Bill would let counties decide whether to convene large citizen consolidation commissions

A Kansas Senate committee heard testimony on Senate Bill 104, which would change an existing state statute so county commissioners may, rather than shall, convene a citizen consolidation commission for counties within a specified population range.

Supporters told the committee the change is meant to avoid duplicative or unwieldy panels in places such as Shawnee County and to leave the decision to local elected officials. Rich Eckert, Shawnee County councilor, said the bill is "a very minor change" and that his county already has a locally tailored statute, KSA 12-350, that sets up a different citizens' committee and was adopted after a local process in 2005. "We thought that maybe just changing it from shall to may would be the best way to go," Eckert said.

Eckert described the statewide statute the bill would amend as "far encompassing," saying that if the statewide committee were formed it could examine governments ranging "from the city of Topeka to the smallest of drainage districts." He told the committee the statute's membership formula could produce an "unwieldy" panel of roughly 59 people (he estimated it could be as high as 61 or 62 depending on how certain overlapping school districts were counted) and that some local trustees said they would not attend meetings if such a commission were convened.

Senators questioned the purpose and authority of such a commission. Senator Reichman asked why a citizens' commission is necessary when elected officials already serve, and Eckert replied that the statute was written for a different county (Wyandotte) and may not suit Shawnee County's needs. He also said the statewide statute does not appear to give the commission binding authority to force consolidation: "You can't — the board of county commissioners doesn't have the authority to force the city of Topeka," Eckert said, describing Topeka as a "home rule" entity.

Committee members discussed alternatives, including simply repealing the statute. Committee counsel (Charles) said that, if deletion were chosen, the committee would likely strike section 1 of the statute and change the bill title to a repeal. Senator Petty and others described the potential 59-member panel as impractical; Senator Petty said it would be difficult to find a room large enough to seat that many members and witnesses.

No committee vote on the bill was recorded at the hearing. The committee received written proponent testimony from Jay Hall, deputy director and general counsel, Kansas Association of Counties, and Amanda Stanley, city attorney, City of Topeka. The chair closed the hearing on Senate Bill 104.

The bill and the discussion highlight a recurring issue in local governance debates: whether statewide, prescriptive panels are useful in counties that have already created local mechanisms for evaluating consolidation or shared services.