Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Home Rule topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Covington County commissioners ask legal counsel to draft narrow home‑rule proposal on CO2 capture
Summary
After residents and others pressed the county about local authority on CO2 capture, the commission voted to have legal counsel draft limited home‑rule language for legislative consideration and a possible local referendum; counsel said state law limits immediate local action.
The Covington County Commission voted Jan. 27 to ask county legal counsel to draft a narrowly tailored home‑rule proposal that would give the commission limited authority to address certain local concerns raised about CO2 capture projects.
At the meeting, commissioners said they had received questions from residents and others who had contacted the legislature seeking local action. The chair said the county does not currently have home‑rule authority and asked Miss Arrington, the county's legal counsel, to explain what could be done at the local level.
Arrington said there is "no option currently on the table" for the commission to unilaterally enact ordinances on the subject under existing county authority. She explained that while state law includes provisions such as a statute related to levying fees against hazardous wastes, those provisions do not provide the county the local ordinance authority residents were urging. She said House Bill 61 (as referenced in the meeting) is a legislative path that could return authority to local voters if it passes. Arrington advised the commission that if the county's legislative delegation supports home rule for limited topics, the county staff and counsel can draft language to submit to the legislature; if approved, the proposal would then go to a public vote in Covington County.
Commissioners discussed limiting the scope of any home‑rule request to specific items (health, safety and environmental concerns were cited) rather than seeking broad powers. After discussion, the commission made and seconded a motion to direct Miss Arrington to start drafting a proposed limited home‑rule measure and approved the motion by voice vote.
The action sends the drafting task to county counsel for follow up with the county administrator and the legislative delegation; Arrington said she would begin drafting and accept input from commissioners. The transcript indicates the next steps would include legislative review in Montgomery and, if successful, placement on a local ballot for Covington County voters to decide.
The commission's action is procedural (requesting a draft) and does not itself change county law. The meeting record shows support for pursuing a legislative route but does not record any final text, legal analysis beyond the procedural outline, or a timeline for when a draft would reach legislators or voters.
