[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-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",[32,75,87],{"_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",6339987,"mediaKeyId","2260417-31709aa8e231f74a0eac551dd8a60c61","parentId",2260417,"title","Votes at a glance: Logan County Fiscal Court actions and approvals","audioSeconds",9109,"startMs",157000,"endMs",9266000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2260417-31709aa8e231f74a0eac551dd8a60c61&start=157&end=9266","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2260417-31709aa8e231f74a0eac551dd8a60c61/thumbnail_157000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6339987/Logan-County/Kentucky/Votes-at-a-glance-Logan-County-Fiscal-Court-actions-and-approvals","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6339987-50edc5394eec45502107c067f76c9f45/orig.mp4?Expires=1775046533&Signature=ZcwkyLz9Om01xqxWzmAnnBXGhW3nlhHQdH4GqeG5BNQm0ZoYGx~dCUB2o39NhYbQ4Lc76VoX61YLI4yMoYONaintvYvs8YXhFF4XI6gf67FFO9xd~0NUqZ7L3UHdCO3dZzHZ-31lA9fLXJWpXcGQZrcYH995xU0XJiYCLEkhg~pPZ~NGctv1r9O83A6~L1M1OFkKL1bv0~AJ~0LeNqsEbxeFOGmVGv2KpQ9OFxChi-eX-k3LRArRnpDgKipjpXYz7VGJs0yb81y1eCq-dz7Q2E7QciK0h8NVV~V7GziwCdVMitHxfp5LyqS93tsSr2gDTt5QyXvOsg0Ys2m-Rdo8AA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Logan County, KY ","date","2025-02-11T17:54:05Z","article","The Logan County Fiscal Court recorded the following formal actions during the meeting. Items are listed as approved unless noted otherwise; tallies reflect roll‑call outcomes recorded in meeting minutes.

- Approval of minutes: Motion to approve minutes as presented — approved by roll call.
- Bills: Motion to approve county bills — approved after brief questions; roll call yes.
- Treasurer’s financial statement (period ending Jan 30, 2025): Acknowledged — approved by roll call.
- Sheriff’s fee report: Acknowledged — approved by roll call.
- Personnel action: Hire of Timothy W. Graham (equipment operator) at designated LG‑RD schedule with 15 years credited experience; effective Feb. 10 — approved by roll call.
- Budget amendment (first reading) — Ordinance No. 25220.01, Amendment No. 3: The court held the first reading describing multiple unbudgeted receipts and contingent appropriations (federal reimbursements, grants, Carpenter Foundation pass‑throughs, ambulance insurance reimbursements and others) totaling $377,067.46; motion to approve the amendment (first reading) advanced on roll call.
- Budget transfers: Approved transfers including $175,000 from occupational net profits tax fund to the jail fund and $35,000 from occupational net profits tax fund to the 911 fund — both approved by roll call.
- Road work requests (districts 1–6): Approved as a group — roll call approved.
- Acknowledgment of audit report (FY ended 06/30/2024): Court acknowledged receipt of the county audit; discussion followed and staff/jailer were asked to address findings — acknowledgment recorded on roll call.
- Solid waste annual report (2024): Approved and authorized judge signature — roll call yes.
- Renewals/permits (haulers and recyclers): Renewal of two hauler permits and approval of three recyclers inspected — approved by roll call.
- Grant and procurement authorizations:
- Authorization to apply for a 911 Services Board grant for a phone system and direction to seek bids contingent upon grant award; court approved applying for grant and to proceed with procurement contingent on award.
- Approval of FY24 M.A. GRAMA fund agreements and related emergency management certifications — approved by roll call.
- Fair board contribution (FY24‑25): Approved budgeted contribution — roll call yes.
- Software support and maintenance agreement for Sheriff’s Office: Approved (renewal of existing contract) — roll call yes.

Several items generated substantive discussion (jail facility repairs, code‑enforcement ordinance first reading, 911 phone system procurement), and the court recorded follow‑up tasks where staff were directed to report back with specifications, bids or clarification before final action.

