Caelin Bragg
Advertising & Distribution Manager
Following a veto by Andover Mayor Ben Lawrence, Andover City Council asked the Andover Planning Commission to further review Butler’s Andover project.
Lawrence vetoed Ordinance 1679, the ordinance that would allow Butler to expand its 5000 building to house the classrooms and facilities they are losing in the 6000 building, on Tuesday, Sept. 18. The Andover City Council deliberated over the ordinance and the mayor’s veto and made their decision to send the ordinance back for continued review at their public hearing in the Andover City Hall on Tuesday, Sept. 25.
“While this previous special use case is not specifically germane in the approval of SU-2018-02 [the expansion of the 5000 building currently being debated], I believe the continued violation of the conditions reveals the content and character of the college attitude to do what they want, when they want and tax what they want, regardless of community opinion and as our Ordinance dictates,” Lawrence said in a statement published in the Butler County Times-Gazette. “I would not expect anything different in this case, should my veto be over-ridden or modified with any additional conditions.”
According to Lawrence, Butler has not followed all the conditions established in Ordinance 1276, the original ordinance that was passed on August 18, 2005 allowing Butler to lease the 5000 building. The conditions he lists that Butler has not fulfilled include the college agreeing to sell its 9100 building, providing the council with five and 10-year plans and hosting more athletic events in Andover. Lawrence also vetoed Ordinance 1276 when it was introduced, but the council at the time overruled his veto and added the previous conditions to the ordinance.
Before the council began deliberations, members of the public at the meeting were allowed to make comments relating to the ordinance about to be discussed. Many faculty members of Butler spoke at the podium voicing support for the college.
“We have appreciated [the] partnership with the [Andover] school district and have also appreciated the partnership with the city and we know, as you do, that education changes lives, and we’re an integral partner in making that happen,” Butler President Kim Krull said at the hearing. “I know you folks have had four to five days to review the mayor’s comments and his concerns and I know you’ve also only had part of today to review ours, and so we want to make sure that you have an opportunity to gather the most information that you can. That you are able to make informed decisions so that we can find some resolution to move forward together and create really a win-win partnership in this.”
One of the major factors that led to the mayor’s veto of Ordinance 1679 was similar to Kansas’ 77th District Representative Kristey Williams’ “fair funding initiative” to reduce the amount of taxes Butler is receiving from Butler County citizens due to them teaching majority Sedgwick County students. Andover City Council Member Clark Nelson said at the hearing that Butler would likely not be facing the pushback for its Andover project if the discrepancy in enrollment numbers did not exist.
Andover City Council Member Greg Schneider was the only member of the council to vote against the motion to hand the ordinance back to the Andover Planning Commission. The commission’s next meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, Oct. 16 and they will re-review the ordinance per the council’s request.