McCracken County and Paducah introduce joint comprehensive plan; final adoption set for next meeting

McCracken County and the City of Paducah reviewed a jointly prepared comprehensive plan and introduced an ordinance to adopt the plan, officials said at a joint session where staff summarized key map changes and implementation priorities.

A planning consultant told the court and council that "the state of Kentucky requires us to do a comprehensive plan every five years," and summarized revisions to the future land-use map that officials requested during earlier workshops. The consultant said the draft reflects themes from public input including housing, infrastructure, economy and quality of life.

The consultant pointed to specific map edits made since October: expanding areas targeted for light industry near I-24 and certain interchanges; restoring some potential heavy-industry designation along the riverfront (shorter depth than previously drafted, but still retained); redesignating acreage north of the sports complex as agriculture and adding parks and recreation; and adding small commercial designations near interstate exits and within the city core to reflect projects in the pipeline.

The consultant also cited the planwhich he said is built on public and leadership inputfor a set of implementation actions. He said the plan contains roughly 120 action items and a shorter list of about 20 priority tasks that identify likely lead players and potential partners. "This is not a document you sit down and read," the planning consultant said, describing the plan as a reference and guidance document; he added, "If we adopt this plan, are we committing ourselves to do everything in this plan? Absolutely not. It's a guidance document."

The draft includes population projections the consultant described as "more aggressive" than state figures: a countywide projection approaching about 74,000 residents by 2040 and city limits approaching just under 30,000. The consultant cautioned that those are projections and said decisions should be revisited year to year.

Commissioners and the judge discussed the riverfront industry designation and other local concerns. Commissioner Abraham said he was glad the industrial designation along the river was restored, noting the acreage involved. Several members emphasized the value of having the city and county work jointly on a single map to align zoning and infrastructure planning.

Council and court members moved and seconded an action to introduce the ordinance for the joint comprehensive plan, identified in the meeting summary as Ord. No. 202501. Officials said the ordinance was being introduced for first reading that night and final adoption would be scheduled at a later meeting; the body discussed returning to adopt the plan on the meeting date identified as the 17th (date confirmed by the governing bodies). The meeting record notes that a summary of Ord. No. 202501 is available for public inspection in the county judge/executive's office during ordinary business hours.

Staff confirmed the plan will be available both online (on city and county websites) and in printed copies for officials who requested hard copies.

The bodies ended the agenda item after brief additional comments of thanks to staff and advisory-group members; a formal roll call and quorum were recorded at the meeting start.

Ending: The ordinance was introduced for first reading as Ord. No. 202501; final adoption of the joint comprehensive plan was scheduled for the next meeting (the meeting date discussed was the 17th). No final adoption vote on the ordinance was recorded in the provided transcript excerpt.