Bourbon County board refines RFP, plans early-February solicitation for comprehensive plan

Members of the Bourbon County planning and zoning board spent the bulk of their recent meeting reviewing a draft request for proposals for a countywide comprehensive plan and lining up next steps to solicit consultants.

The board discussed edits to an RFP adapted from neighboring counties and agreed to add an interview phase for finalist firms. Speaker 3 summarized the plan’s significance, saying, “This is gonna be ... how we plan economic development for the county for the next 10 years,” underscoring members’ view that the document will guide long-range decisions beyond zoning alone.

Discussion focused on which firms to invite. The group reviewed a short list of about 11 firms, including Confluence, Foster/Design Associates, Marvin Planning and Consultants, FutureIQ, PGAV and MKEC, and debated tradeoffs between larger teams that provide websites and broader outreach and smaller, lower-cost firms that may have less staff capacity. One attendee summarized prior bids and a typical payment breakdown from a referenced example: phase work and public engagement that together totaled roughly $101,000 in the draft Confluence estimate cited by the board.

On timeline, members said Confluence had represented a six-month completion timetable, but several speakers expected a realistic timeframe of six months to a year once additional research and requested revisions were considered. Speaker 1 said Confluence had proposed a six- to seven-month schedule but warned that added review steps would add time: “Every time you do that, that’s gonna delay it by a month.”

Board members emphasized public outreach methods. Participants described Confluence’s hybrid approach of an engagement website, two public meetings in larger towns and stakeholder interviews to capture residents reluctant to speak at public hearings. Members also discussed local advertising (county website, newspaper notices, roadside signage) and a need to verify who formally publishes the RFP (the county clerk or the commissioners) and how submissions should be handled.

The board noted a related county action: commissioners previously passed a six-month moratorium affecting projects the board had been discussing. The moratorium was cited as already in place and likely to require an extension; transcript discussion did not include ordinance text or exact moratorium language beyond the assertion that the county commission passed it and that one example moratorium draft barred use of county roads for certain projects.

Action items and next steps the board agreed on included: each member reviewing the draft RFP for additions, the chair checking with the county commission and clerk on publication procedure, and the inclusion of a tentative interview step (date listed as TBD in the draft). Members discussed aiming to publish the RFP in early February (Speakers referenced Feb. 4 or Feb. 12 as candidate dates but did not finalize a date).

Votes at a glance: the board approved the meeting agenda unanimously; approval of minutes from prior meetings was deferred until the next meeting; a motion to adjourn passed by voice vote.

The board tentatively agreed to move its regular meeting to the second week of the month so the referenced consultant (Mel) can attend future sessions. The board set no firm award date and emphasized it would weigh cost, schedule and community-engagement plans when evaluating proposals.