing that the city had failed to properly maintain its sanitary and storm sewer systems. This lawsuit resulted in Lexington’s multi-million dollar Consent Decree.
The New Council
In November of 2022, Lexington elected a new Urban County Council. The 2023/24 Council is the most diverse council in Lexington’s history and has the most freshman Council Members ever. Learn more about who got elected, what Committees they sit on, and what their priorities are.
In November of 2022, Lexington elected a new Urban County Council. The 2023/24 Council is the most diverse council in Lexington’s history and has the most freshman Council Members ever. Read more below to learn about who got elected, what Committees they sit on, and what their priorities are.
Lexington’s new Council at a glance
40% of Council are brand new to the Council - including Lexington’s new Vice Mayor, Dan Wu, who replaced current Vice Mayor Steve Kay.
Districts 1, 2, 4, 6, and 10 elected new Council Members in Tayna Fogle, Shayla Lynch, Brenda Monarrez, Denise Gray, and Dave Sevigny.
This includes a big change in District 2 - Shayla Lynch won the seat over Josh McCurn, the only incumbent upset of the election.
Incumbents Chuck Ellinger (at Large), Hannah LeGris (D3), Liz Sheehan (D5), Preston Worley (D7), Fred Brown (D8), Whitney Baxter (D9), Jennifer Reynolds (D11), and Kathy Plomin (D12) all were reelected.
James Brown, former District 1 Council Member, is now be a Council at Large member, the only sitting District Council Member to move into an At Large role in the 2022 race.
This is the most diverse council on record with six Council Members of color - or 40% of the Council.
This is also the most female Council in Lexington’s history - 60% of the Council.
A new Vice Mayor & Council at Large
Lexington elected two new Council At-Large members - Dan Wu and James Brown - and reelected one incumbent - Chuck Ellinger. The top vote getter in the city-wide race, Dan Wu, is Lexington’s new Vice Mayor.
Vice Mayor Dan Wu
Wu has worked as a chef, small business owner, and community activist.
The issues listed on his website include Civil Rights, Local Government, Housing, The Economy, The Environment, and Public Safety.
You can find his campaign website, social media platforms, and various survey responses here.
A quick note: Dan Wu was recently a Programmatic Board member of CivicLex.
Council At-Large Member James Brown
Brown has served for six years as District 1’s Councilmember.
He is currently the Chair of the Planning and Public Safety Committee, and serves on a number of city boards and commissions.
You can find his campaign website, social media platforms, and various survey responses here.
Council At-Large Member Chuck Ellinger
Ellinger has served as an At-Large Councilmember since 2018.
The issues listed on his website include Basic Services, Accountability, Services, Responsible Spending, Neighborhood Involvement, Traffic, Responsible Growth, Education, Downtown, Employment, Experience, and Tourism.
You can find his campaign website, social media platforms, and various survey responses here.
District Council Races
Lexington elected new Council Members in Districts 1, 2, 4, 6, & 10.
District One Council Member Tayna Fogle
Fogle is an Organizer at Kentuckians for the Commonwealth. She is also a Volunteer Reentry Specialist for the Catholic Action Center. This will be her first term on Council.
Issues listed on her website include Healthy Community, Livability, and Working Democracy.
You can find her campaign website, social media platforms, and various survey responses here.
District Two Council Member Shayla Lynch
Shayla Lynch is the current Executive Director of the Carnegie Center for Literacy & Learning and has formerly worked with Ampersand Sexual Violence Resource Center of the Bluegrass and the Lexington Fair Housing Council.
The values listed on her website include Service, Advocacy, and Partnership.
You can find her campaign website, social media platforms, and various survey responses here.
District Three Council Member Hannah LeGris
Hannah LeGris has served as District 3’s Councilmember since 2020. This will be her second term on Council.
Issues listed on her website include Greenspace and Environmentalism; Human Rights & LGBTQ+ Initiatives; Supporting Local Business; Downtown Investment; Affordable Housing; Performing, Visual & Literary Arts; Bicycle & Pedestrian Infrastructure; and Government Accountability.
