We made an error in the Election Section of this week’s Countywide edition. The Question and Answers of the Versailles City Council candidates were omitted. This post contains all of their Q&As. This will also be viewable on our new website at woodfordsun.com, along with the other candidate Q&As for the other offices up for election.
We sincerely apologize to the city council candidates for this mistake.
Each candidate was given the same number of words to respond to three questions, and these are the candidates’ responses who chose to participate and share their positions with you.
Question 1: Why do you want to hold the office as councilmember on the Versailles City Council?
Joe Belford: I am running for Versailles City Council because I know dedicated leadership can help transform a community. Over the past decade, my volunteer work has shown me the power of stepping up to make a tangible difference. Now that I am retired, I have the time, energy, and determination to fully invest in our town’s future. Versailles is a wonderful place to live, but achieving its full potential requires people who are willing to put in the work. I have the experience, the background, and the drive needed to serve effectively, and I am ready to step up for our community.
Brad Fister: I’m running because I know Versailles deserves leadership that protects its past while investing in its future. I’ve personally invested countless hours and resources restoring downtown buildings because I believe in Versailles. Our historic buildings were not constructed to withstand the daily vibrations caused by heavy trucks traveling Main Street. We must prioritize rerouting them onto our existing road network with minor changes instead of constructing unnecessary new ones. I’ll also help Versailles become a Certified Local Government, unlocking millions in grant opportunities annually. Versailles deserves thoughtful growth, responsible decisions, and leaders that invest personally in the community they serve.
Lisa Johnson: I am a wife, mom, business professional, nonprofit executive, and someone who cares deeply about this community. I hold a Masters in Public Policy and Administration from the University of Kentucky and have completed over 120 hours of Kentucky League of Cities training in local governance. My Council experience has strengthened my appreciation for responsible government, fiscal accountability, and thoughtful decisions that balance growth with preserving our community’s character. I want to continue contributing practical, long-term solutions that ensure Versailles remains a place where families thrive, businesses succeed, and citizens are proud to live, work, stay, and play.
Gary Jones: I want to move Versailles forward while preserving the small-town atmosphere that drew my wife and me here. By working together, we can find a balance between stagnation and uncontrolled growth while making affordable housing available to our citizens. I have been part of the Versailles business community since 1993 and co-own Versailles Brewing Company. I retired from the Army Reserves after 29 years of service. For 16 years, I have organized weekly community dinners serving Woodford County and coordinated food for Mentors and Meals, an after-school tutoring and meal program for at-risk children.
Ann Miller: In the beginning it was to be a voice for those who were not being heard and to get answers to questions that were not being answered. Having a direct community impact on essential community services and policy allows me to represent the unheard voices. I am about action and not the sidelines. For me, it is not just resolving issues but more importantly, preventing them from occurring. Getting into the details, being prepared and sharing knowledge improves our community and that is what an elected official should be about. People first, solutions that work and accountability for all.
Fred Powers: I am running for City Council to ensure growth benefits the entire community and is supported by sound infrastructure planning. Decisions should consider traffic, water and sewer capacity, and schools. The council must also be transparent about major purchases, financing, and development ventures, giving residents clear information about budget and financial impacts before commitments are made. We should attract quality businesses that fill vacant properties, create good-paying jobs, expand the tax base, and include safeguards that protect the city’s long-term financial stability.
Aaron Smither: I want Versailles to remain a great place to raise a family, including my own children. During my previous time on council, I brought the practical experience of owning and running small businesses to decisions about spending, priorities, and growth. I want to bring that same approach back- being a good steward of taxpayer dollars, asking tough questions, and making thoughtful decisions that serve the people who live here.
Question 2: Midway recently adopted a Landlord-Tenant ordinance which incorporates a Kentucky statute that provides significant protections to tenants and a non-court process to resolve disputes. Would you support the council adopting such an ordinance?
Belford: I strongly support adopting the KRS 383.500 Landlord-Tenant ordinance. It establishes essential, baseline protections every tenant deserves when signing a lease. There is currently a sharp information gap that exists, because landlords typically understand local housing laws far better than renters do. This systemic imbalance leaves tenants highly vulnerable to unfair terms. By clearly codifying tenant rights, this ordinance levels the playing field and ensures renters are legally protected and treated with respect. Adopting these uniform standards creates a much fairer, more balanced rental process for our community, which prevents exploitation and would foster mutual accountability between both parties.
Fister: As a landlord myself, I believe tenants deserve fair treatment, and clearly defined rights. I also understand the importance of balancing those with the rights and responsibilities of property owners. While Versailles City Council cannot dictate the Fiscal Court to implement such an ordinance, I would encourage discussions about adopting one. First though, more research needs to be compiled of similar ordinances in other similar sized cities across the country. We need to carefully evaluate their provisions, enforceability, and impacts on all parties. Any such ordinance must promote fairness, accountability, and mutual respect between landlords and tenants.
Johnson: I believe everyone deserves safe, well-maintained housing, with clearly defined rights and responsibilities for landlords and tenants. Versailles City Council reviewed this ordinance several years ago and invited public comment. While it establishes important legal protections, concerns were raised about additional costs for landlords and tenants’ ability to enforce their rights without affordable legal assistance. Because Kentucky requires municipalities to adopt the Act in its entirety, we must carefully evaluate its benefits and potential unintended consequences. I would welcome revisiting the discussion with input from landlords, tenants, legal professionals, and housing advocates before making a decision.
