Kansas committee hears wide-ranging testimony on bill to repeal cities' three-mile extraterritorial zoning authority

Senate Bill 37, which would repeal the three-mile extraterritorial planning and zoning authority that allows cities to apply subdivision and zoning rules to land up to three miles beyond their corporate limits, drew hours of testimony at a Local Government Committee hearing. Proponents said the measure restores property rights to rural landowners who cannot vote in city elections; opponents said repealing the authority could disrupt utility service areas, long-term infrastructure planning and orderly growth.

The bill matters because it determines which government — city or county — can regulate subdivisions and land use just outside city limits, affecting landowners' ability to build and sell property, the scope of city planning and infrastructure investments, and how utilities and developers plan projects that may depend on coordinated land use rules.

Representative Ken Corbett, who testified in support of SB 37, described the equity argument for repeal: "There’s thousands of people ... the city tells them what to do and none of these people can vote for anybody in the city." Several private citizens and two state senators also urged repeal, saying the three-mile rule allows cities to regulate people who cannot vote for city officials and can interfere with property transactions.

Proponents' testimony included examples of denied permits and stalled sales. Beth Selzmann, identifying herself as a constituent, read from policy material and said the rule can amount to a "regulatory taking" when county residents are subject to city rules without city representation. Angel Cushing described a 2019 dispute over local fencing rules as the reason she became engaged in the issue and said metropolitan-area planning structures tend to give cities voting majorities on joint boards.

Cities, municipal associations and county groups countered with infrastructure and planning concerns. Dan Warner, planning division director for the City of Topeka, said the city changed planning-exemption rules within its three-mile area to prevent ribbon development and to enable larger, denser subdivisions that can be served economically by city water and sewer. He described a local example where a 25-acre parcel with 1,000 feet of frontage could be divided into only five lots under county exemption rules but planned as a more efficient 40-lot subdivision when city subdivision rules apply.

Kimberly Swatty of the Kansas Municipal Utilities warned of "significant unintended consequences on utility services" if the statutory authority were removed, saying "investment in infrastructure is not a 1 to 2 to 5 year planning horizon" and that utilities plan decades ahead for pipes, treatment and generation. Nathan Eberlein of the League of Kansas Municipalities and Jay Hall of the Kansas Association of Counties both urged caution and recommended an interim study; Hall said, "we simply do not know what would happen if we were to eliminate the 3 mile zone completely."

Local officials described a patchwork of approaches across Kansas. Trey Cocking, city manager of Emporia, said his city and Lyon County once used a joint comprehensive plan and an interlocal agreement that the county later ended; he characterized a recent hospital annexation as a consent annexation requested by the property owner. David Dillinger, city manager of El Dorado, described an interlocal arrangement in Butler County in which proposed city zoning for the three-mile area is presented to the county commission for approval before it takes effect.

No committee vote was taken at the hearing. Multiple organizations requested an interim committee or more detailed study before any statutory repeal. Jay Hall and other neutral witnesses urged more analysis of practical impacts — on pending applications, utility service territories and counties that currently lack zoning — before enacting a statewide repeal.

Procedure and related bills: at the start of the session a senator in the room introduced two separate bills (25RS0586, concerning unilateral annexations and restrictions; and 25RS0598, concerning issuance of building permits); the committee "took them in" for scheduling. The committee then heard the detailed bill brief and public testimony on SB 37 and closed the hearing with no formal action recorded.

Looking ahead, several conferees and legislators asked that the matter be placed in an interim for additional study and stakeholder work to craft a narrower remedy rather than a broad strike-through of longstanding statute. The committee chair indicated an intent to pursue further consideration but did not set a date for additional hearings or formal action.