KENTON COUNTY FISCAL COURT

NOVEMBER 23, 2004

MINUTES

The regular meeting of the Kenton County Fiscal Court was called to order in the Independence Courthouse at 7:00 p.m.  Presiding over the meeting was Judge Executive Ralph A. Drees and the following members were present:  Commissioners Adam Koenig, Barbara Black and Dan Humpert; Deputy Judge Scott Kimmich; County Attorney Garry Edmondson; County Treasurer Ivan Frye; Emergency Management Director Ed Burk; Police Chief Bill Dorsey; Public Works Director Joe Murphy; Fleet Management Director Mike McKenney; Jailer Terry Carl; Court Reporter Cathy Johnston and Guests.

The invocation was given and pledge of allegiance led by Commissioner Adam Koenig.

Approval of Minutes

Judge Drees asked for approval of the minutes for November 9, 2004.  Commissioner Humpert made the motion for approval; seconded by Commissioner Black.  The motion unanimously passed with the vote of aye.

Delegations

There were not any delegations to appear before the court.

General Business

There were no items listed on the agenda under general business.

Resolutions

There were not any resolutions offered to the court.

Ordinances

ORDINANCE NO. 121.17-First reading of administrative code pertaining to property inventory, Ivan Frye reporting:  This is a requirement under a new ruling that we have to adopt a policy for the depreciation schedule.  Attached to the handout is a table that shows the five major categories of land, buildings, machinery, equipment infrastructure and tangible.  It is asked that the court adopt this to satisfy our auditors.

Commissioner Black moved to adopt the ordinance; seconded by Commissioner Koenig.  The motion unanimously passed following roll call vote.

ORDINANCE NO. 130.2-First reading amending the line of succession for the county, Ed Burk reporting:  This is the ordinance changing the current ordinance from July to January.  Basically, we have a line of succession for when the Judge and Deputy Judge are out of town.  This was on fiscal year and is now going to calendar year.

Commissioner Humpert made the motion to adopt; seconded by Commissioner Koenig.  The motion was unanimously approved upon roll call.

ORDINANCE NO. 531.96-First reading of an ordinance to discontinue portions of Cody Road, Scott Kimmich reporting:  A portion of Cody Road was closed and part of it was sold to a developer.  Under the statute it is necessary for the court to adopt an ordinance closing that portion of Cody Road that will be deeded over to the developer on one side and the other side is yet available for sell.  The ordinance in question is to take the portion of Cody Road that has been closed off the county road maintenance list.

Judge Drees asked to whom the other portion belonged that had not been sold.  Mr. Kimmich said the entire portion is being taken off the books as a county road and the developer had acquired one piece of the property that is right-of-way and with this he gets part of the road base.  The other side has not yet been sold and when that side is sold, that road base will go with that side as well.

Commissioner Black moved for approval with Commissioner Humpert's second.  The motion was unanimously approved following roll call.

ORDINANCE NO. 924.23-First reading for an approximate 55-acre area located along the North side of Maher Road, Larissa Keith, Area Planning Commission, reporting:  Ms. Keith said she did not have a formal presentation but was there to answer any questions.  Commissioner Humpert said there were a number of questions as to how this piece of property would interconnect with the property on each side of it.  It appears that the roads were not matching up the way they should have matched.

Judge Drees said the person that bought the other piece of property did not want a paved roadway going through the property so an easement is being made so a road can be added later.  The other property is on a hill with a power line in the way.  Judge Drees also said he would discuss this ordinance but would not vote on it because it may be perceived as a conflict of interest.

Commissioner Black said that was an explanation for the homeowner who did not want the paved road and asked for the other issue.  Commissioner Koenig said it was an existing structure they had to wind around.  Commissioner Humpert said there was an easement and asked if there was a piece of property the road could safely go through.  Commissioner Humpert also asked Ms. Keith what other stipulations the planning commission had for the property.  Ms. Keith said the planning commission recommended the maximum building height for the underlying zone, accessory structure set back, off-street parking spaces-a minimum of two, heighth and size of landscape signs not exceed the maximum heighth and size of Class A zones, and a minimum of 10-foot wide open space area be provided at the terminus of Street A.

