Bracken County fiscal court delays vote on ordinance to allow street‑legal special‑purpose vehicles

Bracken County fiscal court members spent most of the meeting debating whether to adopt an ordinance that would allow street‑legal special‑purpose vehicles — commonly known as side‑by‑sides or UTVs — to operate on county roads, but they agreed to postpone a formal vote until a first reading scheduled for Wednesday.

The draft ordinance read at the meeting incorporates the definitions in "2025 Kentucky chapter 89," adopts those definitions "as if set forth fully herein," and would allow street‑legal special‑purpose vehicles on county highways "to the extent permitted by the act," while prohibiting their operation on controlled‑access systems such as interstates and parkways and in locations where federal authorities prohibit them. The ordinance sets an effective date "not earlier than 06/27/2025." (Unidentified Speaker 1)

Magistrates and members of the public raised several concerns that shaped the discussion. Some residents told magistrates they oppose the change; one magistrate summarized constituent sentiment as roughly "50/50" but said the majority of his contacts were opposed. Safety questions focused on whether younger drivers would be permitted: the General Assembly provision allowing a 15‑year‑old to begin a permitting process was cited as a point of concern for several magistrates. "I don't know that we would have 50 of these in the next year," one magistrate said, but added he was worried about younger drivers (Unidentified Speaker 1).

Sheriff's office and enforcement issues were central to the debate. County representatives said sheriff's offices and county clerks must inspect and license these vehicles before issuing plates; one speaker said that without an ordinance it is harder for law enforcement to stop and investigate untagged vehicles. "If we were to see a vehicle being operated on the roadway that does not have tags on it, we would at least be able to stop that vehicle and inquire as to what they were doing," said an enforcement representative (Unidentified Speaker 6).

Magistrates also discussed statutory ambiguities and reciprocity across state lines. Several speakers noted the draft adopts state law language but that the state left areas of uncertainty — for example, a 20‑mile travel limit on certain centerline‑marked highways that does not specify whether the limit is one way or combined. One member of the public pointed out that out‑of‑state registered vehicles may legally operate in Kentucky even if a local government has not opted in, which could make enforcement and public notice difficult (Unidentified Speaker 8).

County counsel advised the court that a formal first reading must be of a written ordinance that includes the county name and other blanks filled in so the public may view it in the judge executive's office during business hours. Counsel recommended finalizing the draft and placing it on the agenda for the next meeting so the court could conduct a first reading and either pass or decline on the second occasion.

Rather than voting on the ordinance tonight, the court agreed to move the item to Wednesday for a first reading. A separate motion to adjourn was then made by Kevin and seconded by Heather Brumley; that adjournment motion carried on a roll call vote with the listed magistrates voting yes.

The fiscal court did not adopt the ordinance at this meeting. The next procedural step is the scheduled first reading on Wednesday, when the court will present a finalized draft that, according to counsel, must be publicly available in the judge executive's office during business hours prior to any vote.