Site search
sponsored by
sponsored by
48°F 
Thursday November 20th
Thursday November 20th 
| Welcome, Guest |
|
| LOGIN | Become a Member | What's This? |
Please enter the following information:
| Email or Screen Name: | |
| Password: | |
| Remember Me | |
|
Forgot Password?
Become a Member |
Close Window |
Jobs
Classifieds
MYRTLE CREEK — After nearly two hours of deliberation, the Myrtle Creek City Council voted Tuesday against annexing “island” properties into the city — parcels surrounded by city property but not officially part of Myrtle Creek.
The decision followed a May 2007 request from the council for a report showing island properties within city limits. The council had a variety of reasons for looking at annexing the 18 properties, ranging from the provision of basic urban services to collecting city taxes.
Property owners resisted the move after learning what it would cost them to connect to city water and sewer systems.
After objections from property owners at last month’s City Council meeting, the council voted to have financial impact reports prepared for individual property owners. The report specified what it would cost owners to officially become a part of Myrtle Creek and included water and sewer connection, system development charges and city taxes, the latter estimated at $6.50 per $100,000 of assessed value.
Property owners learned annexation could potentially cost them up to $24,000.
“Most of us don’t know how we would come up with $15,000 to $20,000,” said property owner Louella Ingram, adding, “the extra taxes you get from us will not make or break Myrtle Creek.”
Ingram said living expenses such as the rising price of gas, food and electricity have eaten away at her and her husband’s savings.
Other property owners said using the city’s facilities without paying taxes is a poor argument for forced annexation and that they would not be able to afford the connection services.
Jim Graf spoke on behalf of his mother, whose property presently has no city services. If annexed into the city, the property would be on the high end of the estimated totals for service connections.
“Each individual needs to have a say in what goes — you vote and I vote. That’s the way democracy goes,” he said.
In a three-to-two vote, the majority of City Council members conceded.
“If they don’t want to be annexed, then they don’t need to be annexed,” said City Councilor Jeff Wheaton, who seconded a motion by Councilor Allan Kusler to “forget about island annexation.”
“I’m against it,” Wheaton said. “I don’t think we should push it down their throats.”
City Councilor Ken Brouillard, who voted against the motion to drop the annexation issue, had suggested a compromise.
“I would be hard-pressed to come up with $25,000,” he said before reading his proposal.
Currently, city ordinance allows for a property in the city to have a well and does not require a connection to city water. However, property owners are not permitted to have a septic system, and any property owner annexed into the city would have to connect to the city sewer system.
Brouillard proposed that pre-existing septic systems be allowed to remain in place unless the property is sold, a permit is requested for major improvements to structures, or the title to the property is transferred. The change to existing city ordinance would only pertain to island annexations.
Despite the proposed solution, property owners still said “no” to forced annexation, and the City Council agreed.
• You can reach reporter Cara Pallone at 957-4208 or by e-mail at cpallone@newsreview.info.
The decision followed a May 2007 request from the council for a report showing island properties within city limits. The council had a variety of reasons for looking at annexing the 18 properties, ranging from the provision of basic urban services to collecting city taxes.
Property owners resisted the move after learning what it would cost them to connect to city water and sewer systems.
After objections from property owners at last month’s City Council meeting, the council voted to have financial impact reports prepared for individual property owners. The report specified what it would cost owners to officially become a part of Myrtle Creek and included water and sewer connection, system development charges and city taxes, the latter estimated at $6.50 per $100,000 of assessed value.
Property owners learned annexation could potentially cost them up to $24,000.
“Most of us don’t know how we would come up with $15,000 to $20,000,” said property owner Louella Ingram, adding, “the extra taxes you get from us will not make or break Myrtle Creek.”
Ingram said living expenses such as the rising price of gas, food and electricity have eaten away at her and her husband’s savings.
Other property owners said using the city’s facilities without paying taxes is a poor argument for forced annexation and that they would not be able to afford the connection services.
Jim Graf spoke on behalf of his mother, whose property presently has no city services. If annexed into the city, the property would be on the high end of the estimated totals for service connections.
“Each individual needs to have a say in what goes — you vote and I vote. That’s the way democracy goes,” he said.
In a three-to-two vote, the majority of City Council members conceded.
“If they don’t want to be annexed, then they don’t need to be annexed,” said City Councilor Jeff Wheaton, who seconded a motion by Councilor Allan Kusler to “forget about island annexation.”
“I’m against it,” Wheaton said. “I don’t think we should push it down their throats.”
City Councilor Ken Brouillard, who voted against the motion to drop the annexation issue, had suggested a compromise.
“I would be hard-pressed to come up with $25,000,” he said before reading his proposal.
Currently, city ordinance allows for a property in the city to have a well and does not require a connection to city water. However, property owners are not permitted to have a septic system, and any property owner annexed into the city would have to connect to the city sewer system.
Brouillard proposed that pre-existing septic systems be allowed to remain in place unless the property is sold, a permit is requested for major improvements to structures, or the title to the property is transferred. The change to existing city ordinance would only pertain to island annexations.
Despite the proposed solution, property owners still said “no” to forced annexation, and the City Council agreed.
• You can reach reporter Cara Pallone at 957-4208 or by e-mail at cpallone@newsreview.info.
Other Top Items
|
Related Articles
|
Most Recommended Articles
|
Comments
You must be logged in to leave a comment.
