Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Burn Regulation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission debate continues over county burn resolution; staff to forward edits to fire chiefs and KDHE references
Summary
Commissioners and a commissioner author reviewed a proposed burn resolution that would regulate open burning and brush pile burns, raised questions about enforcement, misdemeanor class and fines, and KDHE permitting; staff will forward suggested edits to fire chiefs for review.
Commissioners spent significant time on March 3 reviewing a proposed county burn resolution intended to regulate open burning, brush piles and municipal burning. The discussion focused on three main areas: the authority and time limits for fire chiefs to suspend burning, whether brush pile and other open burns should be regulated under a single rule, and the criminal penalties and administrative fee structure in the draft resolution.
A commissioner who earlier submitted suggested edits said the draft should give chiefs more immediate authority to suspend burning (the speaker proposed an initial six‑hour suspension with two three‑hour extensions for a 12‑hour window) and argued brush piles should be combined into a single open‑burning regulation. That speaker noted KDHE (Kansas Department of Health and Environment) rules and existing exemptions for agricultural burning and said much of the county language could mirror KDHE requirements while clarifying local reporting and supervision expectations.
Legal and enforcement issues were also raised: commissioners discussed whether violations should be treated as a Class A or Class B misdemeanor (Kansas statutes were cited), and whether administrative fees and reimbursement mechanisms would be practical given necessary due‑process procedures. Staff noted the draft had been revised to limit maximum fines to $2,500 (rather than a higher amount that would require felony consideration) and said further review with fire chiefs and county counsel was appropriate.
Outcome: commissioners asked staff to forward the revised draft and the comments raised at the meeting to the county fire chiefs and to request their written input before returning the resolution to the commission for final action. One commissioner noted the burn season and urged timely review so any adopted resolution would be in place before the county’s burn window opens.
Next steps: staff to share the draft with chiefs for review, to reconcile KDHE permit language as appropriate, and to return to the commission with a version that addresses the chiefs’ operational needs and consistent misdemeanor/fine language.
