Council Work Session

January 20, 2026 · Council · 7,775 words

Watch the official video · Markdown version · Full transcript (text) · Agenda (PDF)

Summary

Meeting Overview

The Lexington-Fayette Urban County Council met on January 20, 2026, at 3:00 PM in the Council Chamber in Lexington, KY, with Mayor Linda Gorton presiding. The meeting included 7 agenda items covering a range of legislative and administrative business, including rezonings, budget amendments, mayoral appointments and procurements, and council capital projects. All substantive agenda items were approved, with the opening item dedicated to public comment on agenda issues serving an informational purpose. Over the course of the meeting, the Council took 7 votes and heard 4 public comments.

Attendance

Meeting Date: January 20, 2026

All 15 council members were present at the meeting. No members were recorded as absent or late.

Present: - Wu - Brown - Ellinger II - Morton - Lynch - LeGris - Curtis - Sheehan - Higgins-Hord - Hale - Beasley - Baxter - Sevigny - Reynolds - Boone

Votes and Decisions

All seven motions brought before the Council on January 20, 2026 passed unanimously. No roll call votes were recorded, and no identifiers were assigned to any of the motions. All votes occurred at approximately 3:00.

Approve the January 15, 2026 Council Meeting Docket, as amended — Moved by Baxter, seconded by Ellinger II. Passed unanimously.

Place on the docket an Ordinance changing the zone from Agricultural Rural to Medium Density Residential and Light Industrial — Moved by Boone, seconded by Baxter. Passed unanimously.

Approve Budget Amendments — Moved by Baxter, seconded by Wu. Passed unanimously.

Approve New Business — Moved by Sevigny, seconded by Curtis. Passed unanimously.

Approve Communications from the Mayor – Appointments — Moved by Wu, seconded by Ellinger II. Passed unanimously.

Approve Communications from the Mayor – Procurements — Moved by Reynolds, seconded by Curtis. Passed unanimously.

Approve Council Capital Projects — Moved by Curtis, seconded by Reynolds. Passed unanimously.

Budget and Financial Actions

The Council considered six financial items at the January 20, 2026 meeting, covering contracts and agreements across multiple departments.

Resolution 0014-26 authorized acceptance of a Participating Addendum NASPO Value Point Agreement with Safariland LLC for Body Armor and Ballistic Resistant Products, valued at $43,000.

Resolution 0032-26 authorized execution of documents to extend the current software licensing agreement with Vermont Systems for RecTrac and WebTrac applications at a cost of $30,000.

Resolution 0040-26 authorized execution of an agreement with Tetra Tech Inc. for design and construction administration services related to the North Elkhorn PS WWS Tank NE-1 project. This was the largest single financial action of the meeting, totaling $1,495,000.

Resolution 0041-26 authorized a 36-month lease agreement with Lynn Imaging for an HP DesignJet T2600 plotter at a cost of $960.

Resolution 0042-26 authorized execution of Change Order No. 2 to the existing consultant services agreement with GRW Engineers Inc., adding $64,353 to that contract.

Resolution 0048-26 authorized a catering contract with Hyatt Regency Lexington in the amount of $8,000 for the annual Senior Intern Alumni Luncheon.

Combined, the financial actions approved at this meeting totaled approximately $1,641,313, with the Tetra Tech Inc. engineering services agreement accounting for the substantial majority of that figure.

Public Comment

Four members of the public addressed the Council during the public comment period at the January 20, 2026 meeting.

Rhonda Wolfork 3:31 spoke on the Urban Growth Proposal, raising concerns about gentrification and calling for better communication with the community. She also emphasized the need for greater consideration of environmental factors in urban growth planning.

Brittney Rothmeyer 7:28 commented on the Preservation and Growth Management Program, offering a more favorable perspective. She praised the program's data-driven approach and offered suggestions aimed at better addressing future growth needs.

Braden Stamper 14:30 also addressed the Preservation and Growth Management Program, focusing specifically on land use. He suggested that vehicle parking parcels be included in the land equation when evaluating sites for redevelopment.

Susan Pollack 20:24 spoke to the Urban Services Boundary Plan, raising concerns that the plan does not adequately account for business expansion. She indicated this omission could be a significant gap in the plan's scope.

Overall, public comment touched on three related planning topics — urban growth, preservation and growth management, and the urban services boundary — with speakers raising concerns about gentrification, environmental considerations, land use calculations, and business development opportunities.

Appointments

At the January 20, 2026 Council meeting, the Council took action on appointments to various boards and commissions. The available record indicates that multiple individuals were appointed to positions across various boards and commissions, though specific names and individual body assignments are not detailed in the available meeting data.

Appointees: Various individuals
Bodies/Roles: Various boards and commissions
Action taken: Appointed

For the full list of specific appointees and their corresponding board or commission assignments, readers are encouraged to consult the official meeting minutes or agenda documentation published by the Council.

Contested Items

Two items drew public opposition and debate during the January 20, 2026 Council meeting.

Urban Growth Proposal

The Urban Growth Proposal generated community opposition, with concerns raised across several areas. Speakers highlighted the risk of gentrification resulting from the proposed growth measures, pointing to potential displacement effects on existing residents. Environmental factors were also cited as inadequately addressed within the proposal. Additionally, commenters called for improved communication from the Council and relevant bodies regarding how urban growth decisions are made and how the public can meaningfully participate. The structured data does not indicate a final vote or resolution outcome for this item.

Preservation and Growth Management Program

The Preservation and Growth Management Program similarly drew critical public comment. Speakers suggested the program required improvements, specifically calling for greater consideration of business expansion opportunities and redevelopment scenarios that the current program may not sufficiently accommodate. The nature of the opposition centered on the program's scope and flexibility rather than outright rejection. As with the Urban Growth Proposal, no outcome or vote result is recorded in the available data for this item.

Both contested items reflect broader community concerns about how growth, development, and preservation policies are being balanced, and whether existing programs and proposals adequately account for economic, environmental, and communicative dimensions of urban change.