Noise Resolution Discussion
Commissioner David Beerbower started the discussion by reading a statement, saying he proposed a noise resolution as an attempt to solve a problem for the citizens of the county. He has received feedback from constituents to the effect that any action by the government is “overreach against conservative values.” He advocated “ordered liberty,” saying they should not rush into any ordinance, but they should hand it off to the planning commission to allow them to handle the review and public hearings that go along with it.
Milburn agreed with the idea that the planning commission should handle it.
“I have thought about this all weekend long. It is a complex issue,” said Tran. He is very aware of how his actions now affect the future and the importance of not introducing unintended consequences. He also suggested that the verbiage in the current draft of the resolution is tantamount to zoning, which they cannot do as a commission. That is the job of the planning commission. “They bring it to us and we approve it, but we don’t formulate it,” he said.
“That does not diminish our responsibility for the core group of constituents that are currently suffering with this dilemma,” said Tran.
Milburn asked if the appraiser had been out to the property to change the taxation category from agriculture to industrial. He has not yet. County Counselor Bob Johnson said that as long as they stay within the state statute, that is an appropriate action for the county to take.
Sheriff Bill Martin said that the detective in charge of the case is meeting with attorneys at the site. Tran said he would take off work to be at that meeting.
Johnson said that all resolutions need to be legal and have a way to enforce them. He said that under home rule powers the commission can make it a crime, but that is not advisable.
Sheriff Martin said that he can’t enforce a noise resolution, but a codes enforcement officer would have to be hired by the county. He suggested it might fall under commerce rules.
Tran said he sees three options available to alleviate the current situation: 1. Citizens litigate in civil court with their own lawyer; 2. Pursue the zoning committee noise ordinance; 3. The county mediates a meeting with both parties and helps them reach a compromise that benefits both parties.
Martin suggested using an emergency management employee as a codes enforcer.
Public Comments
Michael Hoyt said the resolution could easily be rewritten to be enforced in civil court.
Johnson warned about selective prosecution as well as the county setting itself up to take an entity to court.
Dereck Ranes said there is no comparison to the noise his family endures from the bitcoin mining generator and a train horn or motorcycles or dogs or lawn mowing because none of those noises are continuous. Ranes also told the commission they had the power to pass the ordinance and hire a codes officer to enforce it.
“We have no avenue in Bourbon County that requires someone to say, ‘I’m putting a business in,'” said Beerbower.
John Spate’s property adjoins the property containing the bitcoin mine. The peace and quiet, deer and turkeys that he moved to Bourbon County to enjoy, are all gone.
He said he doesn’t think they should use a civil solution.
Tim Emerson said they should pass the resolution tonight with the addition of a special use permit.
Beerbower asked if the commission wanted to continue with the noise resolution or leave it in the hands of the planning commission.
He said he wants to continue with the noise resolution but change it to civil penalties.
They planned to convene the planning commission on 5 p.m. Nov. 30.
Beerbower said he would bring another draft of the noise resolution to the meeting on Nov. 3.
Tran addressed the gallery, asking what they wanted from the bitcoin miners at a minimum. They said quiet is the first requirement and the vibration.
“Ordered liberty, refers to a system in which freedom is exercised within a framework of just law, undergirded by moral responsibility and public accountability. It is not the absence of restraint, but the presence of rightful authority that enables liberty to flourish. Ordered liberty is grounded in the belief that human beings are endowed with inalienable rights, but those rights exist within a moral order that demands responsibility, civic duty, and equal justice”
In this context, Commissioner Beerbower’s invocation of ordered liberty is both apt and revealing. He used it as a guiding principle to justify restraint—acknowledging that government action must protect citizens’ peace without overstepping legitimate authority. Properly applied, ordered liberty means finding equilibrium between freedom and governance: protecting the rights of neighbors to quiet enjoyment of their property while ensuring the county does not expand its power in ways that create new infringements or precedents.
Beerbower’s statement that they “should not rush into any ordinance” but instead hand it to the planning commission reflects the ordered liberty principle that law should be deliberate, transparent, and grounded in due process. It also aligns with the moral premise that justice requires both restraint and accountability. To act impulsively would be license under the guise of authority; to do nothing while citizens suffer would be abdication of duty. Ordered liberty demands the middle ground—measured authority exercised under lawful procedure to restore peace without creating tyranny.
In the exchange, Commissioner Tran’s concerns about “unintended consequences” and “tantamount to zoning” show the same instinct. He recognized that good intentions can still violate ordered liberty if they breach legal boundaries or encroach on individual rights. Sheriff Martin’s observation that enforcement would require a new code officer also touches the same moral axis: authority must not outpace law, and enforcement must be legitimate, not arbitrary.