You can find her campaign website, social media platforms, and various survey responses here.
District Four Council Member Brenda Monarrez
Brenda Monarrez is a small business owner and formerly worked at the Kentucky Housing Corporation. She was District 4’s representative on the Redistrict Lexington Commission in 2021. This will be her first term on Council.
The issues listed on her website are Roads, Highways, and Transportation; Promoting Small Business; Public Safety; Urban Services Boundary; Fairness & Equality; Environmental Stewardship; Youth Engagement; and Affordable Housing.
You can find her campaign website, social media platforms, and various survey responses here.
District Five Council Member Liz Sheehan
Liz Sheehan was first elected to Council in 2020. This will be her second term. She also works for the University of Kentucky as a faculty member in the Department of Psychology.
You can find her campaign website, social media platforms, and various survey responses here.
District Six Council Member Denise Gray
Denise Gray works as an educator for Fayette County Public Schools. She is also the owner of Leading the Way, LLC and the president of the nonprofit Our Commonwealth.
The issues listed on her website are Housing Affordability, Community Safety, Access to Transportation, Youth, Civic Engagement, Economic Development, and Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion.
You can find her campaign website, social media platforms, and various survey responses here.
District Seven Council Member Preston Worley
Preston Worley is the current District 7 Councilmember. He is also a real estate and development attorney for McBrayer Law Firm. He was first elected in November 2016. This will be his fourth term in office.
You can find his campaign website, social media platforms, and various survey responses here.
District Eight Council Member Fred Brown
Fred Brown is the current District 8 Councilmember. He also worked as a self employed public accountant. He was has served on Council since 2014. This will be his fifth term in office.
You can find his campaign website, social media platforms, and various survey responses here.
District Nine Council Member Whitney Baxter
Whitney Baxter is the current District 9 Councilmember. She serves on the Planning & Public Safety Committee and the General Government and Social Services Committee. She was first elected in November 2020. This will be her second term on Council.
The issues listed on her website are Transparency and Education, Public Safety, and Housing and Development.
You can find her campaign website, social media platforms, and various survey responses here.
District Ten Council Member Dave Sevigny
Dave Sevigny is the founder of an IT Company called Volta and is the Chair of Commerce Lexington’s Business Owners Advisory Boards. This will be his first term on Council.
The priorities listed on his website are Attracting Talent, Promoting Placemaking, and Diversifying Housing.
You can find his campaign website, social media platforms, and various survey responses here.
District Eleven Council Member Jennifer Reynolds
Jennifer Reynolds is the current District 11 Councilmember. She serves on the General Government and Social Services Committee and the Planning and Public Safety Committee. She was first elected in November 2018; this will be her third term on Council. She has also worked with the Bluegrass Youth Ballet and as a Medical Interpreter.
You can find her campaign website, social media platforms, and various survey responses here.
District Twelve Council Member Kathy Plomin
Kathy Plomin is the current District 12 Councilmember. This will be her fourth term on Council.
She serves on the Planning and Public Safety Committee and is the Vice Chair of the General Government and Social Services Committee. She was the Vice President of Sales and Marketing at WKYT and worked with United Way of the Bluegrass.
You can find her campaign website, social media platforms, and various survey responses here.
The Urban Service Boundary
In 1958, Lexington established the Urban Services Boundary (USB), which controls what land is available for development and access to city services. Since then, the USB has been a contentious subject in Lexington’s civic life. Learn more about how this important regulation shapes our community.
The latest on the Urban Service Boundary
In November 2023, Council voted to expand the Urban Service Area by 2,800 acres in five locations across Fayette County. The next step is to develop the Urban Growth Master Plan*, a document that will guide development, land use, and transportation in the new areas. The plan must be complete by December 2024 or an automatic expansion will be triggered.
*CivicLex is partnering with the planning and design firm TSW to gather public input for the Urban Growth Master Plan.
Draft Expansion Map
Right now, you can weigh in on how you would like to see the areas above be developed and what your priorities for the expansion process are.
