Commission sends proposed planning-commission mileage ordinance back to planning commission for clarification

The Unified Government commission on May 28 returned, by unanimous vote, a proposed ordinance that would change how planning commission members are reimbursed for mileage, after legal staff said the existing code conflicted with state law.

Deputy chief counsel Wendy Green told commissioners the county’s text effectively paid planning commissioners a flat $100 each month without receipts, which could be treated as compensation rather than reimbursement under state law: "The state statute says that the planning commission member shall not be compensated for serving on the board," Green said, and the proposed rewrite would instead allow reimbursement "at the federal mileage rate and supported by appropriate receipts." The planning commission had voted unanimously to deny the draft ordinance and asked for changes.

Commissioners pressed staff on how reimbursement would be administered and whether members actually visit sites. Planning staff said site visits do occur but not for every case and described a process in which commissioners would submit mileage through planning and finance via the UG voucher system. Several commissioners also asked whether the flat $100 payments had been stopped; staff said the flat stipends had been suspended in January while the matter is resolved.

Opposition at the planning commission centered on three points: the $100 monthly cap, uncertainty about added administrative work to submit receipts, and longstanding practice that some members said did not match the proposed changes. Commissioners asked staff for examples of model ordinance language, comparisons with other jurisdictions, and the legal opinion on the statutory interpretation.

Commissioner Carlos Pacheco moved to send the proposal back to the planning commission for additional deliberation and clarification; the motion passed 8–0. County staff were directed to provide the planning commission with clearer draft language, comparative examples from other jurisdictions, and the attorney-general material underpinning the legal interpretation.

Next steps: staff will return the refined proposal to the planning commission for reconsideration and then bring the item back to the full commission. The record shows the commission intends to comply with state law and to avoid flat monthly payments without documentary support.