Shepherdsville council adopts false-alarm fees, zoning changes, annexation and retires two K-9s

Shepherdsville City Council adopted several ordinances and municipal orders following second readings and roll-call votes during its regular meeting.

The council approved an ordinance establishing reimbursement fees for repeated false alarm calls, removed planned-unit-development provisions from the joint zoning regulations, accepted a planning commission recommendation to reduce a minimum lot width restriction on two parcels, and annexed a 5.485-acre parcel at 634 Shippee’s Lane into city limits. The council also approved municipal orders to retire and transfer two police canines to their handlers.

Why it matters: the false-alarm ordinance creates explicit fees intended to discourage repeated emergency responses to false alarms and to recover city costs; the zoning and rezoning actions change permitted lot dimensions for specific parcels and remove planned-unit-development text from county/city joint regulations, affecting future development rules; annexation extends city jurisdiction and service responsibility to the Shippee’s Lane parcel; and the K-9 municipal orders formally retire and transfer city assets to individual handlers under KRS disposition rules.

Key outcomes and vote notes: - Ordinance 025-002 (false-alarm reimbursement fees): adopted on second reading. The ordinance defines alarm-system and false-alarm procedures, sets records retention to at least 180 days, and establishes fees of $350 per response for a third through twelfth false alarm in an alarm period and $500 per response for 13 or more. Roll call on the second reading recorded affirmative votes by council members present and the ordinance was adopted.

- Ordinance 025-003 (zoning text amendment removing planned-unit development sections): adopted on second reading. The ordinance removes multiple sections (5.9, 5.901–5.904) from the joint zoning regulations for Bullitt County and participating cities, including Shepherdsville. Council members approved the second reading by roll-call vote.

- Ordinance 025-004 (remove specific lot-width restriction on subject parcels): adopted on second reading. The council adopted the planning commission’s recommendation to remove a restriction that required 70-foot building-line widths on specified parcels and to permit 60-foot building-line lot widths. The ordinance keeps other restrictions in place and applies only to the named subject parcels.

- Ordinance 025-005 (annexation of 634 Shippee’s Lane, Parcel ID 0470000025B): adopted after roll-call. Council discussion included questions about truck access and a traffic study; the city’s planning representative said projected site traffic would be low compared with large industrial sites. Roll-call votes recorded both affirmative and negative votes; with the council tied, the mayor cast the deciding vote in favor and the annexation passed.

- Municipal Order 25002 (retire and transfer of canine “Dexter”): adopted. The order finds the city will retire canine Dexter because of age/medical issues and indefinite suspension of the K-9 unit, and directs transfer without compensation to Officer Samuel Mason per KRS disposition allowances for retired K-9s.

- Municipal Order 25003 (retire and transfer of canine Icarus [aka James]): adopted. The order transfers the dog to Officer Josh Simpson without compensation; council discussion noted the K-9 program is being indefinitely suspended and that handlers will sign release/waiver documents.

Process notes and authorities cited in readings: the council’s readings referenced Kentucky statutes in the text of ordinances and municipal orders. The annexation ordinance cites KRS 81.818.412 (annexation by consent language as read aloud), and the municipal orders reference KRS 82.083 for disposition of city property. Ordinance and municipal-order numbers read into the record are cited below in the actions list.

Votes at a glance (high-level): where roll-call names and answers were given in the record, those recorded responses are reflected in the actions below. For several second readings the record shows unanimous approval by the council members present; in the annexation vote the record documents both “yes” and “no” responses and the mayor breaking the tie.

The council did not change fees, zoning text, annexation boundary descriptions, or transfers beyond what was explicitly read into the record; details, including ordinance text and exhibits, will be published per the ordinances’ publication clauses.