Judge Drees asked if the planning commission approved with all of the recommendations and Ms. Keith answered yes.  Commissioner Humpert asked if the developers agreed to all of the stipulations and they were present in the courtroom and answered yes.

Mr. Kimmich said he wished to remind the court that there are three options:  1) Approve the zone change on first reading concurrent with the findings of the planning commission and adopting the conditions approved by the planning commission; 2) reject the zone change based on the record before the court of the public hearing conducted by the planning commission; or 3) to set a date upon which a public hearing will be conducted to establish the finding of fact whether for approval or rejection.

Commissioner Humpert made the motion to approve with the stipulations that the area planning commission write into the record.  Attorney Edmondson said this should also reflect that this mapping is in conformity with the comprehensive plan and you find the same conditions as the planning commission did relative to the conditions in the proposal.  Commissioner Humpert said he accepted this amendment to his motion.  Commissioner Black seconded the motion.  Judge Drees asked for a roll call vote whereupon the three commissioners voted yes.  Judge Drees abstained from voting.

ORDINANCE NO. 924.24-First reading amending the zoning map for an approximate 35-acre area located on the West side of Bomley-Crescent Springs Road between Amsterdam Road and Pleasant Valley Circle, Larissa Keith reporting:  Ms. Keith answered she was there to answer any questions the court may have regarding the ordinance.

Judge Drees said some recommendations had been made that were not accepted by the planning commission and asked Ms. Keith to report on them.  Mr. Edmondson asked what was the original request from the applicant.  Ms. Keith said the proposal was from three different zones-R1-A, R1-C, and MHP which is a mobile home park.  This would permit a maximum density of 4.8 dwelling units per net acre per the application.  The staff recommendation was to approve the request of R1-D PUD subject to four conditions:  1) Instead of the R1-D PUD which would permit 4.8 dwelling units per net acre, that the zone be changed to R1-C PUD that is also a residential planned unit development with the maximum density of 3.5 dwellings per net acre; 2) proposed public access easement that was shown (identified along the creek in front of the property between the roadway and the portion they were actually going to be building on) and that this area should be enlarged to consist of the entire area as recommended to be for recreation and open space; 3) the area identified for public access be dedicated to the public and private entrances for operation and maintenance purposes; and 4) there were some minor details with the development plan in that it needed to be revised to meet the minimum requirements of zoning regulations.

Commissioner Black asked what the fourth recommendation involved.  Ms. Keith answered that it was issues related to the height of the structures and the underlining zones that was not clearly provided on the development plan that was given.

Commissioner Humpert asked if parking was a concern and if this question was sufficiently answered.  Ms. Keith said some of the off-street parking spaces were within public rights-of-way, so this means that if the city or county took over some of these parking areas, they would in essence be taking over the maintenance of that portion.  Commissioner Humpert asked how many parking spaces this would take, and Ms. Keith answered that it applied to 220 parking spaces and that the majority of them would be in this situation.  She also said some of the parking spaces are in front of the building and some of these were not included but the majority was taken.  Commissioner Humpert asked if this wasn't suspect and how it could be approved.  Ms. Keith said the planning commission approved this with the recommendation that some of the items would have to be adjusted in the development plan.  Commissioner Humpert then asked where the parking spaces would be put and Ms. Keith said they would have to be moved further back or reduce the amount of right-of-way they were given.

Judge Drees said this was public streets and not private.  The part that was zoned is a 100-foot lot on a flat plateau and the hillside is what will be the problem because there is a 30 degree slope.  The hillside will have to be dug into and this will cause slippage from the subdivision above on the hill.  The ideal thing would be to use the bottom part for single family houses as was in the original plan.

Commissioner Humpert asked if this wasn't what the comprehensive plans called for and Judge Drees said there were three different zones and one is for 100 feet wide.  Commissioner Humpert said if all the neighboring lots are single family homes or at least part of the development is for single family homes, how can it be said that they want to put in 149 homes since this doesn't fit in with the comprehensive plan.

Ms. Keith said the comprehensive plan identifies this property as PRDA, physically restricted development area.  Commissioner Humpert asked Ms. Keith to say what she meant by PRDA and she said that these are areas with slopes of 20 percent or greater.  These areas tell the planning commission that things need to be done to ensure that development can and does occur in an appropriate way on a hillside, and this means that extra actions need to be taken for the development.

