Crawford County commissioners deny Mulberry annexation after public hearing

At a Crawford County Commission meeting in November 2025, commissioners voted to adopt Resolution 2025-032 denying the city of Mulberry’s petition to annex several parcels of land for a proposed solar project. County Counsel read the applicable Kansas statute and told the commission it had to find that annexation "will not hinder or prevent the proper growth and development of the area" before granting the request.

Why it matters: The annexation was tied to plans by developer Shasta and drew dozens of public comments. Supporters said the project could generate large near-term revenue for the county and the city; opponents disputed those estimates, sought written contracts and raised concerns about property values, stormwater, public safety and long-term tax effects.

Supporters at the hearing included landowner Rick Allenicki, who told commissioners the project "would generate up to $7,000,000 for the county the first year," and Pat Walden, introduced in the hearing as Mayor of Mulberry, who said Mulberry "wants this" and would "be good neighbors." Mulberry’s city attorney, Kevin Mitchellson, reiterated legal points about tax rolls and interlocal agreements, saying the land would be on city tax rolls "on day 1" and that only installed solar panels, if any, appeared eligible for a 10-year exemption under the law as he understood it.

Opponents emphasized uncertainty and lack of binding commitments from the developer. Judy Prance of Radley told the commission that Shasta executives "can make no promises" and urged the company to provide written documentation and a cash bond for removal if needed. Resident Anne Sanders said her primary concerns were potential loss of property value from an industrial solar array sited "50 feet" from homes and changes to stormwater drainage. Longtime resident Roger Omcheck argued the county should not "make a permanent decision based on promises that are not binding," questioned revenue and battery-investment figures cited by supporters, and repeatedly asked to see contracts in writing.

County Counsel summarized the statutory test (referred to in the hearing as "12-5-20 c") and noted that the county had a 30-day window, triggered by receipt of Mulberry’s certified annexation resolution, to make the required findings. After commissioners debated timing, services (fire and law enforcement), property values and the need for interlocal agreements, a commissioner moved to adopt Resolution 2025-032 to deny annexation; another commissioner seconded the motion and the Chair voiced "Aye." The motion carried and the board recessed for 10 minutes.

Mulberry representatives said they were disappointed by the outcome but thanked commissioners for conducting the process; City Attorney Kevin Mitchellson asked to be provided a copy of the county’s resolution.

What the record shows (and what it does not): The transcript records multiple contested claims about projected revenues (figures cited in public comments included $7,000,000 for the county in year one and Mulberry estimates of roughly $1.7–2,000,000 to the city) and about future taxable treatment of battery investments (figures cited up to $200,000,000). Those numbers were offered by commenters and city representatives during the hearing; the transcript shows no signed, binding contracts by the developer in the county record presented to the commission.

Next steps: Commissioners recessed and continued with routine business after the vote. The transcript does not record a full roll-call vote tally in the minutes published here; Resolution 2025-032 is identified in the record as the formal action denying the annexation and is available on request, per remarks by the Mulberry city attorney.