Dissolving the longstanding city-county planning partnership may be a useful threat to get the attention of city officials, but it would be very poor policy for Douglas County and its residents.

Douglas County commissioners, frustrated by the city dragging its feet in approving a new set of rural growth regulations, threatened last week to dissolve the planning partnership so they could implement the new regulations without city approval. After an 18-month moratorium on issuing building permits for properties smaller than 10 acres, county commissioners have a right to be impatient, but both city and county officials need to find a way to resolve their differences without ending their planning partnership.

Mayor Mike Amyx wants talk of dissolving the planning agreement to stop. To that end, he plans to lead a delegation of city and planning officials to a meeting with county commissioners today in an effort to work out remaining differences in the regulations.

The new regulations would do away with the so-called “five-acre exemption,” which has allowed anyone to develop a plot of five acres or more without going through the planning process. It would replace that exemption with a process that allows people to get building permits without approval from the County Commission or the Lawrence-Douglas County Planning Commission if they have at least 10 acres and meet other requirements for road frontage and accommodations for future annexation by the city. The regulations also prohibit large, densely populated residential subdivisions outside the city.

These are good measures for both the city and the county. They control residential development in rural areas without placing an undue burden on individual property owners and they will make it easier for city streets, utilities and other services to be extended if and when areas of the county are annexed.

The hitch seems to be that at least some city commissioners believe the new regulations need to be more specific. Certainly, the regulations should be specific enough to allow vigorous and even-handed enforcement. But, as county officials are pointing out, 18 months seems like long enough for these issues to be resolved so that the regulations can go into effect and residents can move ahead with building projects.

It is hoped county commissioners were just trying to get the city’s attention and weren’t seriously considering dissolving the joint planning agreement. They, as well as city commissioners, surely understand the importance of coordinating development in the county with anticipated growth by the city. It serves no one to dissolve that tie.

That being said, however, it’s time for city commissioners to step up to this task and work with the county to hammer out the details of a plan that should improve the development process in the county as well as save the city considerable money when it’s time to expand its infrastructure into newly annexed areas.