Commissioner Humpert asked if there wasn't a serious concern to building these units on this hillside, and wasn't it required to have a major retaining wall across the entire development to protect the buildings from the hillside.  Ms. Keith said yes and Judge Drees said it shows a retaining wall on one side and is not shown across the middle of the development.  Ms. Keith answered that it showed the disturbed limits or areas where the hillside would not be disturbed.

Commissioner Humpert said if they move the parking areas farther back they would have to cut more into the hillside.  Judge Drees said this was correct or more fill would have to be put in below.

Commissioner Black asked for clarification on the PRDA.  She said as she was going through the record on the recommendations from the planning commission, under supporting information and basis for recommendations in number one in the second paragraph, it talks about the specifically restricted development area and what the planning commission's definition is that it doesn't imply that such areas should not be developed, rather that most of these areas should remain undeveloped and thus become an integral part of the natural open landscape of Northern Kentucky.  There seems to be a discrepancy according to the definition given by the planning commission since they are saying that in physically restricted development areas, by their own definition, most of the areas should remain undeveloped and thus become a part of the natural landscape of Northern Kentucky.  She said she did not know where the discrepancy is but there does seem to be one, at least according to the definition given by the planning commission.  By their own definition, they are saying that in physically restricted development areas, most of the area should remain undeveloped but in this case it is hard pressed to come up the 20 percent that is also recommended in the stipulation for the total designated area.  It seems to be that insufficient information has been submitted to determine the responsibility and maintaining the open space.  This does not fit the planning commission's definition of open space and what the PRDA is supposed to be.  She asked for an explanation and said there seems to be a discrepancy in the definition and what the planning commission is recommending for the parcel of land.

Ms. Keith said a lot of times the comprehensive plan is looked at, and this is a guide for development, and property owners have the right to propose different items.  On a case by case basis, the PRDA designation is intended to be a red alert and to take a closer look at the property in question.

Commissioner Black also said that in the report under recreation and open space, it talks about the 20 percent of the total acreage of the proposed PUD be retained as common open space and being able to be used.  In this definition, maybe it could be said that even if it is the hillside, it is also green space.  In Section A on page four it says in section 1013, "The height of the structure shall be approved in the plan."  The submitted development plan does not provide for the maximum height of the structures.  The plan says that the recommended R1-D zone is 35 feet and it is recommended that the height of the structures not go above that.  It also states that "Off street parking shall be in accord with Article 6 of the zoning ordinance and that multifamily dwellings must be provided with a minimum of one and one-half parking spaces for every one bedroom unit and two parking spaces for every unit with two or more bedrooms."  Insufficient information has been submitted to determine compliance with this requirement.  Based on what the court has in the record in addition to the difficulties with the 200 plus parking spots for off street parking that is required, there is also a question in the record if there will be sufficient parking that will be provided for the two- and one-bedroom units.

Commissioner Humpert asked if the number of parking spaces had been added that were needed based on the one- and two-bedroom units.  Ms. Keith answered the information was not provided as to how many one- and two-bedroom units there would be and the actual need could not be calculated.  Commissioner Humpert said that if all the units were considered to be one-bedroom, at least 224 parking spaces would be needed and there is not room for 224 parking spaces unless some serious cutting done to the hillside.  Ms. Keith said 220 parking spaces are currently identified.  Commissioner Humpert then asked how the planning commission could approve the plan without sufficient information.  Ms. Keith said the plans that are submitted with the zone changes are concept plans and more detailed information on the plans that will have to be reviewed.

Attorney Edmondson said Ms. Keith was there to answer questions and advised she was there to represent the county planning commission.  The area planning commission staff recommended changes and this is the county planning commission's recommendation.  Judge Drees said the county planning commission does not follow the stipulation that the staff wanted and a number of items were overridden.  Ms. Keith said the planning commission's staff recommendation was against the R1-D and that it was for a lower density development.

Judge Drees asked how many dwellings this would permit and Ms. Keith answered that the RC-1 would permit 110 dwelling units, 3.5 per acre.

