KSHB 41 reporter Ryan Gamboa covers Miami County in Kansas and Cass County in Missouri. He also covers agricultural topics. Neighbors near the new Powell Observatory location reached out to Ryan to share their concerns with the project. The Astronomical Society of Kansas City also invited Ryan out to visit the Observatory earlier this month. If you have a concern or story to share in Miami County, Kansas, reach out. Share your story idea with Ryan.
—
In a 4-1 vote on Wednesday, the Miami County Commission voted to approve a Conditional Use Permit to move the Powell Observatory, operated by the Astronomical Society of Kansas City, to 359th Street and Coldwater Springs Road south of Louisburg.
KSHB 41 first shared the concerns of neighbors near the future home of the Powell Observatory earlier this month.
"This really is the first development pressure we’ve had with it from Johnson County," Jeff Axmann told KSHB 41 on May 9 regarding his concerns near his home. "A lot of it comes down to safety. We have a really bad intersection up here, increased traffic, the fact that a lot of this happens at night and well into midnight and later."
Since 1985, the Astronomical Society of Kansas City has set up shop in Louisburg as a tourism partner.
"When we opened up in 1985, Louisburg was about 1,700 people," said Rick Henderson with the Astronomical Society of Kansas City in early May. "Louisburg is close to 6,000 now. Johnson County development is a lot closer than it was back in those days."
The Powell Observatory is operated by volunteers, and the ASKC is a nonprofit organization.
The Gary C. Ruisinger Telescope was also built by volunteers, and can take in 11,000 times the light of the naked eye.
That powerful telescope and the club are facing challenges regarding light pollution in Louisburg and development up north in Johnson County.
The ASKC owns a plot of land at 359th Street and Cold Water Springs Road and submitted an application in early spring to develop the land as a new home for the Powell Observatory.
Axmann and his neighbors submitted a valid protest petition with about 85% of the needed signatures from neighbors to require a super-majority vote. Four out of five commissioners approved the application.
At the April 29 meeting, Henderson pleaded his case to the Board of County Commissioners.
The commission voted 3-2 not to approve the Powell Observatory's Conditional Use Permit. Still, there was no official recommendation to approve, deny, or send the application back to the Planning Commission.
It was a win for Axmann and his neighbors.
A week later, at the May 6 meeting, the commission went into a closed Executive Session for about 25 minutes.
When they returned, District 2 Commissioner Paul Scruggs made a motion to reconsider the vote.
"After I made that vote, I made a couple of mistakes," Scruggs said on Wednesday. "I didn't research the subject, I didn't visit the property. I didn't see all the dynamics I used to vote in the first place."
At the previous meeting, Scruggs had concerns with the rural character of the area, including traffic issues, and also this project not aligning with the Comprehensive Plan.
The Commission passed the motion to reconsider.
Scruggs read a prepared statement as he motioned to reconsider his vote on Wednesday.
During an interview on May 9 with Axmann, he expressed concerns about his home, but more so about the Commission voting one way, and then one person changing their mind to flip that vote.
"I'd like to know what changed people's minds," Axmann said. "How does anybody think it's right? Seven days later, you can just change your vote. I cannot for the life of me trust our legislative body if this can happen."
Axmann spoke during public comment at the May 13 meeting, and he shared his remarks with KSHB 41 Miami County Reporter Ryan Gamboa.
"Tax-paying residents don’t have the ability to have a do-over. I will be very disappointed if the Commission follows through with this 'Motion to Reconsider,'" Axmann stated, in part. "The Board is the elected legislative body for our county. The Planning Commission is appointed, not elected. The Board has the last word on all matters before the county, and to claim that you didn’t respect the vote of the PC is the most disrespectful thing that I have heard. That is your job, to be the REPRESENTATIVE of the residents of your district and the county."
Axmann provided a statement to Gamboa after news of Wednesday's vote broke.
I am disappointed by today’s 4-1 vote by the Miami County Board of County Commissioners approving 2026-CUP-001. This outcome reverses the Board’s April 29th failure to approve the same application.
While I respect the Board’s ultimate authority, I continue to believe the process used was unclear and procedurally flawed. I stand by the concerns I raised in my public comments on May 13th.
