Aubry Township's response to JOCO Commission
Aubry Township Board
400 Park Street
Stilwell, KS 66085
To: Richard J. Lind Deputy County Counselor
111 South Cherry Street, Suite 3200
Olathe, Kansas 66061-3486
From: Darrel E. Dougan, Aubry Township Trustee
RE: Response to your attached request
11-14-2007
Per your attached request I will offer the following response.
1. please discuss to what extent, if any, you believe the proposed Overland Park annexation may positively and/or negatively affect your township.
Although the City of Overland Park has done a fine job developing their area in the plan they have set fourth for themselves it is not typical of the type and scope of development envisioned by residents and developers in Aubry Township. We do have a vision for development and growth in our area. Our plan allows more open and less dense growth. The main concern for this areas residential growth is planning for affordable housing. The method of developing on a less dense basis does not require the same type of infrastructure requirements as demonstrated by the cities development pattern. Our plan does not put four families on an acre but usually just 1 family on 2 acres. Simple math shows our plan does not require 4 lane roadways, street lights, sewer expansion to name a few. The area can and is served by 1 Johnson County Sheriffs Deputy and a fire department who has a National Rating equal to that of the City of Overland Park. The area is served by Water One of Johnson County, an organization recognized nationally for their successes. Our plan would allow for small commercial development on a planned basis that would afford local residents the opportunity to own these businesses. Neighborhood businesses are not a thing of the past. The only neighborhood businesses left in Overland Parkare those that were established in the 60’s & 70’s when the city was in its infancy. Until 1960 that area was a string of subdivisions that were served by neighborhood businesses with very few major corporate entities. Their plan has grown to accommodating primarily corporate commercial development and maximum density for residential development. This is prompted by the economics of it all. I am uncertain that was the original intent of the founders of that city. Stanley, Morse, Kenneth communities have all been in the path of that type of growth and now share in the congestion. The towns of Aubry and Stilwell do not want to see that same process applied to our lifestyle. Although many have made this area their home for over a hundred years many of our patrons moved to this area from that or other areas to escape that type of lifestyle. I am not sure that the Counties Master Plan has kept pace with the intent of residents here in Aubry Township. Planning is good but should be a reflection of the people it affects. Developers are not guaranteed a profit by planning actions and never should be. Investors and developers should not direct the development process and should understand their actions are speculative and have risk. Cities much smaller in financial or revenue measurement than the City of Overland Park have existed to the benefit of their patrons all over the United States. This action would destroy a way of life established in Southeast Johnson County that has been existent for over 100 years before the City of Overland Park. Many Cities in the northeast corner of Johnson County have maintained an existence (though boundary locked) without being a financial detriment to their patrons.
No where in the Johnson County Charter or Statutes do I find a requirement that the City of Overland Park is the only entity that should reflect the vision for development and growth for the county. As stated in the public hearing on the annexation “The City of Overland Parks land mass is greater than the City of Saint Louis MO.” How does this speak to the land use planning? The City of Saint Louis has over 350,000 residents. The City of Overland Park has approx. 160,000 residents. Again I ask the question how this speaks to land use planning.
The one area of this issue that is hard for outsiders to understand is we like it here. I guess you just might have to live here to understand that premise.
2. Please discuss what effects, if any, may occur to the provision of township provided services for the remaining areas/citizens that would remain in Aubry Township should the proposed annexation be granted.
The actual financial data has not been completed but I can paint you a picture of what we are up against.
The Aubry Township provides funding for a school crossing guard at Stilwell Elementary at an expense equal to over 50% of our annual budget. Neither the County nor the Blue Valley School district participates in this program and the burden is on the taxpayers of Aubry Township. We think it is an important program for the safety of our children. Over the past 6 years we have also focused on installing civil defense warning sirens throughout the township at about 1 every 18 months. We started with one at the Fire Station on Metcalf and have added 4 additional focusing on population and logistics so as to form a grid that is continuous coverage. We have also contributed to minimal recreation funding for the township through the Stilwell Community Organization.
This loss of revenue, estimated to be about 35% at current mill levy, would certainly require that we discontinue some of these items while our mill levy is adjusted. We do not maintain a reserve fund because we do not feel that is legal or ethical. Our ability to increase our mill levy is capped by statute and would take a number of years to adjust it upwardly to maintain or continue these services. (Currently 0.167 mills) That coupled with the possible tax increases to patrons to maintain fire protection would require us to make certain our patrons would be willing to support any increases.
About 10 years ago Johnson County Parks dept. with help from local elected officials located a 50+ acre tract of land for a future park. They purchased that property and over the past few years many concepts for its use were bounced around. Funding & management were always the issue. Over the past 6 months with help from community leaders, elected officials, Johnson County Parks officials & Stilwell Community Organization a plan nears completion. That plan was expected to be presented to zoning officials over next 120 days. Although its management seems to be worked out the funding is still an issue. The project would be completed in phases using available revenue, fund raising, donations and projected revenue participation by the Township. This loss of revenue would also cause us to redirect our thoughts to expenditures.
While the townships assessed evaluation has doubled over the past 6 years we have reduced the mill levy to reflect our position as being good stewards of Taxpayers money. It is our opinion as patrons and taxpayers in Aubry Township that the property tax revenue generated in our township goes a long way to fund services provided to our patrons.
This financial impact is not only felt by the Township, it will be equally felt by the county due to the necessity (I assume) to reduce staff and services for the loss of area to the county. At least the formation of another city in the county that was willing to contract with the county for services would have minimal financial impact on the county. In fact some areas of the county staff would possibly need increased (for a fee) to help the process along. Let’s take a look at the Unified Government of Wyandotte County before we say that dog won’t hunt.
I appreciate the opportunity to give my views on this issue and strongly disagree with this action. We are a strong community and are willing to pay our own way to maintain a lifestyle that has been in existence for over 150 years. We do not want the type of growth and development demonstrated by the City of Overland Park. We have green space in our area designated for parks as well as privately owned areas designated for conservation. We have developments that are wide open with green space. Some folks have dogs, cats and livestock (don’t require a tag). Much of our area is home to farmers that still derive a living from the land. Residents still build an outbuilding to house their livestock or equipment. We park our boats, trailers & dad’s old pickup next to the shed. We do not have street lights glaring in our windows and discourage any obtrusive lighting in new commercial development. Our buildings are not all Johnson County beige. When we are stopped by the Johnson County Sheriff you might here him repeat a statement coined by Fred Allenbrand “Just slow down, the county doesn’t need the revenue we just want you to be safe.” “I’m just going to give you a warning.” We don’t have big box stores or plans to build them. All those conveniences are just 15 minutes away in one of our neighboring cities. Our dogs aren’t on a leash and we don’t have to go to a pound to pick him up if he gets out. A neighbor will call you and bring him home. Nobody gets a citation for not mowing their yard because their mower broke. In fact the neighbors will probably come help. When a cow gets out the Sheriff will help you get it back in. On the fourth of July we close our main roads and have a parade and then gather at dusk to watch the fireworks. We gather at Zoning Board meetings and watch the fireworks and then by each other a cup of coffee the next morning at the local service station. We go out the next morning after a snow storm and put up our mailboxes that were knocked over by the snow plow if possible. If not the Johnson County Public Works will have it done by the time I get home from work tonight. I can get to work because they plowed the road!
I guess you just have to live here to understand the premise.
Respectfully Submitted
Darrel E. Dougan
Aubry Township Trustee