Jones: I support the goal of establishing fair and reasonable protections for both landlords and tenants. Midway adopted the Uniform Residential Landlord and Tenant Act (URLTA), a Ky statute that must be adopted in its entirety, without local amendments. This limits the ability to tailor it to the specific needs of a community like Versailles. I support exploring an ordinance that balances the rights and responsibilities of landlords and tenants, provides a fair process for resolving disputes, and addresses Versailles’ unique needs as a small town. Any proposed ordinance should be practical, fair to both parties, and appropriate for our community.
Miller: After 20 plus years in commercial and residential property management, I recognize this as another tool to provide clearer standards for both residents and landlords where a lease doesn’t exist or is unfavorable. This lack of protection exists across all socio-economic levels and not just lower income renters. The law is not designed to attack or entrench landlords but rather to balance and protect the rights and responsibilities of both the owner and tenants. Responsibilities belong to both sides. Both parties have obligations. Let’s continue this conversation at the table of the people in City Hall.
Powers: Adopting an ordinance that incorporates the provisions of KRS 383.500 would establish consistent requirements for landlord-tenant lease agreements across all rental properties in the community. Currently, lease terms may vary from one Versailles rental property to another, making it difficult for tenants without legal assistance to understand their rights and obligations. The ordinance would also provide landlords with uniform standards for matters such as security deposits, termination notices, and property maintenance. Clear, consistent rules would help both landlords and tenants understand what is required of them.
Smither: I would need to review the full ordinance before supporting it. Tenants deserve safe, well-maintained housing, and irresponsible landlords should be held accountable. At the same time, local government must respect property rights and consider how additional requirements affect responsible rental owners. Added costs will ultimately mean higher rents. As a landlord myself, I would look for a balanced approach that protects tenants, treats property owners fairly, and avoids making rental housing more expensive.
Question 3: What actions do you propose to insure that some portion of the residential development on U.S. 60 between Paddock and the Bluegrass Parkway will be built as affordable (defined as within the means of a person earning the county average of $82K a year)?
Belford: Although I am 100% pro-affordable housing in Versailles, current plans for the privately-owned properties mentioned lack any affordable provisions. Because the zoning revisions have already been approved, developers face no legal obligation to include any affordable housing development within their plans. Any possible proposal would have to include persuading the developers to have some goodwill toward our community, and revise their current plans to include affordable housing within their projects. Viable solutions exist—such as high-quality manufactured homes, building much smaller houses, or utilizing Kentucky Housing Corporation’s (KHC) Shared Appreciation Mortgage (SAM) program. However, without the explicit cooperation of the builders, these projects will inevitably exclude affordable housing options.
Fister: Highly sought out historic neighborhoods have always included a diverse mix of housing stock. They include large single-family homes, alongside smaller, more affordable homes, and rental properties. The challenge is in educating developers and the public that “affordable housing” isn’t exclusively government-subsidized housing. Tax incentives, financing opportunities, and grant programs have proven effective in other communities to encourage developers to include a percentage of affordable units in their developments. Thoughtful development provides housing opportunities for everyone, while maintaining architectural quality, and community character. Affordability, quality, and making a profit should never be seen as mutually exclusive ideas. Dream big!
Johnson: Our goal must be responsible growth that allows people at different stages of life and income levels to continue calling Versailles home. The City has taken steps through creation of the Affordable Housing Task Force and discussions about smaller lot sizes, setbacks, and increased housing density. However, simply allowing higher density does not guarantee affordable housing. Without developer commitments, we risk creating more expensive homes on smaller lots rather than housing that meets our community’s needs. I advocate for infill first, measurable affordability goals, and pursuing written agreements with developers where legally permissible. We must intentionally create opportunities for working families, young professionals, and retirees to live and stay here!
Jones: The City Council’s ability to require affordable housing on privately owned property is limited, particularly once zoning has been established and development plans approved. Ideally, affordable housing commitments should be addressed during the zoning process. At this stage, our options include working with the developer to encourage affordability through incentives, fee reductions, density bonuses, or available public funding and partnerships. I would pursue these opportunities to make a portion of the housing affordable to households earning the county average of $82,000, while recognizing that our ability to compel a private developer to provide below-market housing is limited by law.
Miller: Density is an essential key for development – “new, infill and re-development”. The state mandated “Kentucky Housing Task Force” was clear about reforms to the building code. This does NOT mean throwing current zoning ordinances out the window. Quite the opposite. Lot sizes are restrictive and have contributed to the shortage. This is a leftover element of the 1960’s redlining mechanism to enforce segregation patterns. Think about it when driving through each different neighborhood. We must encourage increased density which also means building “up and not out”. These are not just changes, but improvements for an overall healthier community.
Powers: One possible way to provide affordable housing in neighborhoods like the one between Paddock and the Parkway, is to allow development of quality duplexes and townhouses. They can be built to fit in with the neighborhood aesthetics while providing a more affordable option than single family dwellings. Revised zoning ordinances could allow for 3-story townhouses and homes which provide more square footage or less square footage of real estate. Affordable housing on an $82,000 annual income is challenging, but I think it can be accomplished by local county and city governments working together to come up with creative solutions.
Smither: Someone earning $82,000 makes about $6,833 monthly before taxes. Assuming 20% down, a 30-year mortgage at 7.4%, $500 in other monthly debt, and $300 monthly for taxes and insurance, a conservative qualification estimate is roughly a $300,000 home—with $60,000 down and a $1,960 monthly payment. Actual qualification varies. The challenge is getting new construction into that price range. I would work with developers on smaller homes and reducing unnecessary development costs. I do not favor using taxpayer dollars to subsidize individual home purchases.