Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Regional Planning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate advances county-level planning bill after heated floor debate
Summary
Senate Bill 189 would authorize voluntary county development coordinating committees to encourage cross-jurisdiction planning; the floor debate highlighted concerns about potential future mandates, tax boundaries and whether legislation was necessary for existing local practices.
Get email alerts on the Regional Planning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate Bill 189, discussed at length on Feb. 23, 1998, would authorize county legislative bodies to adopt ordinances creating county development-coordinating committees that invite municipalities, school districts and special service districts to participate in quarterly planning discussions. Sponsors framed the bill as permissive — ‘may adopt’ language appears in the draft — and said it would not appropriate state funds or override local zoning authority.
Opponents questioned the need for statutory language because some counties already convene voluntary planning councils; they also warned the statute could become the first step toward future mandatory processes and could create an extra layer of approvals. Senators emphasized the political and fiscal incentives at play when development decisions move tax revenue across jurisdictional lines, and asked whether the bill would actually change practice in counties that already coordinate.
Supporters noted endorsements from some counties, the League of Cities and Towns, and local governments that favor stronger encouragement of cross-jurisdictional planning. The bill remained on the calendar with sponsors urging its passage as voluntary encouragement and opponents urging caution about unintended consequences and future mandate risks.
The Senate called the question and the bill was carried to the third-reading calendar with a recorded vote (16 ayes, 13 nays) as read into the record on the floor; floor debate left open requests for clearer detail on taxing and boundary effects and for continued dialog with local governments.
