[{"_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",6573821,"mediaKeyId","3151436-0ed52b7226a0a5372973a1a737245f2a","parentId",3151436,"title","Quarter three revenues slightly exceed budget; city leaders flag capital timing and service‑fund pressures","audioSeconds",1546,"startMs",266000,"endMs",1812000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3151436-0ed52b7226a0a5372973a1a737245f2a&start=266&end=1812","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3151436-0ed52b7226a0a5372973a1a737245f2a/thumbnail_266000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6573821/Lexington-City/Fayette-County/Kentucky/Quarter-three-revenues-slightly-exceed-budget-city-leaders-flag-capital-timing-and-servicefund-pressures","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6573821-939d6c5c685d92124b9c704a7495dbf9/orig.mp4?Expires=1771199016&Signature=hZsfer6Cc~bBHl2rXPO6~udjcPcqgIRvEWQEOVJHo13V22vepoPsPvTOENR0ReQk1Fsu7qa5w~4oZmW2rjBorMXSsxuJv6XNgF9WRxa0FK3MVcUNp7D6YOmrtenAdQYjOUcpn7YME6kDjyXZnh~ngpPG3gdv4RLwdaVV4CNLXeubAon0JzJjPNIZDB9M3ljAhMYqKADAb6xKt5lufktdyPIawDRBPyT7RRAFUeE2JHjczcWZ1bdOR36cAkvIVkbxkowcbOFCj8UQzLQq6zUI-AXGqIK6r7N9EktkhSkVuqyqgvR-qh-F5OW1b6q-H1SgKMLGJKEllh11OjnIbkrcJg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Lexington","date","2025-04-29T00:00:00Z","article","Finance staff told the Lexington‑Fayette County Council Committee of the Whole on April 29 that third‑quarter fiscal 2025 revenues were running modestly ahead of expectations while timing of transfers and capital spending is producing a planned one‑year deficit.

The finance office’s presentation showed revenue collections “slightly exceeding budget through quarter 3 with a positive variance of 3%,” according to a staff presentation. Payroll withholding and net‑profits collections were cited as the two largest recurring revenue sources; staff said net‑profits receipts typically spike in April because of tax‑day filings and noted a short delay in mail that may shift some April receipts into the next reporting period.

The upward variance included a roughly $10.7 million year‑to‑date gain, staff said, while personnel budgets showed a 3.5% variance (about $8 million) that has been earmarked for pre‑funding items in the mayor’s FY26 proposal. Staff also noted transfers and allocations made in October that drew on prior‑year fund balance and amounted to about $20.2 million — a primary reason the city is running a one‑year deficit even though recurring revenues are above budget.

“Most months of the year, we collect less money than we spend in that month,” the Finance Director said during the presentation. “Revenue collections are slightly exceeding budget through quarter 3 with a positive variance of 3%.” The director also warned that processing delays in mail could leave some net‑profits returns still to be processed for April.

Director Luker, who reviewed expenses, said personnel costs have been close to budget overall but that timing differences in payroll cycles produced month‑to‑month shifts. “We are utilizing savings to prefund those items for FY ’26,” Luker said, describing how personnel savings and line‑item underspending are being set aside to support next year’s proposed budget. Operating variances are concentrated across many accounts, including professional services, repairs and maintenance, cloud/software and vehicle repairs; capital spending is currently running ahead of the monthly budget pace after being underspent in earlier months.

Officials discussed several dedicated funds. The urban services fund (refuse collection, street lights, street cleaning) has a beginning fund balance previously described as about $26 million and is “doing very well” year‑to‑date, staff said, but it faces near‑term pressures including a coming contract rebid for waste services and historically capital‑heavy needs such as vehicle and facility pads. Staff said the city has pulled back some planned capital this year in anticipation of rate changes tied to a contract rebid.

The sanitary sewer and water quality funds also operate with companion construction/capital funds; staff said accounting changes rolled a trust into the construction fund and that transfers between operating and capital funds create large variances on quarterly statements but do not indicate operational shortfalls.

Council members asked for clearer quarterly presentation formats for funds whose revenues are seasonal and for follow‑up on items such as fines and forfeitures, how sanitary sewer rates relate to water usage, and the municipal aid (MAP) program funding source (a state gasoline‑tax share). Finance staff said they will return with clarifying charts and expect several budget amendments in the coming weeks to close out FY25 activity before the fiscal year end.

