Florence City Council Special Meeting October 6
1. Call to Order: The Mayor called the special meeting to order.
2. Invocation and Pledge of Allegiance: An invocation was offered, asking for wisdom, honest speech, and integrity in voting. The Pledge of Allegiance followed.
3. Roll Call: The Clerk reported a quorum. Present on roll call: Councilmembers Chambers, Wynn, Whalen, Schneider, and Cable. Mayor Julie Metzger-Aubuchon presided. Councilmember Patricia Wingo was not present.
4. Approval of Minutes
Minutes of the Business Meeting of August 25, 2026. Motion: Whalen. Second: Wynn. No discussion. Voice vote. Motion carried.
Minutes of the Special Meeting of September 1, 2026. Motion: Whalen. Second: Schneider. No discussion. Voice vote. Motion carried.
5. First Reading — Ordinance O-22-2026
An Ordinance of the City of Florence, Kentucky, Adopting and Approving Rules and Regulations for use of sanitary sewers, public and private, in the City of Florence, Kentucky.
The reading stated that the purpose is to update sewer-service rules and regulations that have not been substantively amended since 1983; to reflect the working relationship between the City and Sanitation District No. 1; and to provide a more effective enforcement policy.
Motion: Chambers. Second: Schneider.
The Mayor noted that the rules had been discussed at the preceding caucus. Council requested a summary from Public Services Director Eric Hall.
Mr. Hall stated that the department and the City legal team had worked for about a year on a comprehensive update. Principal points restated from the caucus:
- City and property-owner responsibilities are clarified.
- Enforcement provisions are strengthened and modeled on the water regulations updated about three years earlier.
- Infiltration and inflow are addressed, with the object of keeping storm water out of the sanitary system.
- A formal fats, oils, and grease control program is established, modeled on the SD1 program, which Mr. Hall described as one of the better programs in the state.
- Current engineering standards and applicable SD1 requirements are incorporated.
- Construction details are placed in an appendix so that technical changes can be made without holding projects for a return to Council.
Councilmember Cable asked whether the newer regulations were being changed ahead of an agreement with SD1 that she believed expires in 2028. Mr. Hall stated the agreement does not expire until sometime in the 2040s, and that a substantial period remains before expiration. No further discussion.
Roll-call vote: Chambers, yes; Wynn, yes; Whalen, yes; Schneider, yes; Cable, yes. Vote: 5–0. First reading approved. A second reading is required before the ordinance takes effect.
6. First Reading — Ordinance O-23-2026
An Ordinance of the City of Florence, Kentucky, Adopting and Approving Water Service Rules and Regulations relating to the use, operation, extension and improvement of the Florence, Kentucky Water Service System.
The reading stated that the ordinance adopts and amends previously enacted water-service rules and provides more effective enforcement and administration.
Motion: Whalen. Second: Chambers.
Mr. Hall stated that this revision is smaller than the sewer revision. The water regulations were updated in 2023. While the sanitary regulations were being prepared, staff identified cleanup items. Principal points:
- Terminology is standardized.
- Responsibility for private service lines is clarified.
- A fire-hydrant flow-testing process is formalized.
- Requirements for sewer-deduct meters are reinforced.
- A habitual-offender provision is added, matching the sewer rules: four or more violations result in higher civil penalties.
No further discussion.
Roll-call vote: Chambers, yes; Wynn, yes; Whalen, yes; Schneider, yes; Cable, yes. Vote: 5–0. First reading approved. A second reading is required before the ordinance takes effect.
7. First Reading — Ordinance O-24-2026
An Ordinance Relating to fees and charges to be paid by users of the City Waterworks System, Sanitary Sewer System, and Storm Sewer System.
The reading stated that the ordinance updates the fee and charge schedule for water-meter costs and installation charges, water-meter purchase charges, miscellaneous water-customer charges, connection fees for water and sewer service, and sewer impact fees. The reading stated that the ordinance does not increase monthly water or sanitary-sewer charges to existing City of Florence customers.
Motion: Whalen. Second: Wynn.
Mr. Hall repeated that the change does not increase rates for any current customer. The adjustments apply to new construction and new development. Updated charges are intended to recover the City’s cost for meters and for the metering technology used to notify customers of leaks. The schedule also incorporates the fire-hydrant flow-test charge and revised sewer-tap fees. Mr. Hall stated that Florence remains the lowest jurisdiction in the area on sewer-tap fees, and that Council has treated that position as a means of not becoming an obstacle to development.
Councilmember Cable asked that the increase be confirmed as the City’s cost relative to the prior schedule, and stated that the difference is substantial and that she assumed the cause was the length of time since the last update. Mr. Hall confirmed that statement.
Dollar amounts were not restated at this meeting. The figures presented at the September 15, 2026, caucus remain the last figures placed before Council, including a typical new-lot residential connection rising from $3,130 to $6,320, a 5/8-inch residential sewer tap of $2,800, an inspection fee rising from $100 to $120, and a $350 fire-hydrant flow-test fee.
No further discussion.
Roll-call vote: Chambers, yes; Wynn, yes; Whalen, yes; Schneider, yes; Cable, yes. Vote: 5–0. First reading approved. A second reading is required before the ordinance takes effect.
8. Update: Chief of Police Jeff Mallery regarding Flock Cameras and the ruling on Councilmember Cable’s question
No vote was taken on the Flock item. It was an update requested by Council. The Mayor stated the item had not originally been set for this agenda because the Chief and the Sheriff had been out of the office, and that the committee has not met and has not set its direction.
