Join our Mailing List!
Please click the link below to sign up for your community paper mailing list. Stay up to date with all the events going on in your community as well as the latest news.Sign Up Today!
This Land Is Our Land
Residents Continue To Oppose City’s Annexation Plan
By Brian McCauley, bmccauley@miconews.com
A group of residents once again packed Memorial Hall last week during the Osawatomie City Council meeting to express their disapproval of the city’s proposed plan to annex land near Osawatomie State Hospital.
City officials first proposed in January the annexation of 99.3 acres of land located south of Kansas Highway 279, east of Osawatomie Road, north of Eastgate Shopping Center and west of U.S. Highway 169.
Many of the same residents who flocked to a public hearing on the issue in April came back to the council meeting Thursday to reiterate their points.
The charge against the annexation was led by Virginia Adams, who spoke on behalf of many of her neighbors who submitted a written statement to the council. Adams said all the residents are against the annexation, and they certainly are against being annexed without any additional benefits to offset the added tax dollars.
Her suggestions of the city included providing payment for pumping stations and hookup of septic systems, using a 10-year phased approach to increasing taxes, retaining landowner rights to hunt with firearms and have livestock, and assurances that current homes will not have to be brought up to city codes and meet setback requirements.
City Manager Bret Glendening said none of the requests are out of the question, and all of the council members said they wanted to work with the residents. Still, tension was high throughout the meeting, as neither side could reach an agreement.
Jim Katzer, who said he owns 32 acres on the north side of the Marais des Cygnes River, and Mark Goddard, who said he owns more than 21 acres behind Landmark Hotel and north toward the river, both said they meet the requirements to be able to deny annexation to their agricultural land.
Glendening disagreed, saying their land was broken down into tracts, and it is debatable whether they meet requirements to be considered agricultural use.
After the heated debate, the council members present took an unofficial poll, and all said they’d likely vote to annex as long as the city continued to work with the residents. Councilwoman Cheryl McGee was not at the meeting.
“I think things will remain very much the way they are,” councilwoman Karen LaDuex said.
Mayor Phil Dudley said the issue will be discussed at one more meeting, where there will be more of a discussion between the council and the residents, before the council will vote on the annexation.
“This council does care what folks feel about the issue,” Dudley said. “We have to make a decision based on what’s best for the entire city. It’s a tough decision, but we’ve made tough decisions.”
printable version
e-mail this story
City officials first proposed in January the annexation of 99.3 acres of land located south of Kansas Highway 279, east of Osawatomie Road, north of Eastgate Shopping Center and west of U.S. Highway 169.
Many of the same residents who flocked to a public hearing on the issue in April came back to the council meeting Thursday to reiterate their points.
The charge against the annexation was led by Virginia Adams, who spoke on behalf of many of her neighbors who submitted a written statement to the council. Adams said all the residents are against the annexation, and they certainly are against being annexed without any additional benefits to offset the added tax dollars.
Her suggestions of the city included providing payment for pumping stations and hookup of septic systems, using a 10-year phased approach to increasing taxes, retaining landowner rights to hunt with firearms and have livestock, and assurances that current homes will not have to be brought up to city codes and meet setback requirements.
City Manager Bret Glendening said none of the requests are out of the question, and all of the council members said they wanted to work with the residents. Still, tension was high throughout the meeting, as neither side could reach an agreement.
Jim Katzer, who said he owns 32 acres on the north side of the Marais des Cygnes River, and Mark Goddard, who said he owns more than 21 acres behind Landmark Hotel and north toward the river, both said they meet the requirements to be able to deny annexation to their agricultural land.
Glendening disagreed, saying their land was broken down into tracts, and it is debatable whether they meet requirements to be considered agricultural use.
After the heated debate, the council members present took an unofficial poll, and all said they’d likely vote to annex as long as the city continued to work with the residents. Councilwoman Cheryl McGee was not at the meeting.
“I think things will remain very much the way they are,” councilwoman Karen LaDuex said.
Mayor Phil Dudley said the issue will be discussed at one more meeting, where there will be more of a discussion between the council and the residents, before the council will vote on the annexation.
“This council does care what folks feel about the issue,” Dudley said. “We have to make a decision based on what’s best for the entire city. It’s a tough decision, but we’ve made tough decisions.”
Comments on "This Land Is Our Land"
Comments are limited to 200 words or less.Huh wrote on May 19, 2008 4:34 PM:
" What is "GROWETH"??? "
for city groweth wrote on May 15, 2008 6:48 PM:
" Why doesn't the city annex everyone in the city's groweth area? This way the City could be the biggest city in the County and the City would have a lot more tax revenue. The City would could still give the same reasons for annexation as they are currently giving. "