I strongly encourage all citizens to remain engaged in local government. Attend meetings, ask questions of your elected officials, hold them accountable, and make your voice heard. If you are unhappy with how decisions are being made, get involved—talk to your commissioners, vote, and consider running for office.
Despite our disagreements, we live in the greatest country in the world. Even when the process feels frustrating or unfair, we can disagree strongly while remaining good neighbors and friends.
Those frustrations resonated with Commissioner Scruggs in the May 13 meeting and addressed resident concerns with the ethics and process of the re-vote.
"If I were in your shoes, I would have those same issues too, but I have to make decisions that are best for the county," Scruggs responded on May 13.
The Astronomical Society of Kansas City has been a partner and destination for stargazers from surrounding counties.
"Miami County and Louisburg have been good to us. We’ve been here for 41 years," Henderson added on May 9. "We want to stay in Miami County."
KSHB 41 News Miami County Reporter reached out to the ASKC for comment but hasn't heard back as of the time this story was published.
Miami County, Kansas, issued a statement to KSHB 41 in early May regarding the legal process.
Miami County has received some resident concerns over actions taken by the Board of County Commissioners at its May 6, 2026 meeting to reconsider an April 29, 2026 vote on the conditional use permit application from the Astronomical Society of Kansas City, Inc. to construct an observatory at 359th Street and Coldwater Springs Road. The concerns expressed center on reopening a vote previously taken and the application of Robert’s Rules of Order. Robert’s Rules of Order governs the reconsideration of matters that have been finally decided. The same-session requirement exists to prevent a board from reopening and relitigating questions it has already conclusively resolved. That situation is simply not present here. At the original meeting, the Board voted 3-2 in favor of adopting the planning commission’s recommendation to approve the conditional use permit. That vote, however, failed to achieve the 3/4 supermajority required by both the County Zoning Regulations and K.S.A. 12-757(d) due to the filing of a valid protest petition. No further action was taken. The Board did not vote to deny the application, did not vote to override the planning commission’s recommendation and did not return the matter to the planning commission with a statement of reasons. The Board adjourned without having completed any of the three statutorily prescribed acts available to it.
Under the County’s Zoning Regulations and K.S.A. 12-757(d), the Board’s authority over a conditional use permit application is not discharged by an attempt to act. It is discharged only by completing one of three specific statutory options. Because the Board completed none of them, the application remained an open and unresolved matter of business before the Board when it convened at its subsequent meeting. The Board was not voting to reconsider a final decision because there was no final decision to reconsider. It was instead addressing a matter that had never left its docket. The subsequent motion was simply a continuation of the Board’s ongoing statutory obligation to act on a pending application, not a parliamentary reconsideration of a concluded proceeding. Robert’s Rules’ same-session requirement for motions to reconsider is therefore inapplicable because the procedural posture never called for a motion to reconsider in the first place.
This interpretation is firmly grounded in the law governing the exhaustion of a public body’s decisional authority. The exhaustion doctrine holds that a board’s power over a matter is spent only upon a complete and final exercise of that authority, not upon an incomplete attempt that falls short of the legal threshold required for valid action. Dal Maso v. Board of County Comm’rs of Prince George’s County, 182 Md. 200 (1943); see also 37 Am. Jur. § 150; 62 C.J.S. Municipal Corporations § 294. Where a board has yet to render a legally sufficient final decision, it retains jurisdiction to do so. State ex rel. Hunzicker v. Pulliam, 168 Okla. 632 (1934). A vote that fails to meet a jurisdictional voting threshold, like the supermajority required by operation of a valid protest petition, is legally insufficient to constitute final action in any direction. The Board neither approved nor denied this application. It attempted to approve, fell short of the required threshold and adjourned with its statutory duty unfulfilled. The Board’s decision at the subsequent meeting to re-notice the matter and formally schedule reconsideration of the issue was the Board fulfilling its legal obligation to render a decision it had yet to make.
The Astronomical Society of Kansas City has hundreds of members and holds stargazing events on weekends, where upwards of 150 people can attend.
The ASKC intends to operate its telescope at the new location, which will provide greater classroom and gathering space, including an outdoor amphitheater for astronomical demonstrations.
The club told KSHB 41 it prioritizes quiet events and respectful crowds.
—
