Commonwealth of Kentucky
Office of the Attorney General
Daniel Cameron
Attorney General
Capitol Building, Suite 118
700 Capital Avenue
Frankfort, Kentucky 40601
(502) 696-5300
Fax: (502) 564-2894
December 18, 2023
OAG 23-09
Subject:
A county’s withdrawal from a joint planning unit established
under KRS 100.121.
Requested by:
F. Keith Brown
Counsel for the Rowan County Fiscal Court
Written by:
Marc Manley, Assistant Attorney General
Office of Civil and Environmental Law
Syllabus:
A county may unilaterally withdraw from a joint planning unit
established under KRS 100.121. However, a county may not
thereafter establish an independent planning unit unless it first
complies with the interrogation process established under
KRS 100.117, each city in the county responds to that process,
and each response is in the negative.
Opinion of the Attorney General
On or about November 5, 1970, Rowan County established a joint planning
unit with the City of Morehead. Sometime thereafter, the joint planning unit added
the City of Lake View Heights. Rowan County now says it may reconsider its future
membership in the joint planning unit. Accordingly, the Rowan County Fiscal CourtOpinion of the Attorney General 23-09
December 18, 2023
Page 2
2
(Fiscal Court) asks whether it may unilaterally withdraw from the joint planning unit
and, if so, how to accomplish the withdrawal. Rowan County also asks whether, after
such withdrawal, it may form an independent planning unit under KRS 100.117 to
facilitate the development of its unincorporated area.
The General Assembly established a framework for “joint planning units” to
facilitate cooperative development of rural and urban areas. See KRS 100.113–
100.131. Counties and cities are not compelled to establish joint planning units and
may instead create an “independent planning unit” by complying with the procedures
in KRS 100.117. But there is a preference against the formation of an independent
planning unit under Kentucky law.
A planning unit “may consist of a city or county, acting independently,” “cities
and their county, jointly,” “or groups of counties and their cities, regionally[.]”
KRS 100.113. However, neither a county nor a city may establish an independent
planning unit without first giving the other an opportunity to reject the
establishment of a joint planning unit. See KRS 100.117. In contrast, a county and
city may enter a joint planning agreement under KRS 100.121(1) “[a]t any time.”
Likewise, “[a]t any time, the legislative bodies of the cities and counties comprising
two (2) or more adjacent planning units . . . may enter into an agreement to form a
regional planning unit.” KRS 100.123.
Thus, prior to forming an independent planning unit, a city must “interrogate”
the county in which it is located, as well as every other city in the county, about
whether to form a joint planning unit. KRS 100.117(1). “The political subdivisions
which have been interrogated shall have sixty (60) days in which to answer in writing
and the city may assume that the answer is negative if no response is received within
the sixty (60) days.” Id. Although the city must interrogate every other city in the
county, it is the county’s answer that controls the outcome. Specifically, “[i]f the
county answers in the negative, then the city may engage in an independent planning
operation.” Id. However, “[i]f the county responds affirmatively, then a joint planning
unit shall be established, and no city located in such county may form an independent
planning unit.” Id. A county may also initiate the process if it follows the same
procedure as cities and “interrogate[s] every incorporated city within its boundaries.”
KRS 100.117(2). If a joint planning unit is created, the agreement “shall be in writing,
and shall describe the boundaries of the area involved, and shall contain all details
which are necessary for the establishment and administration of the planning unit
in regard to planning commission organization, preparation of plans, and aids to plan
implementation.” KRS 100.127(1).
The General Assembly has not established a procedure for a county or city to
withdraw from a joint planning unit. However, the General Assembly has implied
that either may do so. For example, “[a]greements for planning units shall be inOpinion of the Attorney General 23-09
December 18, 2023
Page 3
3
existence as long as at least two (2) of the original signators are operating under the
combination despite the fact that other signators have withdrawn from the unit.”
KRS 100.127(2) (emphasis added). The Office has previously found “that either a city
or the county may unilaterally withdraw from the agreement at any time, subject to
the satisfaction of any contractual or financial obligations on the part of the
withdrawing member.” OAG 74-701 (citing KRS 100.127(2)). While the Office has not
explained the steps necessary for “unilateral” withdrawal, it stands to reason that a
county could generally do so by the same process required to repeal any other
ordinance.1 Before engaging in such a process, the Fiscal Court must first satisfy all
of its current contractual or financial obligations under the current agreement.
