The Winchester City Commission met on February 17, 2026, to address several significant items. The primary focus was an appeal by Shannon Tipton of a denied beer cheese relief fund grant, which raised procedural concerns about the advisory committee's role and eligibility criteria. Other key topics included a proposal to create school drop-off and pick-up lanes on Frontier Way, a funding request from the Winchester Fire Department, and a resolution supporting House Bill 557 regarding jail funding. The meeting also included public comments and the approval of multiple general orders.
The meeting was adjourned.
Okay, if everyone would please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance. Commissioner Shanack, would you lose another pledge? Under God. Chief Thompson, please leave the invocation. We thank you for these commissioners who are making difficult decisions on behalf of this community. We pray for everyone in this room tonight, all our citizens, our first responders, our employees. We just lift them up in prayer and play your pressing upon them. Please be seated. First item um I will address is the excusing uh Kitty Stroke for the meeting tonight, but she is you have on it. She's up there. Kitty, you there? Okay. Commissioner Strode is here up in the right-hand corner on the screen. She is here. So uh first item of business is new business, appeal of a denied beer cheese relief fund grant application. Shannon Tipton, who is with the Crystal Coat Kevin, Mystic Cottage, if you want to come forward and thank you all for allowing me to be here. Selected by the advisory group. Which indicated that the application was eligible for evaluation. I was also not notified in writing that my application had been tabled by the advisory group, resulting in a three-month waiting period following by CPA review. During that period, I did not receive written communication regarding the status of the tabled application, nor did I receive a notice when my application would be reviewed and ultimately denied. Based upon the process as it unfolded, it appears that the advisory group exercised decision making authority over public administrative funds in the manner that exceeded an advisory role. The application materials specifically stated that the funds are to be distributed following a review by an independent certified public accountant with an advisory committee establishing ranking and granting and grant totals to be submitted to the commission for review and approval. The structure indicates that the advisory committee role is to rank and recommend applications for commission review rather than exercise final authority as to who is denied and who goes on to the governing governing body. The advisory group made the decision which the applications were approved and forwarded to the governing body, which is you, the city council. And what applications were denied, which never reached your governing body. In regard to my application, the advisory group appeared to have exercised authority to deny my application using criteria outside of the published guidelines rather than serving solely as an advisory role in the to the governing body. During the appeal process, when I asked clarification regarding the application review and determination process, Ms. League acknowledged and took responsibility for typographical errors in the application materials. This acknowledgment further raised concerns for me about how eligibility was determined and what criteria was being applied to the applications. Additionally, the city commission minutes from September the 2nd, 2025 listed the beer cheese relief funds under the heading of DDIF fund. This public record appears to indicate that the oversight and processing authority for the grant program rests with the Downtown Development Investment Fund. This classification raises greater questioning about whether the advisory group determinations and actions aligned with the established oversight framework under the commission's own records where there are no DDIF minutes reflecting any activities related to the beer cheese relief fund. When I appeared for the denial, a meeting was held, or when I appealed the denial, a meeting was held, a motion was made, that motion was seconded and votes occurred to uphold the denial. However, no minutes were made or taken, and or will they be made available for public view? This is a concern as there is a KRS 61.835 for Kentucky Open Meeting Act. Because the program involves publicly adjusted funds and reportable grant payments, I'm respectfully asking the commission to review whether the process used is aligned with the requirements of Open Records Act KRS 61.800 through 61.850 and the Kentucky Open Records Act, KRS 61.870 through 61.8H4, including whether appropriate notice documentation and records were kept and would be made available. I'm also respectfully requesting that the governing approval body overturn the denial of my application and approve the application based upon this assessed criteria and the information provided by the CPA as indicated in the eligibility process. This request is not on behalf of just my business, but to ensure that all programs intended to support local businesses are administered with clarity, consistency, and transparency so applicants and the public can trust the process. I appreciate your time, your service, and your consideration. Thank you. Thank you, Shannon. While we're discussing this, I'm going to ask Whitney if she would like to come forward and address any of this, and that's these some other members of the advisory committee. Mr. Walker wanna come up with me to answer any questions. Thank you, Shannon. I guess I have a lot of notes. Um, but if you guys have specific questions, I think that would be the easiest way to approach this. So if you have questions about the process or anything like that, I'm happy to answer those. And I know that Mr. Walker would be as well.