📮 From the CivicLex Weekly
Learn more about the Urban Service Boundary
What is the Urban Services Boundary?
Lexington’s local government (LFUCG) governs a lot of different pieces of life in our city, from taxes to parks to snow plows. One of the most unique powers that LFUCG has is the control of something called the Urban Services Boundary, or USB for short. This boundary is a line around the city of Lexington that contains almost all new development of buildings inside of it - leaving the remainder of the county as rural, natural, or agricultural land.
The Urban Service Boundary controls the ability of land to be developed and receive city services like water and sewer. It is controlled via ordinance by the City of Lexington, and has been historically changed through the city’s Comprehensive Planning process.
If you have ever been driving along a major corridor like Versailles or Richmond Road and you suddenly start to see a lot more green, you have likely crossed to the other side of the USB.
What are some of the characteristics of the USB?
Fayette County as a whole is about 285 square miles. Approximately 30% of this land is inside the USB (about 85 square miles) and the other 70% is outside the USB (about 200 square miles)
Lexington was the first city in the country to establish a USB in 1958.
Most of the land outside the USB is in Council District 12, currently represented by Councilmember Kathy Plomin.
The USB was last expanded in 1996, when about 8 square miles of land were added to 3 new expansion areas, including the Hamburg Area.
Approximately 97% of Fayette County’s population lives inside the USB.
Why is the USB such a big topic?
Many individuals and groups in Lexington have strong feelings about the Urban Services Boundary. Some feel it should be kept at the same size, some think it should be expanded a little or a lot, and some want to get rid of it entirely. It is hard to summarize everyone’s personal opinions, but here are a few of the biggest topics that are brought up in conversations about the USB.
Rural and Agricultural Land Preservation- This is a big one. The original concept of the USB was to preserve agricultural and rural land from new developments, and the land outside the boundary currently contains around 35,000 acres of conserved land. Some argue that this land is vital to Lexington’s cultural identity and tourism economy, while others argue that we are protecting this land over providing for our residents.
Population Growth - Lexington/ Fayette County’s population grows every year, and as more and more people live in the city or county, they will need more and more housing, amenities, jobs, and space. Some argue that we need to expand the footprint of the city to accommodate the city - while others say we can fit many more people inside our existing footprint - which leads to conversations about…
Density and Sprawl - one of the main conversations about growth in Lexington is about whether to grow “up or out”. Some people prefer less dense living situations, including single family housing and space between lots. Others prefer reducing sprawl and increasing density, mainly through more multi-unit housing and mixed-use development (like a building with a store on the ground floor and apartments above it).
Housing Prices - It’s no secret that Lexington, along with the rest of the United States, is experiencing a serious affordable housing crisis. Some advocate that expanding the USB would allow more houses to be built, increasing supply and reducing demand (and therefore, prices). However, some disagree, arguing that expansion won’t guarantee that new homes will be affordable or have the community amenities to make them desirable. Instead, they may support other options for increasing the amount of housing available in Lexington, like infill and redevelopment of vacant properties.
The Economy - Some who are in favor of expanding the USB point out that doing so would add new businesses, housing, and amenities to Lexington, which would grow the economy and increase revenue to LFUCG. However, others point out that the current land outside the USB already has a significant economic impact, in the equine, agricultural, and tourism industries.
What is CivicLex’s stance on the Urban Services Boundary?
We don’t have one! CivicLex doesn’t advocate for or against specific issues. Our role in conversations about the USB is limited to providing information for residents, and sharing opportunities to make your opinion heard- no matter what your opinion might be! Whether you want keep the boundary, expand it, get rid of it, or redraw it, we want to help you understand the issue and speak up when decisions about it are being made.
ARPA Funding
In 2020, Lexington received more than $120M from the Federal Government through the American Rescue Plan Act. Since then, countless projects across the city have put these dollars to work. Learn more about what was funded - and what wasn’t - here.