Deputy Judge Kimmich asked what the zone was that was recommended in the comprehensive plan.  Ms. Keith said that it was the physically restricted development area designation.  Typically with this designation, it is actually stated in the comprehensive plan that the planning commission is to look at the character of the surrounding area and what the plan calls for in the surrounding area.  The closest designation other than the hillside in the PRDA is the density ranging from 2.1 to 4.0 dwelling units per net acre.  This was the staff's basis for recommending the R1-C density which is 3.5 dwelling units per net acre rather than the R1-D density.

Mr. Kimmich said the comprehensive plan described it as a restricted development area acknowledging that it is difficult to build there and before a plan is approved, like zones should be looked at in the area to see if they are compatible with this restrictive zone.  Other areas have 2.1 to 4.0 housing units per acre.  Clearly, it is a stretch to say that to go to the R1-D PUD is in compliance with the comprehensive plan.  Ms. Keith said yes that this was the staff's position.

Commissioner Black said it was currently zoned MHP and one of the adjacent zones only has 1.7 dwelling units per acre and the ones South permit up to 4.8 and to the West and East is the maximum density of one unit per acre.  It really varies as one per acre up to 4.8 per acre.  One thing of concern is the inadequate access of what will be a heavily traveled roadway for the number of vehicles that will be coming out of the development and onto the adjoining county roads.  This was not particularly addressed.  Ms. Keith said it was not in the preliminary plat level as to what improvements would need to be made.

Judge Drees said the plateau below is flat and single family houses could easily be built or condos.  The problem starts when you go up the hillside that is on the average of a 30 percent slope and there will not be enough area to build.

Commissioner Koenig said he thought the staff did a good job outlining all of the issues and he was reluctant to approve based upon the vast amount of missing information.  It seems when the comprehensive plan designates a PRDA and it says that land use is compatible with the recommended land use of adjacent properties, and this property is not consistent with the way the property should be used.

Deputy Judge Kimmich reminded the court of the three options of approving with the conditions as set forth by the planning commission adopting their findings of fact.

Ms. Keith stated that there is a 90-day stipulation from the time of planning commission action that was on September 2, so you only have until December 2 until planning commission action becomes final.

Commissioner Humpert said he thought there was enough information in the report to reject and he would like to make that motion based on the character of the surrounding area and on the fact that it is on a PRDA that has 30 percent slopes.  Commissioner Black seconded the motion.

Attorney Edmondson asked Commissioner Humpert if he believed that this development was not in conformity with the comprehensive plan and he answered this was correct.

Judge Drees asked for a roll call vote and that a yes vote was a no vote to deny the ordinance.  All commissioners voted yes with the Judge abstaining, thus Judge Drees said the ordinance was denied.

ORDINANCE NO. 451.8-Second reading amending the effective date of sexually oriented business regulations, Garry Edmondson reporting:  The implementation of the ordinance was delayed until January 1, 2005, so that it would coincide with the beginning of Covington's ordinance. 

Commissioner Koenig made the motion to approve; seconded by Commissioner Black.  The motion was unanimously approved upon roll call.

ORDINANCE NO. 451.9-Second reading amending the various regulations pertaining to sexually oriented businesses, Garry Edmondson reporting:  This is the larger amendment approved two weeks ago.  This came about because of a continuing review of an ordinance adopted because some new litigation that came down and the court is making sure this is as close as we can come to federal law, as well as to continue to build a record as to why the fiscal court has adopted this ordinance.

Commissioner Black moved for adoption; seconded by Commissioner Koenig.

Attorney Edmondson said one of the significant things the ordinance does is to regulate employees of sexually oriented businesses from going down into the public arena and mingling with the patrons.  It has been found in Northern Kentucky that this has historically been a particularly difficult problem.  It has led to solicitation for prostitution and other things that Chief Dorsey testified to in the summer and, subsequently, the prosecution and conviction of prostitutes in one of the establishments in Covington.  The tape demonstrates one of the problems of actual prostitution going on and the managers and bartenders were involved in it and were receiving part of the funds.  This is the reason the provisions were written in the ordinance the court is adopting and Mr. Ken Easterling is here as the chief prosecutor in the county attorney's office and prosecuted the prostitutes in the Liberties Case and has been involved in this process for many months.  At the time of the first reading, this case was not over and it is now and there has been further information as to what is ongoing.

