Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the County Planning Residency topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Long debate on county planning-board residency leads sponsor to pull bill for revision
Summary
Senate Bill 87, which would require county planning-board members to reside in the unincorporated areas they regulate, generated extended debate and was withdrawn by the sponsor for further amendment.
Senate Bill 87, introduced by Senator Mark Johnson, proposes residency requirements for members of county planning boards so that those who sit on a board governing unincorporated areas must themselves reside in the unincorporated area subject to the board's jurisdiction. Senator Johnson said the bill was intended to ensure planning boards represent residents who live under their rules, citing Pulaski County as an example where a majority of planning-board members live inside municipalities rather than in the unincorporated areas those boards govern.
The proposal prompted extensive questioning from committee members about practical impacts, including the availability of qualified board members in rural areas, the effect on quorum court confirmation votes, handling of annexations and residency changes, and whether members who moved because of annexation would be immediately disqualified. Saline County Judge Matt Brumley testified in opposition, saying the bill would risk losing experienced board members who live in incorporated municipalities but work or have expertise in the unincorporated area, and raising concerns about budgetary authority and the lack of transitional provisions tied to census reporting or annexation events.
Senator Johnson said he had worked with BLR to craft an amendment narrowing the bill's application to counties with populations of 200,000 or more that contain eight or fewer municipalities (three class-7 counties were identified). Committee members suggested alternative approaches, such as requiring a specified fraction of members to be residents of unincorporated areas rather than an absolute bar. After extended discussion and multiple questions, Senator Johnson agreed to pull SB87 from the agenda to draft further amendments addressing the committee's concerns.
No committee vote on final passage occurred; the sponsor explicitly withdrew the bill to revise the language and pursue a compromise that may include a residency ratio or transitional language for annexation and census-driven changes.