The current status of ARPA in Lexington
As of August 21, 2023 LFUCG has allocated $119 million of the $121 million worth of ARPA funds they received, in 7 different funding categories: Public Health, Negative Economic Impacts of COVID, Premium Pay, Infrastructure, Revenue Replacement, and Administration. These are the categories that ARPA money is eligible to be spent on, as laid out in a document from the federal government called the interim final rule.
$24.6 million of this has actually been spent
These allocations have gone towards 78 different projects
15 of these projects are more or less complete, including Premium Pay for LFUCG workers, Grants to agencies like the Lyric Theater, NAMI, and the Explorium, and several parks projects including park shelter roof repairs, playground improvements, and new diving boards
The rest of the projects are still going. LFUCG has until the end of 2024 to allocate the money, and the end of 2026 to actually spend it.
You can view a living database of the projects here
There is a team of 8 people working on administering ARPA within LFUCG. You can contact them at arpa@lexingtonky.gov
More ARPA Details
Counties, states, and other institutions all across America are receiving financial relief from the American Rescue Plan Act.
LFUCG will receive its’ $120M in Federal COVID Relief money in two “tranches.” 50% will come in May of 2021, and 50% will come in May of 2022.
Council will decide how to allocate the money, with input from the Administration and residents.
The funding must be allocated by December 31, 2024, and spent by December 31, 2026.
The funds must be allocated for specific uses as laid out in what is ominously called an “Interim Final Rule” by the Department of Treasury. You can read that here.
Here is a very broad interpretation of those uses:
Support public health expenditures
Address negative economic impacts from COVID
Replace lost public sector revenue
Provide premium pay for essential workers
Invest in water, sewer, and broadband infrastructure
Past ARPA Updates in the CivicLex Weekly:
Public Input and ARPA
LFUCG has made several efforts to receive public input about ARPA Funding and what to spend it on.
They initially conducted a survey that receive 3,287 responses
District 5 CM Liz Sheehan and her staff created this breakdown of that survey response data.
Council also released a second survey that allowed residents to submit projects directly. That survey received 1,084 specific project proposals, which you can view here.
These resident-recommended projects actually make up the majority of ARPA projects that are being funded.
Additionally, specific ARPA projects, like improvements to a certain park or nonprofit capital grant programs, have their own public input opportunities, including surveys, polls, and workshops
Revenue Replacement for ARPA Funds: Money with no strings attached!
The $120 million that LFUCG is receiving from the federal government has rules attached. Because it is designed for COVID recovery, most of it can only be spent on certain areas, like public health, aid for communities most impacted by COVID, or certain types of infrastructure.
However, there is an additional piece of the ARPA puzzle that is referred to as “Revenue Replacement”, and is used to replenish revenue that governments lost during the pandemic. Under Revenue Replacement, most government functions are allowed, which removes many of the restrictions of typical ARPA funds.
But, there is only so much of it. A complicated formula determines how much of its ARPA disbursement a city can use for Revenue Replacement. Right now, the finance department has estimated that LFUCG qualifies for about $30 million of Revenue Replacement funds. There will be another infusion at the end of the year, but the majority of the ARPA money still has to be spent on qualified projects.
Here’s what you need to know:
Keep in mind, the ARPA subgroups haven’t been in regular communication with each other and some ARPA funding has already been allocated.
In total, ARPA Subgroups are proposing $97M worth of projects that only qualify through Revenue Replacement.
LFUCG is only expecting to receive about $30 million in funds for Revenue Replacement this year.
So far, the ARPA Subgroups are proposing ~$34 million worth of projects that are guaranteed to qualify for ARPA restrictions.
If the projects listed as such require Revenue Replacement, the subgroups may not have enough ARPA-qualifying projects to expend all their ARPA funding.
How did LFUCG determine which projects get funded?
In the summer of 2021, Council released a public survey and an opportunity to submit projects for ARPA consideration.
Council received 3,287 responses to the public input survey. District 5 CM Liz Sheehan and her staff created this breakdown of the survey response data.