OAG 74-701.
If the Fiscal Court satisfies those obligations and withdraws, then the current
joint planning unit will automatically dissolve. That is because “[a]greements for
planning units shall be in existence as long as at least two (2) of the original signators
are operating under the combination despite the fact that other signators have
withdrawn from the unit.” KRS 100.127(2) (emphasis added). Here, Rowan County
and the City of Morehead were allegedly the only two “original signators” to the
agreement. While it is true the City of Lakeview Heights joined the agreement later,
it was not an “original signator.”2 KRS 100.127(2) distinguishes between “original
signators” in the first sentence, while in the next sentence providing a relaxed
procedure for the “enlargement of a unit” with new members, which is accomplished
“by filing a copy of the agreement in the office of the county clerk of all member
counties along with a statement as to when [the new member] was admitted to the
unit.” Id.
Although a member to a joint planning unit may unilaterally withdraw from
the agreement by repealing its original ordinance incorporating the agreement, it
1 A joint planning unit is required to “be adopted as an ordinance by the legislative bodies which are
parties to the agreement.” KRS 100.127(1). At the time the Fiscal Court entered the joint agreement
in 1970, KRS 100.127(1) stated “[a]pproval of the agreement shall be by regulation and the agreement
shall be executed by the parties.” 1966 Ky. Acts ch. 17 § 6. This does not change the Office’s conclusion
with respect to the procedure the Fiscal Court should follow, as the Office sees little distinction
between the term “regulation” as used in 1966 and the term “ordinance” as it is used today.
2
These facts, therefore, distinguish the present situation from those in OAG 77-748 and OAG 79-
450, where the original joint planning agreement from which the county withdrew involved multiple
cities that were “original signators.” The Office is not at liberty to ignore words in a statute, and the
General Assembly intentionally included the phrase “original signators”—not just “signators”—even
though the next sentence of KRS 100.127(2) recognizes a different procedure for adding new members
to the agreement. Cf. Ky. Unemployment Ins. Comm’n v. Wilson, 528 S.W.3d 336, 340 (Ky. 2017) (“A
fundamental rule of statutory construction commands that effect must be given, if possible,
to every word, clause, and sentence of a statute” (quotation omitted)). Thus, while a joint planning unit
originally comprised of a county and multiple cities can survive a county’s withdrawal, a joint planning
unit originally comprised of only one city and the county cannot survive the withdrawal of the county
despite the addition of new cities to the agreement prior to the county’s withdrawal.Opinion of the Attorney General 23-09
December 18, 2023
Page 4
4
may not thereafter form an independent planning unit without first complying with
the “required procedure” under KRS 100.117. In other words, a county may
unilaterally withdraw from a joint planning unit, but it may not unilaterally form an
independent planning unit. It must first give the cities in its territory the option to
refuse membership in a new joint planning unit with the county. KRS 100.117(2); see
also OAG 77-748 (“once the county withdraws, it cannot plan independently unless it
goes through the interrogation procedure initially provided for the establishment of
an independent planning unit pursuant to KRS 100.117”); OAG 74-701 (same).
The Fiscal Court asks about its options following a new interrogation process.
Under the plain language of KRS 100.117, if every city in Rowan County answers the
Fiscal Court’s interrogatory in the negative, then the Fiscal Court may thereafter
form an independent planning unit. But if at least one city answers affirmatively,
then a new joint planning unit must be established with that city. See
KRS 100.117(1). And once the new joint planning unit is formed with the county and
at least one city, any city that answered the county’s interrogatory in the negative is
precluded from forming its own independent planning unit. KRS 100.121(1).
Finally, the Fiscal Court asks if it is compelled to form a joint planning unit if
it receives an affirmative response from a city but the city and county thereafter
cannot agree to the terms of the new joint planning unit agreement. Because the
agreement must be adopted by ordinance in each political subdivision,
KRS 100.127(2), a city’s failure to adopt such an ordinance would, in effect, constitute
the withdrawal of its previous affirmation. After all, if a city or county can
unilaterally withdraw from an existing agreement, it certainly could unilaterally
withdraw its affirmation to negotiate the formation of a new joint planning unit.
Thereafter, the county could form its own independent planning unit because the
interrogation process under KRS 100.117 will have been “unsuccessful.”
Daniel Cameron
Attorney General
Marc Manley
Assistant Attorney General