Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Planning And Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Simpson County, Franklin clash over Planning & Zoning interlocal restructure; city personnel proposal approved, county motion tabled
Summary
City and county officials debated whether the Planning & Zoning department should be managed under county administrative code or restructured so the P&Z board manages employees. The Commission's personnel-restructuring proposal passed on a split vote; a county motion to delay and develop a plan was tabled after a separate vote.
A contentious discussion over the interlocal agreement governing Planning & Zoning dominated the March 10 joint meeting of the Simpson County Fiscal Court and Franklin City Commission.
Simpson County Judge Executive Mason Barnes said the county expects county employees, including Planning & Zoning staff, to be held to the County Administrative Code and argued the county should retain authority to manage county employees under that code. City Attorney Scott Crabtree described the City Commission’s proposal as intended to “take politics and personalities out” by placing employee management with the Planning & Zoning board and using fee revenues to cover operations; he said the city's proposal would split any shortfall 50/50 between the two bodies.
Barnes circulated KRS 100.117 for review and said the statute supports county jurisdiction outside municipal limits; Crabtree disagreed and said KRS can be used to regionalize Planning & Zoning. Barnes warned that leaving day-to-day personnel decisions solely to the board would not remove politics because board members are appointees of the two bodies and receive constituent pressure.
The City Commission’s personnel-restructuring proposal was approved on a recorded vote (Yes: Larry Dixon, Dale McCreary, Kenton Powell, Wendell Stewart; No: Kelly Bush). A county motion to delay changes and develop a plan (motion by Barnes, second by Chandler) received only two affirmative votes (Barnes and Chandler) and was not adopted; the county motion was recorded as tabled after debate. County officials requested further discussion before any final changes to the interlocal agreement are adopted.
City Attorney Scott Crabtree said he drafted the city’s proposal to alter the management language of the interlocal agreement so the Planning & Zoning board would manage employees and operational costs would be covered principally by P&Z fee revenues; Judge Barnes said his concerns were limited to the county’s ability to address county employees under the administrative code. No final interlocal agreement revisions were adopted that day; attorneys were authorized to draft revised language for later presentation to each governing body.