Mr. Easterling-This case was a sting basically from the crime suppression unit of the Covington Police Department starting in May, 2003.  Some indication was received that the particular establishment in the video was running some prostitution activity out of its business.  Undercover officers were sent in with audiotapes, and as a result, some conversations were taped with different personnel within the bar.  When a patron enters the room, they will purchase a drink and one of the dancers comes off and goes over to talk to the patron and ask if he would like to purchase a drink.  The conversation with the patron is very telltale with what the dancers are trying to do and that is a price list given right away of certain levels of sexual activity.  The patron tips the bartender who sends him back to a more secluded area of the bar and it is the bartender's job to act as lookout while the sexual act is completed and they took a fee as well as the house.  Also as a result of this, some alternative light sources were used to check for body fluids.  The health concerns alone from the light up of alternative sources was astounding, and it told that the activity had gone on for a long period of time.  All of the individuals were arrested in this particular case.  Some were arrested for prostitution and there was physical manipulation of them and others in the public and other activity would occur in the back of the bar.  The lookouts were also prosecuted who would facilitate these actions and the office was successful in these prosecutions.  This is a gap that needs to be addressed and a problem where the loophole really needs to be closed up so there will be a tighter noose to deal with some of the problems with which we are dealing.

Mr. Edmondson said the investigation was a result that one of the prostitutes gave in an interview to the Covington police detectives and outlined the scheme.  Mr. Easterling said this was correct and the establishment very much knew what was going on and facilitated the activity.  As in this case, it is seen that some of the owners are people that need to be dealt with and get some control of the employees that are acting as their agents.

Mr. Edmondson said to officially put into the court record the copy of the Liberties tape that will become a part of the record.  Commissioner Humpert asked if the tape had been transcribed and could be added to the record.  Mr. Easterling answered that he may have partial transcriptions of the investigation but did not have an actual transcription of the tape.  Mr. Edmondson said that it may be transcribed in the future and the federal court would be asked to review the document as well.

Mr. Edmondson asked if there was anything that Chief Dorsey would like to add.  Mr. Dorsey said that he wished to add that what Mr. Easterling said fits hand-in-hand with the testimony he had given earlier at a public hearing.  What goes on in these places is not the protection of someone's right to dance, but a form of prostitution where the customer is lured in and they are serviced in the back of these places.  This should be included in the change of the ordinance because this is the only way this will be able to be controlled.  Whenever the dancers mingle with the patrons, that is when the acts of prostitution are solicited and the service is provided in a dark part of the bar.

Judge Drees asked for a roll call vote whereupon the motion unanimously passed.

Attorney Edmondson said that the lawsuit that was filed seeking an injunction on the operation of the ordinance is still there and it will be heard on December 22 before Judge Bunning.

Consent Agenda

CLAIMS LIST-Judge Drees asked for any questions or comments regarding the claims list.

Commissioner Black said that every time she looks at the claims list for the medical expenses for the jail and see what is coming in the future, it cannot be emphasized enough to the citizens that the heavy cost on the county of providing for the physical and medical needs of the inmates is a budget buster.  It is very frustrating to everyone to see these kinds of expenses mounting.  It is hopeful the state will take some kind of action to assist the counties particularly when it comes to the costs of the citizens to provide all these services to inmates until the time they are sentenced.

Commissioner Humpert asked if North Key had taken over all mental health services at the jail and Mr. Terry Carl said yes.

There being no further comments, Judge Drees said the warrants will be issued and the bills paid.

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS-Public hearing for input on $16,000 of Community Development Block Grant law enforcement grant money, Chief Dorsey reporting:  Mr. Kimmich said this hearing is required under federal law to receive these funds and the public notice was given to hold the hearing.  No comments have been received either in writing or orally concerning the recommendations of the law enforcement advisory council that is recommending the expenditure.  The court will need to take a vote to approve the recommendation of the law enforcement planning council for the expenditure of these funds.