Mayor Metzger-Aubuchon restated the pause announced in a letter posted on the City website. She said residents and members of Council had raised questions about privacy, data retention, and oversight, and that those questions required a transparent review before any decision on future use or funding. She said initial conversations with Sheriff Hill occurred while Hamilton County was moving to pause its own Flock use, and that she and the Sheriff agreed to work together. A joint committee will bring law-enforcement, legal, and technical expertise to evaluate the technology, its public-safety benefit, safeguards, and the level of local control expected over information collected in the community, whether through Flock or another means.
The Mayor stated: “I don’t believe that public safety and individual privacy are competing values. We have an obligation to protect both.” She stated that no decision has been made about the future of Flock. Recommendations will return to Council for public discussion. She stated that, because this was a special meeting, public comment was not permitted, and that citizens will have an opportunity to be heard at a later date.
Chief Mallery reported:
- The cameras remain off. Florence officers have no access to the cameras or the data.
- Flock confirmed by email that Florence cameras were turned off on September 16, and that no other agency has access to Florence cameras or to Florence historical data.
- Florence Police checked with Airport Police, which still uses Flock. Airport Police confirmed that it cannot search Florence cameras or Florence data.
- Covers for the installed cameras are already on order, were scheduled for delivery the week of the meeting, and will be installed with Public Services as soon as they arrive.
- Florence administration and Boone County Sheriff’s Office administration were scheduled to meet Thursday, October 8, 2026, to decide committee membership. The Chief identified the seats being sought as law-enforcement experts, legal experts, and information-technology security experts.
The Chief stated the committee will examine public safety and civil liability; data-retention periods; internal access, including whether access is given to every officer, to supervisors, or only to investigations; external access, including a nationwide network against a smaller regional network; the information an officer must enter before a vehicle search; audit procedures; and disciplinary measures if misuse occurs. The committee will report to Council. The Chief stated that the decision whether to keep the cameras or remove them will be Council’s.
Reporter’s note regarding a councilmember’s disallowed question and the relevant Kentucky Revised Statute:
Councilmember Cable had already questioned staff on the earlier ordinance items, which were the subjects preceding the Flock update. Regarding Ordinance O-22-2026, the sanitary-sewer rules, she asked whether the new regulations were being adopted ahead of an agreement with Sanitation District No. 1 that she believed expires in 2028. Public Services Director Eric Hall answered that the agreement does not expire until sometime in the 2040s.
On Ordinance O-23-2026, the water-service rules, she did not put a separate question. The item passed after Mr. Hall’s summary.
On Ordinance O-24-2026, the fee schedule, she asked that the increase be confirmed as the City’s cost relative to the prior schedule. She stated that the difference is substantial and that she assumed the cause was the length of time since the last update. Mr. Hall confirmed that statement.
After the Chief’s Flock report, the Mayor stated there was no other business, there would be no closed session, and she would entertain a motion to adjourn. Councilmember Cable then asked to put a question, stating that she would be brief. She addressed the Chair. Assistant City Attorney Dale T. Wilson interrupted before she stated the question. He ruled she could not deviate from the agenda because this was a special meeting, and that taking the question would violate the Open Meetings law. Ms. Cable accepted the ruling. The recording does not include the substance of the further question because she was stopped before she could ask it. The attempt came after she had already questioned the sewer-rules ordinance and the fee ordinance, and after the Flock update, which was the last substantive item.
Reporter’s note: Kentucky Revised Statute on questions at a special meeting
KRS 61.823(3) provides that notice of a special meeting shall consist of the date, time, and place and the agenda, and that “discussions and action at the meeting shall be limited to items listed on the agenda in the notice.” The Attorney General has applied that sentence strictly. Discussion of a subject that is not on the notice violates the statute even if no vote is taken. See 05-OMD-138 and 12-OMD-080. The same decisions state that the public has a right to expect strict compliance with that limit. KRS 61.800 states the legislative policy that the formation of public policy is public business and is not to be conducted in secret, and that the exceptions are to be strictly construed.
The statute limits the subjects. It does not forbid a member of the body from asking a question about a subject that is on the agenda. Items 5, 6, 7, and 8 of the October 6 notice were the sanitary-sewer ordinance, the water-service ordinance, the fee ordinance, and the Flock update. Questions on those four subjects are discussion of listed items. That is the discussion the notice exists to permit. The Attorney General’s objection to catch-all entries such as “open to council” or “new business,” stated in 01-OMD-175 and 13-OMD-005, is that those entries fail to give the public fair notice of the topic. It is not a rule that a council member may not question staff on a topic already listed.
Nothing in KRS 61.823 converts a member’s question on a noticed item into an Open Meetings violation. The Act also does not require a public-comment period, so the Mayor’s statement that residents could not speak at this special meeting is a different point. That restriction does not apply to a member of Council.
A question on a subject that was not on the October 6 notice would have been outside KRS 61.823(3). A question on the sewer rules, the water rules, the fee schedule, or the Flock cameras would not have been. The attorney’s statement that the question would violate the Open Meetings law was made before the subject was stated. On the face of the statute, that ruling is correct only if the unstated question concerned a matter absent from the notice. It is not correct if the question concerned the ordinance items Ms. Cable had already been questioning, or the Flock update then before the body.
Adjournment is item 10 of the same notice. Under ordinary procedure, a member may seek recognition before the motion to adjourn is adopted. The Chair may rule a question out of order if it is not germane. That is a parliamentary ruling. It is not, by itself, the Open Meetings violation described from the chair.
9. Closed Session: No closed session was conducted.
10. Adjournment
Motion: Wynn. Second: Schneider. Voice vote. Motion carried. The meeting adjourned.