Find Bill
Find Your Legislator
Legislative Deadlines
Dec. 13, 2022
RSS Feed Permanent URL -A +A

Minutes for HCR5007 - Committee on Local Government

Short Title

Constitutional amendment granting counties home rule powers.

Minutes Content for Wed, Mar 20, 2019

The Chair called the meeting to order at 9:01 a.m.

The Committee minutes for March 13, 2019, were approved by motion of Representative Capps, second by Representative Long, and favorable vote of the members.

The Chair opened the hearing on HCR5007.

Mike Heim, Revisor of Statutes, outlined the history of the statutes on county home rule (Attachment 1) and (Attachment 2).  He commented that constitutional home rule was formally established in 1961 through a 1960 general election.  Interest in county home rule began in the 1960s and, in 1974, culminated in SB175 that granted counties what became known as statutory home rule (K.S.A. 19-101a): County commissioners may by resolution take any action; if no statutory authority exists for such action and it is not contrary to any act of the legislature, such resolution shall become effective.  If the resolution is contrary to an act of the legislature but is not uniformly applicable to all counties, the county through passage of a charter resolution make take action if it is not specifically restricted by statute.  Mr. Heim reported that the Kansas Legislature then listed eight exceptions (currently grown to 38) limiting county administrative actions.

Proponents:

John Ford, Member, Board of Commissioners of Riley County, testified as a proponent for the resolution (Attachment 3).  He referenced the action giving cities constitutional home rule in 1961 and the statutory home rule granted counties in 1974.  However, the exemptions often require counties to curtail certain actions.  Noting that often legislation is passed that addresses a local county issue; however, even though the law may be non-uniform, because it is a state law it is applicable to all counties, it may affect another county adversely.  Further, each restriction dilutes the authority of a county and discourages innovation.

Responding to a question, Mr. Ford cited the bio-defense facility in Riley County as an example of a local situation that, if addressed by statute, could apply to all other counties irrespective of its bring appropriate for all other counties.

Clancy Holeman, Riley County Counselor, spoke as a proponent (Attachment 4).  He noted that a county, facing a non-uniform state statute, can opt out of the law by a county charter; however, the current 38 restrictions will only grow and further curtail county authority.  He said this bill does not expand the authority of counties, but protects them from further restrictions.

Responding to questions, Mr. Holeman said that prospective businesses look for consistency, and when the legislature can further restrict a county's authority through the exemption process, these state actions dissuade new business ventures.  He replied to another question that the unified law enforcement system in Riley County was created through state legislation.

Jay Hall, General Counsel, Kansas Association of Counties, spoke in support of the bill (Attachment 5),  He first addressed points anticipated by opponents to the bill, then commented that constitutional home rule would not exempt counties from uniform laws that apply to all counties, but would allow counties to exercise home-rule authority where statutes are either silent or already non-uniform.

Responding to a question, he said that the present system requires a county to obtain legislative permission in order to address local problems; getting legislation through the legislature is not a timely way to effect change.

The Chair noted the following individuals who have offered written-only testimony in support of the bill:

Opponents:

Allie Devine, Kansas Farm Bureau, testified as an opponent (Attachment 16).  She gave a brief history regarding home rule, noting that a similar bill (HCR5004) was introduced in 2017.  She commented that counties, as sub-divisions of the state, are limited in authority to that given by state law; these restrictions appropriately curtail overreach by local authorities.  By protecting county business interests from "checkerboard" regulations promulgated by various counties, the current system provides a stable basis that will not put business interests at a competitive disadvantage.  She cited environmental regulations in Nebraska as an example of adding needless complexity to various businesses.  Responding to a question, she replied that the current system is working well; there is no need for change.

Aaron Popelka, Vice-President of Legal and Governmental Affairs, Kansas Livestock Association, spoke as an opponent (Attachment 17).  He stated that the bill would grant excessive authority to counties, would remove an important oversight function of the state legislature, and would endanger individual property rights of landowners.  He commented that some county administrators respond to issues through emotion and not data or scientific facts, in the process adversely affecting a number of family-owned farms.  He cited current non-compliant zoning laws created to restrict agriculture as an example of county overreach.

The Chair noted a written-only testimony in opposition to the bill:

The Chair closed the hearing on HCR5007.

The meeting was adjourned at 9:59 a.m. No further meeting was scheduled.