Thursday, Jul. 03, 2008

Property owners opposed to annexation

Most of the property owners who live on county property Olathe has proposed to annex are opposed to the plan.

Thomas Morefield, a senior planner with the city, presented city councilmembers Tuesday with resident feedback from two open-house meetings last month.

The meetings were intended to allow property owners who live in “enclaves,” “islands” or “pockets” — which are areas of unicorporated county property within Olathe city limits — hear the proposal, ask question and provide feedback.

The city has proposed to annex the areas, Morefield said, to eliminate overlapping of city and county services. Some of the property owners living in “enclaves” receive city services without paying property taxes to support them.

Morefield said 160 of the 256 property owners who would be affected attended the open houses. Of the attendees, 67 percent were concerned with how the annexation would affect their property taxes, and 36 percent worried about how the services they now receive would change. Morefield said that some residents were receptive, but that “a vast majority were opposed to annexation.”

In a survey completed by 95 of the property owners who would be affected by the annexations, many wrote that they were opposed to annexation because they wouldn’t benefit from it, Morefield said.

“The city of Olathe would gain very little by this annexation proposal and would create a tremendous amount of ill will and hostility among the property owners in my area...” one resident wrote. “We, the property owners in this area are quite satisfied with the service provided by the county and appreciate your offer, but respectfully decline it.”

“Just leave me alone,” another resident wrote. “The city has nothing I need or want...”

Another resident wrote: “I reject annexation. No viable advantages.”

Councilmembers seemed more concerned with residents’ questions about things like burning leaves and other yard debris, which is allowed in the county with a valid permit.

After annexation, no burning would be allowed, Morefield said.

“We’re not trying to change their lifestyles,” Mayor Mike Copeland said. “We’re trying to get them to pay for the services they’re receiving today. If burning is allowed now and it’s safe, why not allow it after the ordinance?”

Morefield said the city would examine that. County ordinance, for instance, that allows property owners to maintain animals would be allowed after annexation, he said.

Still, some councilmembers were concerned.

Councilmember Bob Montgomery said he didn’t want to rush annexation.

Councilmember John Bacon said that he didn’t disagree with the council, but that he thought it was time to move forward. Councilmember Larry Campbell implored city staff to answer all resident questions before moving forward.

Morefield said councilmembers would vote on a resolution at the July 15 meeting that would indicate the city’s intent to consider the annexation. That would be followed by a 60- to 70-day review period to allow the city to notify affected property owners.

After that, he said, the city would conduct a public hearing and consider the proposed annexation, likely in September.

Submit an ad