Talk of scrapping growth areas surprises some

News

Written by Robin Hixson

Tuesday, 09 December 2008 13:37

A Dec. 2 Miami County Planning Commission recommendation that the Miami County Commission consider dissolving its interlocal agreements with Paola, Spring Hill and Osawatomie caught some officials by surprise.

Planning Commission Chairman Hannes Poetter said the authority given to those cities over zoning, subdivision and building codes in the growth areas around them has caused confusion and frustration among some residents.

“There is a lot of confusion as to who is in charge and where to go to when it comes to the growth areas,” Poetter said Friday. “It seems to have created a situation where the growth areas are not very well taken care of.”

Paola Mayor Artie Stuteville said the county planning commission’s recommendation took her by surprise.

“We weren’t aware that the county had issues with our agreement,” she said. “So, we’ll have to get together with them and work it out.”

Osawatomie Mayor Philip Dudley said he believes that city’s agreement with the county has worked well and that the working relationship has been good.

“I imagine I’ll be getting together with our city manager, and we’ll put our position together and then present it at a public meeting.”

Before doing so, however, Dudley said he wants to have a better understanding of the issues involved, so he has been conducting research and calling people to learn more.
“I haven’t made up my mind yet,” he said. “I’m a person who wants to get all the facts first.”

Spring Hill Mayor Mark Squire said he believes the interlocal agreement has worked well for managing land use.

“It’s good from a long term planning perspective,” he said, adding that it gives the city of Spring Hill input in the areas that are likely to be taken into the city in the future.

Louisburg Mayor Arlen Thompson said city officials there opted out of that city’s agreement two years ago because there were people in the growth area who were upset about being under authority of a city government for whom they could not vote.

“We thought it was more trouble than it was worth,” he said.

Poetter said some people in the three current growth areas feel the same way.

In addition to the representation issue, he said there is confusion among growth area residents because they have to go to the cities for some permits and to the county for others or for road improvements.

“So, until we have a clear picture who is responsible for what and what infrastructure is being put into place by who, it would be better if this would be under one governmental source,” Poetter said. “That’s my personal opinion, but I might be mistaken. I’m just one of the voices, you know.”

One of Poetter’s biggest concerns, he said, is he believes the current system creates a stumbling block for economic development.

“We desperately need to broaden our tax base,” he said. “We need people to move in and open retail businesses and create jobs. Right now, we are throwing obstacles in their way.”

To help solve that problem, Poetter suggests consistency of building codes and zoning regulations among the cities and the county.

“We’re making it very hard for people to come here and invest money,” Poetter said.

Asked about the representation issue, Squire said although growth area residents cannot vote in city elections, each city does have two representatives from its growth area on its city planning commission.

Set as favorite

Bookmark

Email This

Trackback(0)

TrackBack URI for this entry