House Status:
Senate Status:
Senate Status:
Minutes for HB2580 - Committee on Local Government
Short Title
City unilateral annexation powers eliminated unless property owners consent to annexation.
Minutes Content for Wed, Feb 12, 2020
The Chair opened the hearing on HB2580.
Mr. Heim outlined the focus of the bill. He explained that current law allows a city to unilaterally annex land adjoining a city's boundaries if certain conditions exist. He noted that the concept of the bill has been presented in various forms over the years.
Jim Seeman, a citizen of Basehor, testified as a proponent for the bill (Attachment 5). He stated that the present statutes give too much power to a city; the bill would allow county residents a stronger voice in annexation decisions by the city commissioners and more protection for county property owners. He recounted his efforts to protect rural areas from encroachments by the city.
Mr. Seeman responded to members' questions:
- My home has been rural for decades and I have long-time roots and emotional ties to the area.
- It is not fair for a handful of individuals to impose their will on the majority.
- There is no joint city/county agreement. Attempts to modify the comprehensive plan have been fruitless. The present city commission did not allow opponents of the present plan an opportunity to address their concerns.
- Currently there are 1100 property owners in the county with 3000 individuals denied any opportunity to vote on annexation or permit issues.
Mr. Heim noted that the immediate issue is the city allowing building permits in the county, but a longer term issue includes annexation. A member commented that in her experience the closer a farm is to the city, the more likely the farmer is eager to sell the land to a developer and is more willing to welcome building permits; the farther a farm is from the city, the less likely the farmer is interested in selling.
Basehor citizen Diane Strick presented written testimony supporting the bill (Attachment 6) and also provided a list of citizens who support the bill (Attachment 7). Basehor citizen David Steeby also offered written testimony as a proponent (Attachment 8).
Amanda Stanley returned to speak in opposition to the bill (Attachment 9). She stated that, by eliminating a city's power of unilateral annexation, the broad limitations of the bill will lead to far-reaching consequences: allowing an individual to receive all the services of a city without paying for them, complicating law-enforcement and fire protection services, and permitting individuals to ignore courtesy regulations regarding noise abatement, animal control, or fireworks. She cited sixteen separate factors that a city must consider before proceeding with annexation. She concluded by saying that annexation provides an orderly way for a city to expand in a county.
Regarding a community that is shrinking rather than growing, Ms. Stanley noted that most communities work out issues locally, but she will provide additional information for members regarding diminishing communities. Responding to another question, she replied that annexation/building-permit issues vary so much from one locale to another that a state-wide solution is not feasible.
Thomas Brown, Mayor, City of McPherson, testified as an opponent of the bill (Attachment 10). He stated that the annexation process has been in place for nearly a century and has served its purpose well. He referenced the safeguards currently in place before annexation can occur, and he recounted his city's positive experiences working with the county government, with local industries located outside the city, and with a 14-county collaborative effort.
Daniel Yoza, Assistant City Attorney for the City of Olathe, spoke as an opponent (Attachment 11). He noted that current statutes give parameters and directives to guide the annexation process, without which an uneven pattern of service delivery occurs. He commented that the bill repeals four conditions that guide a city, leaving a city with "enclaves," a patchwork that results in inconsistent growth and gaps in city services.
Whitney Damron, representing the City of Topeka, offered testimony in opposition to the bill (Attachment 12). He commented that the bill eliminates the use of unilateral annexation by a city, thus removing longstanding statutes allowing for orderly growth of cities in Kansas. He reported that conflicts between city residents and rural residents have resulted in significant debate through the years, but that the present statutes are a helpful response to such conflicts and are working as intended. He observed that most issues should be settled locally rather than at the state level.
The following written-only testimonies were submitted in opposition to the bill:
- The Cities of Dodge City, Garden City, and Liberal (Attachment 13);
- The City of Derby (Attachment 14);
- The City of Garden Plain (Attachment 15);
- The City of Garnett (Attachment 16);
- The City of Manhattan (Attachment 17);
- The Kansas Chapter of the American Planning Association (Attachment 18);
- The City of Ottawa (Attachment 19);
- The City of Overland Park (Attachment 20);
- The City of Valley Center (Attachment 21).
The Chair closed the hearing on HB2580.
The meeting was adjourned at 10:18 a.m. The next meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, February 19, 2020, at 9:00 a.m.