Chief Dorsey said the grant is provided through federal dollars based on Type I crimes within a community.  In the past Covington has normally received the entire grant even though we qualified for a portion of it because the fiscal court is maintaining a jail.  Type I crimes are considered in three areas of arrest, investigation and incarceration.  Because the fiscal court does the incarceration for part of the most of Type I crimes in Kenton County, the county would be entitled to a portion of the funds.  In the past the county was not able to mediate or negotiate some type of a monetary arrangement with the city of Covington, but this year it was done and our portion is $16,000.  The money has to be spent in a block grant form which is applied to law enforcement and we cannot supplant our normal budgeted items.  Our recommendation to the Blue Ribbon Committee that is also necessary to the grant, is that we purchase law enforcement uniforms and equipment that would not normally be purchased and $6,500 of the money is for upgrades to the security system at county police headquarters.  These are our recommendations both to the court and to the Blue Ribbon Committee.

Mr. Kimmich said the funds will be drawn down from the federal government consistent with federal regulations and held in the county's account.  These items will be placed in the 2005-06 budget for expenditure after July 1, so the budget is not being amended but simply taking the revenue in to hold it and making expenditures after July 1 in order to hold the current budget in line.

Judge Drees asked how long it took to put the grant together and Chief Dorsey answered that it did not take any time at all.  The largest part to the grant is negotiating with the city of Covington for the amount and they were excellent to work with.

Judge Drees asked for a motion for adoption to approve.  Commissioner Black moved for approval; seconded by Commissioner Koenig.  The motion was unanimously approved following roll call.

Executive Orders

Board Appointments

EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 04-102-Appointment of Tina Snelling to serve on the Kenton County Cooperative Extension District Board for a three-year term:  Commissioner Humpert moved for approval with a second by Commissioner Black.  The motion was unanimously approved with votes of aye.

EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 04-103-Appointment of Kathy Kunkel-Mains to serve on the Kenton County Cooperative Extension District Board for a three-year term:  Commissioner Black moved for approval; seconded by Commissioner Koenig and unanimously approved with aye votes.

EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 04-104-Approve order of affiliation with Kenton County Government and the Erlanger Fire Department Technical Rescue Team, Ed Burk Reporting; and

EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 04-105-Approve order of affiliation with Kenton County Government and the Ryland Heights Rescue Squad, Ed Burk reporting:  These are renewals of agreements between Ryland Heights Rescue Squad and the Erlanger Technical Rescue Team.  They are required by the state for any future funding that may be applied for as far as grants are concerned.  The team and squad report on a quarterly basis to Mr. Burk and it outlines the authorities and responsibilities for the two units in the office and the state.

Commissioner Humpert moved approval; seconded by Commissioner Koenig.  The motion was unanimously approved with a vote of ayes.

Personnel

EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 04-106-Resignation of Sharon Whitis as a dispatcher for the Department of Public Safety:  Commissioner Koenig moved for approval with a second by Commissioner Black and unanimously passed with votes of aye.

EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 04-107-Appointment of Susan Alley as tax analyst for the Treasurer's Office:  Commissioner Koenig moved for approval followed with a second by Commissioner Black.  The motion was unanimously approved with aye votes.

Citizens Address

There were not any citizens present to address the court.

Administrative Reporting

HANDOUT NO. 04-74-Award a bid to Advantage Lawn Care in the amount of $17,110 for landscape and lawn services-section one, Ivan Frye reporting:  This bid is for the Independence Courthouse, Covington and 501 Main Street until such time as we do not own that building.

Judge Drees asked if other bids were taken and Mr. Frye answered yes.  Judge Drees asked for the other bids and Mr. Frye said they were in the packet.  The bid was awarded for one entity to perform the service for all of the locations mentioned and also on Richardson Road Parks Building and also the Police Department.

Commissioner Black asked when the building is sold at 501 Main Street if this contract for service could be transferred.  Mr. Frye said it could be written into the contract and that it would be void for the county if the court no longer owns the building.  Commissioner Black also asked if the person that purchases the building would have the option of transferring the contract.  Mr. Frye said this portion could be written into the contract and it would be asked if this could be done.

Commissioner Humpert moved the motion; seconded by Commissioner Black.  The motion unanimously passed with the vote of aye.

HANDOUT NO. 04-75-Permission for the Kenton County Police Department to purchase one Crown Victoria pursuit vehicle and two Explorers pursuant to budget and available on state bid contract, Bill Dorsey reporting:  The three units are marked police units and they are front line units used in patrol and will be replacing units that have over 100,000 miles.  They are budgeted and are part of the annual renewal.

