Tell Your Legislators To Vote NO on SB 274 Annexation Legislation

The filing of a bill (SB 274) that could allow cities located in two counties to annex into a third county has caused deep concern for London City Officials, Laurel County Fiscal Court and the London Laurel County Chamber of Commerce representing the business community of Laurel County.

We ask you to consider these points and call the Senators listed below immediately as this bill is sitting on the Senate Floor today. Encourage them to vote NO on SB 274.

Senate Members:

David Givens 502-564-3120

Damon Thayer 502-564-2450

Julie Adams 502-564-2450

Mike Wilson 502-564-2450

Morgan McGarvey 502-564-2470

Jarred Carpenter 502-564-8100 Ext 730

Rick Girdler 502-564-8100 Ext 656

Jimmy Higdon 502-564-8100 Ext 717

Robby Mills 502-564-8100 Ext 700

Wil Schroder 502-564-8100 Ext 624

Brandon Smith 502-564-8100 Ext 646

Adrienne Southworth 502-564-8100

Max Wise 502-564-8100 Ext 673

Robin Webb 502-564-8100 Ext 676

Here are some points to consider:

• This is Special Legislation crafted to allow Corbin to annex certain territory in southern Laurel County. It has come up before and always failed. What new basis supports the Bill?
• SB 274’s Sponsors should identify what other cities this Bill is applicable to and how many of them have submitted letters of support.
• The very property at issue has been annexed by London and Corbin has filed a lawsuit challenging the annexation. Not good policy for the Legislature to attempt to tip the scales in a pending litigation between Cities.
• The Legislature should hear the views of KLC and KACO on this Bill before entertaining its passage. If time is insufficient for them to prepare comments, the Bill should be rejected at this time and the issues can be addressed in the next session of the Legislature. [There is no evidence of any urgency in this matter.]
• Expanding powers of certain cities to annex into a third County devalues the integrity of individual Counties as coherent political units under the Kentucky Constitution.
• The long-established balance of power and responsibility has been that almost all cities are in one County and that voters in City elections vote in the same County election.
• Public confusion will ensue when a City is primarily in one County but has some territory in multiple other Counties. Voters in different parts of a three-county City would be voting in different County elections.
• As more and more properties are tacked on, a County becomes more and more dominated by a City in another County. SB 274 allows continued tacking on to leapfrog the size of the outside City.
• Consider layering of County taxes and taxes from an outside City and impact on business.
• The current system of annexation by Cities in individual counties for purposes of commercial or economic development has worked well in expanding tax revenues and jobs in recent decades. What is the policy reason for SB 274? What will it improve?
• Generally, this is a raw expansion of government power for no compelling reason. It is just against the general philosophy of most Kentuckians which aligns with limited government.
• SB 274 provides no guarantee the annexing City – spread over three counties – will be able to provide services in the newly annexed territory. We have seen the burden the pandemic has put on local governments. It is a very risky gamble to allow expansion without knowing of the ability to provide normal range of municipal services.
• Will City police, fire, and EMS services sprawling over three Counties be able to provide appropriate service in the newly annexed territory which is likely to be distant from City Hall and other City facilities? Will such first responders effectively coordinate with similar officials from County government?
• Note that annexing City police officers will be stretched thin by having to go to court to testify in multiple Counties if SB 274 passes in that each citation will have to be prosecuted in the county in which the incident takes place. Also, County Attorneys as prosecutors will have to coordinate with a new City police force in the County.
• Even Cities within counties have rivalries and disputes. This legislation would only exacerbate the potential for wasteful and unproductive conflict when Cities outside a County attempt land grabs under SB 274.
• The impact of SB 274 on Special Districts and County Utilities has not been considered. Consider fire districts, water and sanitation districts, etc. which are serving a part of a county and their territory being suddenly annexed by a City outside the County. Potential for unforeseen consequences as to assessments, grants, taxation, etc.
• The impact on School Systems has not been considered. If an annexing City from outside the County has a municipal school system and takes part of a County, what is the financial impact on the County school system if parents choose to send children to the annexing City’s schools?
• The impact on carefully planned economic development strategies driven by Fiscal Courts/Judge-Executives and County Economic Development Agencies can be upended by a City outside the County attempting to gain control of prime development land in a County and pursue a different strategy – perhaps one only benefiting the outside City without concern for the County as a whole.
• A City sprawling over three counties is inconsistent with the comprehensive structure of land use (zoning) regulation per KRS Chapter 100. Annexed territory in the third county could fall under completely different zoning regulations – i.e. the new City’s zoning ordinance – than when in the unincorporated original County. Proposals for re-zoning, plats, etc. could then go to a joint planning commission in a different County. Moreover, an entirely different and inconsistent Comprehensive Plan could be applicable to a property annexed by an interloping City sprawling over three counties.
• Consider the precedent the adoption of SB 274 would create – Once this expansion is adopted, perhaps the next Bill allows Louisville or Lexington to start moving outside of Jefferson and Fayette County or adjoining county cities start annexing within such Counties under some new Bill. Perhaps a new Bill allows medium Cities such as Covington, Bowling Green, or Owensboro to expand outside of their Counties or suburban cities from adjoining counties to annex into Kenton, Warren, or Davies County. Such Legislation would be no less wise than SB 274. However, it is just not the right direction for Kentucky. Local government is best that is closest to the people – not sprawled over three counties.
• Consider how all of this cross-jurisdiction confusion would look to out-of-state businesses considering location in Kentucky. They will likely be concerned with which agencies will have jurisdiction. Easy for such business to look to other states presenting a more coherent face of local government.
• IF THE LEGISLATURE PASSES SB 274, IT SHOULD AT THE VERY MINIMUM PROVIDE THAT ANY ANNEXATION INTO A THIRD COUNTY MUST BE APPROVED BY THE FISCAL COURT IN THE COUNTY WHERE THE PROPERTY IS ANNEXED FOR SUCH ANNEXATION TO BE EFFECTIVE. THAT WOULD PROVIDE AN ABSOLUTE MINIMUM PROTECTION FOR A COUNTY IN WHICH AN OUTSIDE CITY IS ATTEMPTING TO OBTAIN TERRITORY.