Why it matters: The city is reporting modest recurring revenue growth but has intentionally drawn on fund balance and reprioritized capital investments; council members were briefed on constraints and near‑term choices that will shape the FY26 budget.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Lexington - Committee of the Whole on 2025-04-29 1:00 PM - Budget Committee of the Whole - Apr 29, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","Finance staff told the Lexington‑Fayette County Council Committee of the Whole on April 29 that third‑quarter fiscal 2025 revenues were running modestly ahead of expectations while timing of transfers and capital spending is producing a planned one‑year deficit.","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},6573816,"Mayor’s proposed FY26 budget totals roughly $539 million; council adopts $520.94 million revenue figure",2949,2689000,5638000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3151436-0ed52b7226a0a5372973a1a737245f2a&start=2689&end=5638","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3151436-0ed52b7226a0a5372973a1a737245f2a/thumbnail_2689000.jpg","/articles/6573816/Lexington-City/Fayette-County/Kentucky/Mayors-proposed-FY26-budget-totals-roughly-539-million-council-adopts-52094-million-revenue-figure","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6573816-5ce937350886d32acccf76c81b70b96c/orig.mp4?Expires=1771199016&Signature=N0eZEgJCeQG-81kj2mt4GItrIYCjva5SQLVCBw20sworFs8GpAZRT7lMXBKWXwHaDJcVmhxSJMVbs0L4Mv8I3Q9PORLIkPCn9Uq0XreiB43slD2CFouxm96cuDKAR9rGGM8NEDDJi2B8zJT8ISruiNV1ogXVrReYpzNmTGO04dvuHuMAFDRa8GH-x39jY81R~m46R~pF86Ie1LruergNO39YdXDVvw3Rlt1uBIJ8Nek1Ukw9~P3E-WTWGRpjCf8eh5g0dPcaPL-tTad8-RUbAau9Vsotgfnnkj9PzhFCCEgv7Kn2ofyfNZf48qdo9EPvJMsNmMKxfrlhmqMnSxhekQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Commissioner Aaron Hensley presented the mayor’s proposed fiscal 2026 budget to the Lexington‑Fayette County Council Committee of the Whole on April 29, describing a package built from constrained revenue assumptions, prioritized personnel funding and targeted capital choices. After the presentation, the council voted to adopt the administration’s recurring revenue figure of $520,939,560 to begin formal council budget discussions.

“The budget is very specifically put together to maximize the resources that we had on hand,” Commissioner Hensley said, noting administration priorities to “serve our residents, keep our cost of living low, invest in quality of life, and responsibly manage our fiscal resources.” The proposed package combines $520.9 million in recurring revenue with an $18.0 million prefund to create a total FY26 general fund package of about $539 million.

Key elements of the mayor’s FY26 proposal presented to council:
- Revenue assumptions: Administration cited adopted recurring revenue growth of 5.6% year over year, driven primarily by payroll withholding, net‑profits collections and insurance‑premium tax receipts. Staff said payroll withholding and net profits remain the largest recurring lines and that net‑profits timing (April tax filings) can create month‑to‑month swings.
- Personnel and priorities: Personnel costs account for about 65% of the proposed general fund budget. The proposal includes 16 new positions (described in the budget documents) and emphasizes retention and funding for existing positions over new hiring. Commissioner Hensley said the mayor prioritized addressing existing staff needs before approving additional positions.
- Debt and capital: The administration proposed about an $18 million new bond package focused on police vehicles and paving that can be delivered quickly; the presentation noted that fire apparatus purchase timelines have lengthened and that administration prefers to use cash for long‑lead items to avoid multiyear interest and unused debt service. Debt service is projected to remain near 10% of the operating budget.
- Prefunding and reallocation: The proposal uses a number of one‑time strategies — pre‑funding, capital reallocations and limited new bonding — to balance one‑time needs without increasing recurring obligations beyond the conservative revenue forecast. The administration cited an $18.3 million prefund in the proposed budget.
- Community investments and partners: The budget documents list nearly $20 million of direct community investments and partner agency funding spread across divisions and programs; staff provided a three‑slide summary to make those commitments more accessible to council and the public.

Council action: Council member Ehlinger moved to adopt “the total funds available amount of 520,939,560 for the purposes of the council discussions of the mayor’s proposed fiscal year 2026 general fund budget.” The motion was seconded and passed; the transcript does not record a roll‑call vote tally.

Why it matters: Adoption of the revenue figure is a formal first step that fixes the administration’s recommended recurring revenue baseline for council subcommittee and link discussions. Council members may now propose adjustments inside that revenue envelope during the budget review process.

Next steps: Council members have several meetings and departmental “link” sessions ahead to review priorities; administration staff said they will provide follow‑up materials, respond to requests for clarifying breakdowns (for example partner agency and contingency balances) and process budget amendments needed before fiscal year end.","Commissioner Aaron Hensley presented the mayor’s FY26 proposed budget on April 29, projecting $520,939,560 in recurring revenue and a total budget package of about $539 million. The council voted to adopt the administration’s revenue figure to begin budget deliberations.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Quarter three revenues slightly exceed budget; city leaders flag capital timing and service‑fund pressures

Mayor’s proposed FY26 budget totals roughly $539 million; council adopts $520.94 million revenue figure