Commissioner Humpert made the motion for approval; seconded by Commissioner Koenig.  The motion was unanimously approved following roll call.

DEPUTY JUDGE EXECUTIVE-The Supreme Court handed down a ruling last week and we are continuing to discuss options and counsel has been advising us on the jail matter.  Counsel will probably be asked to come to the next meeting to provide information.

A brief executive session is asked for pursuant to KRS 61.810, Section 1, Subsection C, at that part in the agenda to discuss other pending litigation.

TREASURER-Highlight a matter mentioned earlier by Commissioner Black about the medical costs in the jail.  The county has spent $433,862 out of a line item of $500,000, so this budget will be revisited before the end of the year.  There is only $66,000 left in this line item that does not include mental health services that we are providing for under the new contract that has not been budgeted in this particular part of the budget.

HUMAN RESOURCES DIRECTOR-No report.

COUNTY ATTORNEY'S REPORT-Nothing else to report.

COMMISSIONERS' REPORTS:

Commissioner Black-Said she is still waiting for a line item budget from the Sheriff's Office that the court is supposed to pass before the beginning of next year and there is only one meeting left this year.  She said that she would like to go on the record as saying a line item budget is needed because you cannot get it and pass it in one evening because there is not enough time for review.

Judge Drees said he understood this had to be at the state offices by January 15, so this could be passed in January.  Commissioner Black said the court had to have adequate time to review the budget and discuss it.  Judge Drees said the office was trying to work with the Sheriff's Office to get in a line item budget.

Commissioner Humpert-Welcomed Dale Henson of the Edgewood City Council to the meeting.  Judge Drees thanked him for coming.

Commissioner Koenig-Said he wished to recognize Jim Kudera who comes to many of the meetings.

JUDGE EXECUTIVE'S REPORT-If there are going to be more subdivisions being approved in the county and not in the city, we should probably encourage that they be annexed by the city, so we are going to probably have to have some kind of taxing district for internal streets, etc. because the county doesn't get what the cities do to take care of the infrastructure.  If there are too many of these approved, the county will really hurt itself in the future.

Commissioner Humpert asked if the county attorney could be asked to wear two hats on this to see if we can come up with some language to that effect.

Attorney Edmondson said this is not a planning issue but there are methodologies to do this.  The developers should be encouraged and prepared to do this.  Public improvement bonds can be done and they will pay for all of the infrastructure and its maintenance.  This is a methodology that has been used in other places in Kentucky.

Judge Drees said the developer should be required to do a wide right-of-way especially on roads that interconnect and the houses on the street would set back farther and not too close to the street, especially if the street needs to be widened.

Mr. Edmondson said this could not be done under the current law and they are called exactments and impact fees and this would require further legislation.  Other county attorney's are beginning to get concerned about this because of the fact that there is no annexation now in Kentucky and all of the county seats are having subdivisions that are being built outside of the city limits that are impacting upon counties who simply do not have the revenue to maintain these subdivisions.

Judge Drees said the county could require wider right-of-ways and it does not require state law to do this.  Mr. Edmondson said the subdivision regulations could say that the first house needs to be set farther back from the current right-of-way and the planning commission could do this.  The planning commission could be asked to take a look at this and propose it as a change in the subdivision regulations.

Executive Session

Commissioner Humpert made the motion to go into executive session; seconded by Commissioner Koenig.  The vote was unanimous with an aye vote.

A motion to reconvene the fiscal court meeting was made by Commissioner Humpert and seconded by Commissioner Koenig.  There being no debate, Judge Drees called for a voice vote whereupon all members voted in the affirmative.

A motion was offered by Commissioner Humpert to enter into a settlement agreement by and between the County of Kenton and the Kentucky Association of Counties (KACo) in the cases related to the KACo insurance assessment, the Barnard case and the Corporex case.  The motion was seconded by Commissioner Koenig.  There being no debate, Judge Drees called for a roll call vote whereupon all members voted aye.

Adjournment

There being no further business to come before the court, Commissioner Humpert made the motion for adjournment; seconded by Commissioner Black.  All members voted aye.