Since discussion first started about a potential U.S. Highway 69 bypass, Pittsburg city officials have talked about the need to expand the city’s limits out to the proposed four-lane.
Those officials may have to keep an extra close eye on the 2010 Kansas Legislative Session, then, as legislators will likely face a bill that Sen. Bob Marshall, R-Fort Scott, said would make it more difficult for cities to annex land.
“This bill really takes the ability away from cities who want to annex properly,” Marshall said. “It really could tie a municipality’s hands.”
The bill found a way through both chambers in the 11th hour of the final weekend, before it was vetoed by Kansas Gov. Mark Parkinson. But local legislators said they expected to see the bill, or even a stricter version of it, in the 2010 session.
Under the current format, any city’s annexation request, if the property contains more than 21 acres, must go through the county commission. The annexation bill would have changed the process to where any request more than 65 acres would be put up to a vote of the property owners.
Proponents of the bill said it would give property owners say about whether or not their property would be annexed. But opponents of the bill said it would provide an obstacle for economic development opportunities — a viewpoint taken by Parkinson.
“It’s interesting. One of the arguments that you hear is that we’re taking people’s land. But this isn’t eminent domain,” said Rep. Julie Menghini, D-Pittsburg. “Yes, you probably have to pay more taxes, but there are more services as well, and people are typically already taking advantage of those services, be it water, sewer or parks that citizens’ tax money goes to support.”
Menghini said another major talking point was that the current structure gave the people no voice, a point she refuted.
“Their voice is the county commission, who they elect,” Menghini said. “County commissioners aren’t going to vote against people who don’t want to be annexed. And if they do, then the people can just not vote for them next time.”
Rep. Bob Grant, D-Cherokee, said the process would likely involve compromise.
“There are a lot of people who go outside the city limits and don’t want to be in the city boundaries,” Grant said. “If they move out, and the cities keep moving to them, that’s a problem. It wouldn’t be popular with the cities, but every landowner does have certain rights.”
Grant added that decision-makers in the process should look at a city’s intent.
“If they’re just annexing the ground because of tax revenue, that’s not fair to those folks,” Grant said. “But I could see some instances where a city might need to annex out.”
Grant said annexing for economic development purposes was something that needed to be taken on a case-by-case basis. He cited the aggressive annexation policies of Olathe and Overland Park as potential hazards.
“Not every city is correct in the way they do their annexation,” Grant said. “If it keeps jumping and jumping and jumping, and becomes a race in terms of who gets to annex what, it’s not living up to what it should be.
“The whole thing is just a tough situation,” Grant said.
Marshall said the bill would seriously hamper local cities trying to annex out to the future bypass.
“Under this bill, the city would probably not have been able to annex any land from Pittsburg out to the new 69 Highway,” Marshall said. “It could make it very difficult for cities to annex in those types of situations.
“I’m sure that we’ll see a bill like that again next year,” Marshall said.
|
|
|
Since discussion first started about a potential U.S. Highway 69 bypass, Pittsburg city officials have talked about the need to expand the city’s limits out to the proposed four-lane.
Those officials may have to keep an extra close eye on the 2010 Kansas Legislative Session, then, as legislators will likely face a bill that Sen. Bob Marshall, R-Fort Scott, said would make it more difficult for cities to annex land.
“This bill really takes the ability away from cities who want to annex properly,” Marshall said. “It really could tie a municipality’s hands.”
The bill found a way through both chambers in the 11th hour of the final weekend, before it was vetoed by Kansas Gov. Mark Parkinson. But local legislators said they expected to see the bill, or even a stricter version of it, in the 2010 session.
Under the current format, any city’s annexation request, if the property contains more than 21 acres, must go through the county commission. The annexation bill would have changed the process to where any request more than 65 acres would be put up to a vote of the property owners.
Proponents of the bill said it would give property owners say about whether or not their property would be annexed. But opponents of the bill said it would provide an obstacle for economic development opportunities — a viewpoint taken by Parkinson.
“It’s interesting. One of the arguments that you hear is that we’re taking people’s land. But this isn’t eminent domain,” said Rep. Julie Menghini, D-Pittsburg. “Yes, you probably have to pay more taxes, but there are more services as well, and people are typically already taking advantage of those services, be it water, sewer or parks that citizens’ tax money goes to support.”
Menghini said another major talking point was that the current structure gave the people no voice, a point she refuted.
“Their voice is the county commission, who they elect,” Menghini said. “County commissioners aren’t going to vote against people who don’t want to be annexed. And if they do, then the people can just not vote for them next time.”
Rep. Bob Grant, D-Cherokee, said the process would likely involve compromise.
“There are a lot of people who go outside the city limits and don’t want to be in the city boundaries,” Grant said. “If they move out, and the cities keep moving to them, that’s a problem. It wouldn’t be popular with the cities, but every landowner does have certain rights.”
Grant added that decision-makers in the process should look at a city’s intent.
“If they’re just annexing the ground because of tax revenue, that’s not fair to those folks,” Grant said. “But I could see some instances where a city might need to annex out.”
Grant said annexing for economic development purposes was something that needed to be taken on a case-by-case basis. He cited the aggressive annexation policies of Olathe and Overland Park as potential hazards.
“Not every city is correct in the way they do their annexation,” Grant said. “If it keeps jumping and jumping and jumping, and becomes a race in terms of who gets to annex what, it’s not living up to what it should be.
“The whole thing is just a tough situation,” Grant said.
Marshall said the bill would seriously hamper local cities trying to annex out to the future bypass.
“Under this bill, the city would probably not have been able to annex any land from Pittsburg out to the new 69 Highway,” Marshall said. “It could make it very difficult for cities to annex in those types of situations.
“I’m sure that we’ll see a bill like that again next year,” Marshall said.