Council also received 1,084 specific project proposals, which you can view here - it is one of Lexington’s most up-to-date resources on what our residents care about right now and is worth a read.
These priorities will guide what projects are selected by Council for funding.
LFUCG has set its own priorities for ARPA funding consideration that fit within federal guidelines. Those are:
Community Health, Wellness, & Quality of Life (ex: physical and mental health, social services, food insecurity, community centers, green infrastructure)
Critical City Services, Employee Retention, & Facilities (ex: waste collection, streets and roads, paving, cybersecurity, bonuses for LFUCG frontline workers)
Economic Recovery & Growth (ex: small business loans, supporting entrepreneurs, financial empowerment, broadband investments, agricultural initiatives)
Equity-Focused Services and Partnerships (ex: supporting vulnerable populations impacted by COVID-19)
Growing Successful Neighborhoods (ex: affordable housing, housing rehab programs, trails, parks, aging in place services)
Harm Prevention and Public Safety (ex: violence prevention, pay and equipment for police, fire, code enforcement)
How specifically will Lexington implement ARPA-funded projects?
All projects must be implemented and reported on according to the Department of Treasury’s Interim Final Rule and the Compliance and Reporting Guidance State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds documents.
Council will evaluate projects based on the priorities in the Treasury’s Final Rule, LFUCG’s priorities, and some basic risk/reward weighing.
Once a project has been selected by the council, a budget cap will be set and a budget amendment will be filed to create the project.
As a reminder, Budget Amendments require both first and second readings - plus a ⅗ majority vote.
After the project has been funded by council, the administration will set up an “internal project form”, containing the essential details of the project, including budget, population served, and more.
The process gets more complicated with project administration. Many departments, divisions, and public entities will have to work together to monitor the project’s progress and costs, but this is typical of many city projects that already exist.
Once the project is in process, quarterly and Annual reports will need to be submitted. Quarterly reports will track elements like finances and contracts, annual reports will also track more qualitative data like community engagement, equity, and labor practices.
All projects must be selected by 12/31/2024 and have to be completed by 12/31/2026. Project reports and financial records will be preserved until 12/31/2031. All forms are open to inspection by Treasury at any time.
Local Redistricting
Every 10 years, Lexington redraws its council districts based on how populations change.
Who is running for Council and Mayor?
In 2022, the entire Urban County Council and Mayor are up for reelection. Stay on top of who’s running for what.
Updated - 1/26/22
In 2022, all of Lexington's elected representatives will be on the ballot, including Mayor, District Council, and Council at Large. We’ve removed campaign funds listed for now while we create a better system for tracking them! Names are in alphabetical order except in the case of incumbents, which are listed first for clarity.
Candidates for local office file with both County Clerk and the Kentucky Registry of Election Finance (KREF). Filing with KREF allows candidates to fundraise for their race, but in order to be completely ready to run, they must file with the County Clerk. County Clerk filing paperwork includes a mandatory 100 signature petition from residents of the district.
Below, we’ve indicated with which agencies candidates have filed.