Ending
These votes represent the key formal approvals taken at the meeting; several items (notably the code ordinance and jail capital work) will return for further committee review, specification and final votes.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Logan County Fiscal Court Live 11 February 2025","oneSentenceSummary","Short, itemized roundup of the fiscal court’s formal approvals and outcomes recorded during the meeting, including budget transfers, personnel actions, grant applications and routine reports.","taxTitle","Logan County, Kentucky","taxId",73283,"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},6339992,"Fiscal court advances first reading of updated code‑enforcement ordinance amid debate over farm exemptions and 500‑foot rule",1706,5332000,7038000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2260417-31709aa8e231f74a0eac551dd8a60c61&start=5332&end=7038","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2260417-31709aa8e231f74a0eac551dd8a60c61/thumbnail_5332000.jpg","/articles/6339992/Logan-County/Kentucky/Fiscal-court-advances-first-reading-of-updated-codeenforcement-ordinance-amid-debate-over-farm-exemptions-and-500foot-rule","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6339992-5dee7716797f56494905f69a2bdbfec4/orig.mp4?Expires=1775046533&Signature=nWBcS8Mxp-xe0NlQQL6Nw~Zay6TlRhMrB749VuG~bind7le3iHAcypBqDMKAcTrusPtHpOUjZA2MQPgoTwk2FiQWtLUmY1nMNO6lzFXoDiXKxLbJ6qghA7mYgwvoEHbH-4UO7A3N3QMgkkif2HD0qmkA3Qh-sDb0aAG3loXY54OEzjVHDRzG2~PWt6WP1ivhBphhuOfM~AqWIgdUHOwHdtmtjDjFAfA-17gRXYNisNd2t5l~pm2JL~zJ8BnBc1xMpss1QIpQfPNLsua08SlF4KTpxLoG~JTICpJFyY~3UrW6GvKFo-907~8ev8cg~jDCYDd9EBwWX7xBIXwEJ4IWvQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Logan County Fiscal Court voted to advance a draft update to the county’s property maintenance and nuisance ordinance to first reading after a lengthy public and magistrate discussion about scope and exemptions.

The proposed ordinance — described in the meeting as an update to Ordinance 98‑33A and introduced as proposed ordinance 25‑830‑01 — tightens definitions, creates a code enforcement board to hear appeals and sets a 500‑foot adjacency standard for complaints that involve houses close to each other or high‑visibility areas such as highways. Magistrates and staff said the rewrite is intended primarily to address neglected properties in subdivisions and other areas where unmaintained lots materially affect nearby neighbors and property values.

Why it matters: Supporters framed the update as an effort to help elderly or otherwise disadvantaged residents who cannot address neighboring blight and who lack private remedies; opponents raised concerns that the proposed ordinance could be interpreted to reach farm properties and long‑standing agricultural operations. The court left a farm exemption in the draft but also agreed to revisit the exemption language after public feedback.

Key points from the meeting
- Scope and exemptions: Code staff explained that the revised ordinance excludes farm property as defined in the draft (the meeting text cites the statute reference used in drafting). The definition in the draft ties a farm exemption to property used for crops or livestock and situated on at least 10 acres outside municipal limits. Several magistrates and members of the public argued the exemption as written could unintentionally shield problematic properties that sit close to subdivisions.
- 500‑foot standard: Draft language uses 500 feet as a proximity trigger for complaints (some discussion had considered 1,000 feet). Staff said 500 feet was recommended to keep enforcement focused on properties that directly impact neighbors and high‑visibility corridors. The court left that distance in the draft for now and invited public comment.
- Process and safeguards: The draft adds a code enforcement board so decisions are not made solely by staff; multiple members of the court said the board is an important check. Staff emphasized repeated warnings, outreach and assistance will precede any citation. The ordinance preserves steps that allow property owners to appeal through the county’s civil process.

Public participation and follow‑up
Court members said they will post the draft ordinance to the county’s Facebook page and other channels so residents can read the full text before the second reading. The judge noted that if first reading passes, the second reading would occur at the court’s next regular meeting and that changes suggested by the public may be incorporated before final adoption.

Vote and next steps
A motion to advance the draft to first reading passed on roll call. Most magistrates voted yes; one magistrate stated a conditional no \"until the changes\" addressing farms and certain language and the court agreed to revisit the exemption language prior to final action. The court encouraged the building staff, county attorney and committee to refine the farm language and other definitions in response to public comments.

Ending
Court staff will publish the ordinance text and accept public feedback in the weeks before the second reading; magistrates asked that language clarifying farm exemptions and the 500‑foot rule be reviewed by the county attorney and the drafting committee.","Fiscal court approved a first reading of a revised nuisance and property maintenance ordinance designed to update a standing 1990 code. Debate centered on a 500‑foot proximity threshold, a farm exemption and the new code enforcement board; the court will publish the draft for public comment ahead of a second reading.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6339993,"Logan County jail staff outline urgent roof, HVAC and camera repairs after recurring leaks; transfers approved to support jail fund",865,1565000,2430000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2260417-31709aa8e231f74a0eac551dd8a60c61&start=1565&end=2430","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2260417-31709aa8e231f74a0eac551dd8a60c61/thumbnail_1565000.jpg","/articles/6339993/Logan-County/Kentucky/Logan-County-jail-staff-outline-urgent-roof-HVAC-and-camera-repairs-after-recurring-leaks-transfers-approved-to-support-jail-fund","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6339993-a26b93688dbad54990197b0ab04d533c/orig.mp4?Expires=1775046533&Signature=Kbxab56q3gxe9Fc4W~3IH7J4N8Ifk92Mt5p2WRgyx~BGxCWgAAbFB-ql7GaXmYbzHkMwQ8zUo9wvRiqvvIUIYMhudGwInqldokvt31FRSRx4jV6zxekSvqIMfj0LAVGXAAnEJ5x2I7Y8rhWTo821Wqk1XkfOWK9nQLIPPjpBsG~xaKevrUi6tIVA7S4Upwn1vCkcyozGD1wlzlReNSCJqQb0tS8OyhmjJdjNJHUQlUOpCYPcQ5u9Q6WtZXbau0s4qY16fgjB2feyVdV6Cr2aDuzLKBmXUv7Ptvf1b7J~xUgTz773MvOXolce99kiYjctLoB54-uJ9-34ebkeyGHfOg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Jailer Jayler \"Josh\" Whitney told the Logan County Fiscal Court that persistent roof leaks and failing windows at the county jail are causing repeated interior damage and operational problems, and asked the court to authorize work to produce a bid package and budget numbers for major repairs.

