Residents urged the Clark County Fiscal Court on Tuesday to reconsider actions tied to a proposed truck stop after reviewing documents they say were not available to the public and an agreement the county signed on April 9.

The dispute surfaced during public comment as several residents questioned how the county handled the zoning and a related "agreement in lieu of taxes" that they say appears to commit county funds to buy property and finance construction for a private operator.

Wayne Harrison, a resident and commentator during public comment, reviewed the April 9 agreement for the court and said, "it looks like the county is buying the property, and it's also paying for the truck stop's construction." He warned the leaseback structure could expose the county to environmental cleanup costs if the tenant defaulted and to long-term financial risk if commercial contamination occurred on county-owned land.

Harrison and others also asked whether the court had obtained the independent economic documentation required by the statute cited in oral remarks. Harrison referenced Kentucky Revised Statutes and said the KRS provision applicable to the agreement requires "substantial documentation for this bond," including an independent economic and financial impact assessment covering customary terms and market conditions.

Multiple residents said they had trouble obtaining records of earlier hearings and said posted audio or transcripts were not complete. Holly Hoaster told the court she had requested audio and that "the audio was cut off before the vote," which she said prevented the public from hearing deliberations. She also said HB 443 (as described in her comments) would limit public participation in development decisions and that the community had not seen independent economic studies tied to the truck-stop project.

County attorney and court guidance was cited in public remarks as limiting the matters the fiscal court may legally consider at the hearing: John Rowe, who identified himself during public comment, told the court that "the only thing before the court is the record that came to you from the planning commission." He emphasized that new evidence not in the planning-commission record could not be treated as the basis for the court's decision.

After discussion the court conducted a roll-call vote on a second reading to rezone land at 1859 Paris Road from Agriculture A-1 to Planned Development. The clerk called roll and the vote carried. (See Actions section for recorded roll-call names and result.)

Why it matters: Residents said they were not given adequate access to documents and audio and said the county appeared to have executed an agreement on April 9 that many in the public had not known about; they requested the county produce the economic documentation they say the statute requires and to be transparent about any bond amount or lease terms.

What court members said and next steps: Several magistrates and the judge discussed whether planning commission meetings and recordings could be posted on the county's YouTube channel more consistently so the public could view meeting records. Members agreed to follow up with planning-commission staff on video availability. Members also discussed whether the county has obtained the independent documentation tied to the April 9 agreement and asked staff to provide any such documentation to the court and public if it exists.

The public raised environmental and fiscal-risk concerns and asked the court to disclose the bond amount and the financial terms of the April 9 agreement. Court members asked county staff to confirm whether the statutory economic documentation required under KRS had been completed and to report back to the court.