Mayor
Linda Gorton, Current Mayor. (County Clerk, KREF)
Adrian Wallace, President & CEO of the Bishop and Chase Foundation. (County Clerk, KREF)
David Kloiber, Current District 6 Council Member. (County Clerk, KREF)
Ramasani Azmani. (KREF)
William Weyman, 2018 Mayoral Candidate. (County Clerk, KREF)
Council At Large Race
Chuck Ellinger, current Council At Large Member. (County Clerk, KREF)
Richard Moloney, current Council At Large Member. (County Clerk, KREF)
Arnold Farr, Philosophy Professor at UK and former candidate for Council. (KREF)
Bill Farmer Jr., Former District 5 Council Member. (County Clerk, KREF)
Dan Wu, Chef and Entrepreneur. (County Clerk, KREF)
James Brown, current District 1 Council Member. (County Clerk, KREF)
Lillie Miller-Johnson, Elected Supervisor of the Fayette County Soil and Water Conservation district. (County Clerk, KREF)
Matthew Miniard, former candidate for Council At Large. (County Clerk, KREF)
District Council Races
District 1:
Darnell Tagaloa, Business Development Manager at iHeart Radio. (KREF)
Doyle Warren, former pastor and IBM employee (County Clerk, KREF)
Michael Wilson (KREF)
Rashaan Berry, a Lexington Police Department Sergeant. (County Clerk, KREF)
Tayna Fogle, Organizer at Kentuckians for the Commonwealth. (County Clerk, KREF)
Terry Cunningham - WITHDRAWN
District 2:
Josh McCurn, Current District 2 CM. (County Clerk, KREF)
Shayla Lynch, Executive Director of the Ampersand Sexual Violence Resource Center. (County Clerk, KREF)
District 3:
Hannah LeGris, Current District 3 CM. (County Clerk, KREF)
Kate Savage, Director of ArtsConnect. (County Clerk, KREF)
District 4:
Brack Marquette, former Director of Governmental Affairs at Columbia Gas. (County Clerk, KREF)
Brenda Monarrez, District 4 representative on the Redistrict Lexington Commission. (County Clerk, KREF)
Barry Saturday, past Candidate for Council (County Clerk)
District 5:
Liz Sheehan, Current District 5 CM. (County Clerk, KREF)
Ami Hillenmeyer, co-owner of ASH Airbnb LLC. (County Clerk, KREF)
Greg Ladd, former General Counsel, Department for Local Government. (County Clerk, KREF)
District 6:
Charles Rowland, Executive Advisor at Kentucky Cabinet for Economic Development. (County Clerk, KREF)
Christopher Shafer. (KREF)
Denise Gray, former candidate for State Senate. (County Clerk, KREF)
District 7:
Preston Worley, Current District 7 CM. (County Clerk, KREF)
Joseph Hale (County Clerk)
District 8:
Fred Brown, Current District 8 CM. (County Clerk, KREF)
Kenya Williams, an Account Executive at Ethicon, Inc. (County Clerk, KREF)
District 9:
Whitney Baxter, Current District 9 CM. (County Clerk, KREF)
James Lombardi, a former Lexington Police Department Lieutenant. (KREF)
District 10:
Catherine Zamarron, Community Engagement Coordinator at Ampersand Sexual Violence Resource Center. (KREF)
David Sevigny, Managing Partner at Tek Agency LLC and Chair of Commerce Lexington’s Business Owners Advisory Board. (County Clerk, KREF)
Ross Mann (County Clerk)
District 11:
Jennifer Reynolds, Current D11 CM. (County Clerk, KREF)
Rock Daniels, Realtor and Property Developer. (County Clerk)
District 12:
Kathy Plomin, Current District 12 CM. (County Clerk, KREF)
Raymond Alexander, a Lexington Police Department Officer. (KREF)
*Dan Wu is a current CivicLex Programmatic Board Member. While we encourage all board members to be civically active, we require board members who elect to run for elected office in Lexington-Fayette County to agree to specific terms limiting their ability to impact our work. If they are successful in their run, they are dismissed from the board.
Accessory Dwelling Units
ADUs are secondary housing units - and Lexington has just legalized them citywide (again).
The status of ADU legislation in Lexington
ADUs have been adopted by the Urban County Council following the recommendations listed in the 9/16 update below.
📮 - ADU Updates from the CivicLex Weekly:
What are Accessory Dwelling Units?
ADUs can be a whole separate structure, an above-garage apartment, a basement apartment, or a small home expansion.
As of now, ADUs are illegal in nearly all of Lexington-Fayette County's Residential Zones.
The 2018 Comprehensive Plan recommended ADUs as one potential strategy to address Lexington's housing shortage.
The Divisions of Planning and Senior Services made a public case for ADU legislation after the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan, tying it to a strategy to address Lexington's quickly aging population.
Since then, specific legislation has been put forth by the Division of Planning.
While ADUs are a nationally-recognized strategy to address the issue of aging in place and housing affordability, there has been significant pushback on the proposed legislation in Lexington.
