Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Transportation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Boyd County advances ordinance to allow street‑legal special purpose vehicles on county roads
Summary
The fiscal court took the first reading on an ordinance authorizing street‑legal special purpose vehicles to operate on Boyd County roads outside city limits under equipment, safety, and registration requirements; discussion focused on enforcement, inspection logistics and fee collection.
Boyd County Fiscal Court advanced an ordinance on first reading on June 3 to authorize street‑legal special purpose vehicles (SPVs) on county roads outside the city limits of Catlettsburg and Ashland, limited to roads with posted speeds of 35 miles per hour or lower.
The ordinance, as read into the record by the presiding judge, lists equipment and safety requirements for SPVs to qualify for operation on county roads: at least one headlamp and tail lamp, brake lamps, a license‑plate light, rear reflectors, amber turn signals, a working horn or other warning device, a muffler, left and right rearview mirrors, an appropriately rated windshield (or eye protection if no windshield), a roll bar or roll cage for multi‑passenger vehicles, and seat belts that meet Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards for each seating position. Tires must meet a minimum tread requirement laid out in the draft.
Discussion among commissioners and county staff addressed enforcement capacity, inspection logistics and fees. The transcript notes a $35 inspection fee for SPV inspection and that sheriff’s office personnel can charge KRS‑authorized site‑visit fees; staff explained inspection fees are retained by the inspecting office while registration and ad valorem tax procedures follow standard vehicle processing. County officials emphasized the ordinance would apply only to county roads, not state or federal highways, and that golf carts and ATVs would generally be excluded unless they meet low‑speed vehicle standards and the equipment requirements.
Commissioners and the sheriff acknowledged there could be an initial uptick in enforcement actions and complaints; the court voted in favor of moving the ordinance forward to a required second reading and implementation details such as registration start dates (the transcript references June 27 as a possible start) were discussed.
Because the action at the meeting was a first reading and local enforcement details remain to be finalized, county staff indicated there would be follow‑up work on inspection procedures and resource allocation.
