Radcliff council adopts rezoning, ethics code and several administrative approvals

The Radcliff City Council on Dec. 16 adopted a second-reading rezoning ordinance for 8.48 acres at 238 Cedar Oak Drive, approved a revised code of ethics for city officials and employees under KRS 65.003, and approved several administrative items including police operations policies and employee insurance adjustments.

The council approved the rezoning after the planning commission recommendation was read into the record; the ordinance moves the property at 238 Cedar Oak Drive (Arlington Center Lot 3B, PVA 138-20-07-003) from a commercial zone to an R-4 designation for higher-density single-family and duplex development. The summary of the request described alignment with the city's comprehensive zoning plan and evidence on the record. A roll-call vote followed and the mayor announced the motion carried.

Council also completed the second reading and adoption of a revised code of ethics for Radcliff officials and employees. The ordinance, described in the meeting record as adopting the code pursuant to KRS 65.003, sets definitions and standards for conflicts of interest, receipt of gifts, use of government resources, confidentiality, financial disclosures and enforcement procedures. The full text was listed as available at Radcliff City Hall or via the city clerk's email.

Separately, the council approved a package of police operations policies and procedures provided as a model by the Kentucky League of Cities (KLC). A police representative at the meeting said the policies include required accreditation items such as secure storage of city-owned firearms and guidance about when cell-phone location 'pinging' can be used under exigent circumstances versus when a warrant is required.

Other routine approvals included absorbing an employee insurance cost increase under section 4.13 of the personnel policy and adoption of the city holiday schedule. The meeting record shows motions were made and carried for these items by roll-call votes.

The council did not identify ordinance numbers or provide additional statutory citations beyond KRS 65.003 in the meeting summary. The council indicated the full ordinance texts and supporting documents are available through the city clerk.