Update on ADUs as of 09/16/2021
On September 14, the Planning and Public Safety Committee held a public hearing about their proposed zoning ordinance text amendment (ZOTA) to allow ADUs to any single family home in Lexington.
The hearing lasted over 4 hours and brought forward residents that were both strongly for and against the proposed zoning change. Residents against brought up concerns of parking, increased strain on city services like the sanitary sewer systems, and fear of renters.
Speakers in favor of ADUs included residents with aging family members or adults with disabilities, and supporters of more multi unit housing options in Lexington.After hearing all presentations and public comment, Vice Mayor Steve Kay proposed three amendments to the ordinance, two for clarification and one substantive change:
Clarifying the definition of residences that are eligible for ADUs as “single family residential”
Clarifying that basement ADUs are not limited to the 800 square foot maximum size restriction, as long as they do not exceed the footprint of the existing house
Changing the ordinance to a “pilot program” that only allows three of the four ADU types (converted garages, basements and attics, or attached additions to the principal home) and does NOT allow any new detached construction, to be revisited in a year
The council discussed the pros and cons of these amendments, including:
The issue that not allowing any new detached construction might be unfair to families who do not happen to already have a garage or suitable basement/attic
Resolving the potential issue of someone building a new garage and then a year later converting that to an ADU by adding a date that pre-existing garages must be built before
After some discussion, the council voted to APPROVE all three amendments, with CMs Baxter, McCurn, Worley, and Moloney voting against the third, most significant, change. The council then voted to pass the ZOTA out of committee, where it will appear in a council work session in Mid October.
What are the main pieces of the proposal?
The proposed Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment would allow for ADUs on almost all residential properties in Lexington.
ADUs could be a converted space like a basement, a new expansion on a house, or new free-standing builds . They would have to follow the following regulations:
Property owners would be allowed to build or convert an existing space into an ADU by default. (see above update)
Property owners building an ADU would be required to meet with Planning before building a new ADU to review design recommendations, regulations, and deed restrictions.
Only one ADU could be constructed per lot, and it must be under 800 sqft. in size.
The owner of the property must live in either the primary structure or the accessory unit.
Maximum of 2 persons and any children related to them would be allowed to live in an ADU.
The ADU could be used as a long-term rental property by default.
If the owner wanted to use it as a short-term rental (like an Airbnb), they would have to apply for a conditional use permit from the Board of Adjustment.
Anyone that purchases a property that has a legally-allowed ADU would be notified of the restrictions on ADUs by LFUCG upon purchase. There would be mechanism for removing the restrictions of ADUs in that context, if requested.
What is the pushback?
There has been significant pushback against ADUs from the Fayette County Neighborhood Council - Lexington’s association of Neighborhood Associations. They recently convened around a document that raises questions about the city’s ADU ordinance. Here are some selections from that document:
Home extensions, semi-independent living quarters. Is the ADU ZOTA needed to allow us to add to our home a living area for seniors, grown children or disabled family members—without a public hearing before the Board of Adjustment? Can living quarters for caregivers and domestic employees be allowed under the present zoning regulations? Are ADUs needed to provide for this accessory use in residential zoning?
Small-area restrictions. Can ADUs be prohibited in any area, for example near the University or in areas where tourism threatens to displace long-term residents? Can the ZOTA exclude these areas from the beginning? Alternately, can neighborhoods opt out of the zoning that allows ADUs after it is adopted?
Rental licensing and inspection. How would rental licensing and regular inspection impact enforcement? Which areas frequently suffer significant non-compliance with zoning regulations? What is the rate of home ownership in these neighborhoods, and how is it trending?
Vulnerable neighborhoods and displacement. Will a ZOTA permitting ADUs have a disparate impact on neighborhoods vulnerable to displacement of long-term residents? What ADU conditions can guard against such impact?
What is the context and history of the debate around ADUs?
Public conversations about ADUs started in 2018 and picked up steam in July 2019 when a draft of the proposal was released by the Division of Planning.
