Greenup County offers shared tourism services to Lewis County; ambulance performance and road needs discussed

Greenup County Judge Executive Bobby Hall and Jamie Bloss, Greenup County’s tourism director, visited the Lewis County Fiscal Court to present a regional tourism proposal and to highlight recent mutual-aid support for Lewis County ambulance services.

The presentation came during the fiscal court’s regular meeting, where Hall described regionalism as a strategy to increase competitiveness for state tourism funding and proposed offering Bloss’ services to Lewis County under an initial one-year arrangement for $10,000 beginning July 1 (fiscal-year timing as discussed). Hall said the proposal would allow the two counties to “come to the table” and develop a 12-month blueprint for coordinated tourism marketing and grant applications.

The proposal was discussion only at the meeting; court members and staff did not vote to approve the contract. County staff advised the court that Department for Local Government (DLG) guidance recommended waiting until the county’s new fiscal year is active (after the court’s second budget reading) before creating any new line item or executing a contract. Penny (staff member) said DLG contact Roger Smith advised waiting until July 1 to avoid timeline issues tied to the budget second reading.

The tourism presentation included praise for Lewis County’s ambulance service. Danny Palmer of the Lewis County ambulance service reported monthly and annual operations figures to the court: for the most recent month he said there were 162 calls, 41 refusals, roughly 170 run forms, and 105 transports; average response time was about 11 minutes, 34 seconds, average transport time about 31 minutes, average turnaround time 15 minutes, and average total call time 58 minutes, 20 seconds. Palmer and others noted the service ran about 1,596 calls from May 30 of the prior year through May 30 of the current year, mostly with a single truck; adding a second truck is expected to increase annual runs by roughly 200–250.

During public comment, business owner Jonathan Ruggles, who operates 18o6 and recently held a grand opening, thanked the court for prior road work and asked the court to prioritize improvements on Prairie (Brewery) Creek Road. Ruggles said the road’s low sections and creek crossings have caused flooding and access problems for customers and businesses, and he urged the court to consider culverts, minor realignments and gravel to make segments more maintainable while acknowledging some sections will require major work. Ruggles said tourism events at his business drew out-of-state visitors and multiple booked short-term rentals the weekend of his event.

Court members and staff discussed the proposal’s funding pathway: if the court chooses to pay $10,000, staff suggested creating a tourism line item and funding it from the reserve transfer already budgeted (Penny noted approximately $135,006.53 in a reserve transfer line). No formal direction to create a contract was recorded; the court agreed to “discuss the details” and to consider the recommendation after July 1 if they choose to proceed.

Why it matters: court members framed tourism cooperation and reliable emergency services as linked—public safety and ambulance coverage were described as prerequisites for attracting visitors and businesses. Local businesses seeking improved roads tied near-term infrastructure fixes to future taxable tourism revenue.

There was no formal vote on the tourism-services proposal at the meeting. Court members asked staff to follow DLG guidance and to return with specific budget and contract language after the fiscal-year start.

Ending: Court members thanked Hall, Bloss and local business leaders for the presentation and public comments. Staff and the court signaled willingness to continue planning but did not commit public funds at the meeting.