Brief⁽¹⁾

Senate Sub. for H.B. 2310 would authorize any county and city or cities therein to consolidate and form one local government entity. The bill also would amend the city unsafe or dangerous structures and abandoned property act to permit any person not just not for profit corporations to rehabilitate property under the act.

The following are major provisions of the bill regarding consolidation:

• The consolidation process is triggered by the appointment of a consolidation study commission. Voters countywide must approve the appointment or election of a commission. The vote may be initiated by the passage of a joint resolution by the county and city or cities' governing bodies calling for a vote on the issue. The petition and the ballot must contain an explanatory statement that a proposed consolidation may take place only if approved by a majority of the county electors voting on the issue and by a majority of the ballots cast within each city proposed to be a part of the consolidation.



• The makeup of the consolidations study commission and the method of appointment or election is to be decided in the joint resolution. At least one-third of the commission must reside in the unincorporated area of the county.



• Once appointed or elected, the consolidation study commission may appoint an executive director, employ other staff as needed and must adopt a budget. The commission is required to prepare a plan addressing the consolidation of the city or cities and the county or certain city and county offices, functions, services, and operations. The commission is required to hold public meetings, may administer oaths and subpoena witnesses, and require production of documents and records. Once a preliminary plan has been developed at least two additional public hearings must be held for input from the public.



• Once a final plan has been developed it must be submitted to the qualified electors of the county in the next general election of the county. A majority of those voting must approve the plan as well as a majority within each city proposed to be consolidated with the county.



• The board of county commissioners may levy a tax of not to exceed 1 mill to pay for costs of the commission.



• A plan must include a description of the form, structure, functions, powers, officers and duties of the officers recommended; provide for a method of amendment as well as abandonment of the plan; authorize the election, appointment, or elimination of elected officers; specify the date of the consolidation; and address the situation if the plan is approved by one but not all cities proposed to be consolidated. The plan also must fix the boundaries of the consolidated governing bodies election districts; determine if electors are to be partisan or nonpartisan; and determine the legislative and administrative duties of the officials.



• The consolidated government is subject to the cash basis and budget law; when acting as a city it shall retain city constitutional home rule authority; and when acting as a county it shall retain statutory county home rule powers.






The Senate Committee added provisions of S.B. 7 as it passed the Senate with a further clarification that this bill did not limit other existing laws authorizing cities and counties to cooperate or consolidate to provisions of H.B. 2310. In regard to H.B. 2310 as it passed the House, the Senate Committee deleted all provisions that applied only to cities located in Wyandotte County in regard to housing rehabilitation.







Background

The sponsor of H.B. 2310, as introduced, said Kansas City needed to encourage the rehabilitation of housing and needed to demolish only those houses which were beyond rehabilitation.





A representative of the Wyandotte County/Kansas City, Kansas Unified Government opposed the bill as introduced.





S.B. 7 was recommended by the 1998 interim Special Committee on Local Government. The bill was supported by the League of Kansas Municipalities, the Kansas Association of Counties, and the cities of Wichita and Topeka. The representative of the Kansas Association of Counties suggested the initiative provision of the bill be deleted.





S.B. 7 was opposed by representatives of the Sedgwick County Township Association, the Sedgwick County Farm Bureau, the chairman of the Sedgwick County Association for Legislative Action for Rural Mayors, a representative of the Kansas Taxpayer Network, the Kansas 10th Amendment Society, and others.





The legislation would have no fiscal impact on the state.





1. *Supplemental notes are prepared by the Legislative Research Department and do not express legislative intent. The supplemental note and fiscal note for this bill may be accessed on the Internet at http://www.ink.org/public/legislative/bill_search.html