Before developing the ADU proposal, the Division of Planning spent a significant amount of time researching national best practices for ADU legislation, focusing on policies that would encourage wide-spread adoption by property owners and the construction of more units.
Their research found that the fewer the restrictions placed on ADU construction, the more units were built.
Since the primary goal of the ADU legislation is to add additional housing units to Lexington by allowing homeowners to do more with their property be right, Planning originally proposed few regulatory measures for ADUs.
But early concerns about ADUs from established neighborhood associations led to increased regulations as part of the ADU legislation.
The following are many of the concerns raised throughout the process:
The relatively few regulations on ADUs could lead to a declining quality of life for existing residents in neighborhoods where ADUs are constructed due to issues related to additional traffic, building code compliance, safety, capacity and integrity of sewer lines, and more.
The Division of Planning has expressed that having less regulations on ADUs makes them easier to build for homeowners (many of whom aren’t used to navigating Planning’s regulatory landscape).
Several regulations have since been added to the legislation to address some of these concerns.
Since the 2018 Comprehensive Plan includes mention of licensing, inspection, and enforcement for rental properties city-wide, some residents believe it would not be good for the city to create a new type of rental unit without these mechanisms in place.
There are currently no mechanisms for licensing, inspection, or enforcement of rental units outside of Code Enforcement and Building Inspection.
Now, any individual with the means can purchase property and convert it into rental housing, as long as it follows zoning, code, and building inspection rules.
Landlord/rental registry/inspections have been established in other communities, but would likely be a significant political hurdle in Lexington.
The ADU legislation now requires a pre-construction meeting with Planning to review regulations.
Permitting the construction of new short-term rental units could lead to a declining quality of life in neighborhoods. Some residents have expressed frustration at the growth of short-term rentals (Airbnb, VRBO) across the city.
The ADU legislation has been changed to not allow short-term rentals in ADUs by default. A short term rental use would only be allowed by applying for a Conditional Use Permit.
A lack of owner-occupancy requirements on long-term rental ADUs could lead to neighborhood decline. Many have specifically cited the impact of additional rental housing around the University of Kentucky as a negative for homeowners in the area. Rental units are on the rise overall in Lexington.
The Division of Planning originally omitted owner-occupancy requirements in the ADU policy for long-term rentals for two reasons:
There is no owner-occupancy requirement for any other housing type in the City of Lexington.
They also state that owner-occupancy requirements act as a barrier to financing for ADU construction.
Since, the ADU legislation has been amended to require the property owner live in either the primary or accessory dwelling units.
Without the requirement of parking spaces for ADUs, additional cars will be parked on the streets. ADUs could make it more difficult for existing residents to find parking, and would present safety concerns for both drivers and pedestrians due to the increased vehicular traffic.
The Division of Planning omitted parking requirements for these reasons:
Additional spaces can be provided, but are not mandated, since they are not needed in all situations.
Additional spaces are costly and could exclude otherwise suitable lots since the parking would take up space on the lot.
Without design requirements, new ADU structures may not reflect the existing neighborhood character.
However, ADUs would be required to comply with the existing zoning regulations where they are built.
Existing requirements include height restrictions, lot coverage restrictions, limited design restrictions related to the placement of entrances, and exterior stairs. The current ADU legislation does not contain a mandate for community input for new ADU construction - including no public hearing.
The Division of Planning omitted additional requirements these reasons:
Architectural/material standards currently do not exist for primary homes.
A lack of restrictions and regulations on design guidelines encourages creatively designed structures.
The ADU legislation was amended to require that property owners meet with the Division of Planning to review design best practices for ADUs.
Without occupancy requirements, there could be up to 4 individuals living in an 800 sq. ft ADU, leading to neighborhood overcrowding.
The ADU legislation originally had no language related to occupancy sizes - it defaults to the current zoning allowance of a maximum of 4 unrelated adults per housing unit.
The ADU legislation was amended to only allow a maximum of two unrelated adults in an ADU.