In a presentation to the court, Whitney said the jail’s population and medical needs have placed extra strain on the facility’s systems. \"As of this morning, our count was 87 county, 55 state, 26 on our state side,\" he reported, then described ongoing water intrusion: \"We're ruining blanket after blanket...we can't keep absorbent pads.\" The jailer said crews have tried repeated temporary fixes but that the roof, window eroded block, and HVAC curb issues require engineered specifications and full replacement work.

The court’s discussion focused on the scope and likely cost. Whitney and court members said two independent roof estimates already exist; an early budget number discussed during the meeting was about $340,000 for a new roof but committee members warned the final package could be larger when HVAC curb work and replacement of up to eight rooftop units are included. Magistrates and staff repeatedly emphasized the need for a formal bid package and suggested hiring a professional to prepare specifications to ensure comparable, competitively bid proposals.

Why it matters: Court members said the leaks are damaging electrical fixtures, cabinets and interior finishes and creating recurring maintenance costs. Several speakers urged a specification that covers not just roofing material but the HVAC curbs and flashing around units — deficiencies the jail's maintenance vendors told the court would continue leaking unless corrected during roof replacement.

Details and next steps
- Whitney described multiple problem areas: leaking around attic/window openings, standing water inside walls near the kitchen and walk‑in cooler, rusted cabinets in a library area and failed flashing/curbs beneath HVAC units. He said earlier moisture scans had identified problem sections and that two roofing contractors provided similar diagnoses.
- Multiple magistrates recommended the building committee work with jail staff to present a consolidated bid package. The court suggested seeking an engineer to produce specs so bids are comparable and to avoid later disputes over suitability of materials.
- Cost context: Speakers said past budget estimates for roofing work on other county buildings ran in the low hundreds of thousands; the group repeatedly cautioned that replacing eight rooftop HVAC units and performing tuckpointing and curb repairs could push the total higher than an initial roof‑only figure.
- Procurement and timing: Several magistrates urged following the Department for Local Government (DLG) procurement rules and recommended the court consider hiring a professional to produce bid documents to avoid rework and vendor disputes. Whitney agreed to meet with the building committee and to provide a presentation of photos and estimates.

Related fiscal action
During the meeting the court approved a transfer of $175,000 from the occupational net profits tax fund to the jail fund. The motion passed on roll call with support from the magistrates present and will increase available cash for the jail's operations and repairs. The transfer passed by roll call (majority yes; recorded by roll call during the meeting).

Other jail operational matters
- Commissary and inmate‑account reconciliation: The audit report and jailer's reply prompted extended discussion. Whitney acknowledged gaps in historical documentation for commissary receipts and said the jail has created new daily checkout logs and will reconcile monthly bank statements and vendor reports. He said vendor access limitations (requiring vendor help tickets rather than direct access) have complicated internal review.
- Medical and safety: Whitney described one recent medical emergency in a pod that lacked direct camera coverage; because the prior camera vendor was no longer supporting the system, he authorized installation of cameras to eliminate blind spots. He said the decision was taken because prior vendor support was unavailable; the court accepted his explanation but emphasized procurement rules going forward.

What the court asked staff to do
- Jail staff were asked to provide a budgetary estimate (not a firm contract price) for roofing and related work for consideration in the next fiscal process and to coordinate with the building committee on a bid package. Staff agreed to provide photographs, vendor estimates, and a recommended procurement path.

Ending
Court members and the jailer agreed to work on a bid package and to present more detailed cost estimates at a future meeting. The transfer of $175,000 to the jail fund was approved to help cover near‑term needs; further capital decisions will follow after the building committee and staff present an engineered scope and formal bids.

","Jail officials told the fiscal court the county jail has chronic roof and window leaks that are damaging interiors and equipment. Jail leadership requested professional engineering and a bid package; magistrates approved a $175,000 transfer to the jail fund and discussed the need to replace aging HVAC curbs and several rooftop units.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Votes at a glance: Logan County Fiscal Court actions and approvals

Fiscal court advances first reading of updated code‑enforcement ordinance amid debate over farm exemptions and 500‑foot rule

Logan County jail staff outline urgent roof, HVAC and camera repairs after recurring leaks; transfers approved to support jail fund