Mayor says he will take responsibility as Leitchfield pauses Farmer’s Park splash pad project amid procurement dispute

The mayor of Leitchfield announced at the council meeting that the planned Farmer’s Park playground and splash pad will not proceed this summer and said any blame for the project’s problems should be directed at him.

The mayor told the council there had been “a lot of confusion” and social-media discussion about the project and that financing had been discussed with local banks. “It starts and ends with me,” he said, adding that the city will step back, review the process and “do the process different than we did.” He said the city had identified financing options but would have needed a formal budget amendment to proceed.

The decision followed public questioning about how the city selected playground proposals after community members asked whether a local firm known as Miracle had been excluded from consideration. Cassandra Weidman, who identified herself as a resident, asked why the playground project was scrapped, whether financing was really in place and whether the city would reopen the process for public input. “Was it just because summer approached?” she asked; the mayor replied that more due diligence was needed and that the council would revisit the project at a later date.

A representative of Miracle, a local playground and accessibility vendor, told the council the controversy is harming children who would have benefited from the improvements. “The sad part here is the people that are suffering are the children,” the representative said, and urged the council to allow local providers to bid for work.

Council members and staff disputed some public claims and sought to clarify the limits of local procurement authority. One council member read KRS citations and said state statute grants contracting authority to the mayor and limits the council’s authority to dictate contract award decisions; the speaker said purchases over a statutory threshold must be put out to bid and that the local ordinance the council had on its books (dating to 1995 and amended in 2001 and 2019) is confusing and may need amendment to align with state law.

Council members expressed differing views about transparency and the process. One council member said the council should have done deeper due diligence earlier and that members regretted procedural mistakes. The mayor said he had sought input from members during the project and defended outreach to local banks for financing. He declined to identify specifics about who made particular decisions until he and the council could meet to review the process in detail.

The meeting record shows the council did not take a formal vote to restart or cancel the project beyond the mayor’s announcement that the timeline has been paused; the mayor said the city may reevaluate the project at a later date and that, if it resumes, officials would aim to complete it in time for a future summer season but avoid construction during peak use. He also said the city will be more deliberate about public engagement and internal review in any future procurement.

What happens next: the mayor said he will meet with council members and department heads to identify specific mistakes and next steps. The council did not set a date at the meeting for reopening public discussion or a new procurement timeline; the mayor suggested any restart likely would occur after the current construction season and possibly be considered early next year.