By Myrna Trauntvein
Times-News Correspondent
Barnes Bullets was removed from the proposed Mona
Annexation at their request.
The Water Tanks Annexation proposal was accepted by
the city and now will begin the legal process of required
noticing and public hearings before being accepted as
annexed property.
"The third time is the charm," said Patrick Painter,
who has been spear heading the annexation proposal at the
request of the mayor and council. "Barnes Bullets is not
in&emdash;not one speck, not one inch&emdash;and they will
not sign the annexation petition."
Mayor Bryce Lynn said it came as a surprise that
Barnes did not want to be included because they had earlier
indicated they were willing.
In fact, said Lynn, at a meeting held at Mickelson's
Cafe with former county commission chairman Neil Cook,
commissioner Robert Steele, economic development director
Glenn Greenhalgh, representatives of Mona City council and
owners of Barnes Bullets, those owners had indicated they
wanted to be included in an annexation.
He said that Barnes Bullets had actually instigated
the meeting and had invited council members to another
meeting at their current facility.
Then they suddenly did not want to be included.
"All it would have taken was one phone call," said
Lynn. "Pat (Painter) has put out thousands of dollars of his
own money on this."
Rory Nielson said that the council was surprised to
read the objections in the newspaper.
Nevertheless, Painter said, property belonging to
Barnes Bullets will no longer be included in the
annexation.
He said, quoting Utah State Code 10-1-104, that the
city does not need to worry about Barnes Bullets property
creating a peninsula.
"A 'Peninsula,' when used to describe an
unincorporated area, means an area surrounded on more than
1/2 of its boundary distance, but not completely, by
incorporated territory and situated so that the length of a
line drawn across the unincorporated area from an
incorporated area to an incorporated area on the opposite
side shall be less than 25 percent of the total aggregate
boundaries of the unincorporated area," reads that
section.
Juab County Commissioner LuWayne Walker said
commissioners understood that the change in attitude towards
the annexation came about because of a government contract
that Barnes Bullets had won.
Barnes needed to have the property open so that they
could provide the needed acreage around the manufacturing
plant, he said. Residences cannot be built close to the land
where the bullets are tested, even though that testing is
done underground.
"On base, before testing can be done, a 30-day notice
has to be given because of nearby property owners," said
Walker.
The new annexation will be 562.95 acres rather than
the 657.19 in the application presented two weeks ago.
That annexation application was not acted upon.
Randy Brooks, owner and operator of Barnes Bullets
since 1974, would not agree to allow the property in line
with the water tank to be annexed. The mayor some council
members wanted five-acres of land belonging to Barnes to be
included in the annexation because it gave the city a
straight shot at the city water tanks.
The five-acres proposition was presented to Brooks but
was declined.
Property east of the freeway to the water tanks, north
of Cemetery Lane, will be part of the annexation. That
property excluding Barnes Bullets, belongs to Patrick and
Tonya Painter, Gordon and Rhonda Jarrett, Utah Power &
Light Co. and Mona Irrigation Company.
However, the largest number of acres being annexed
which belongs to approximately 27 landowners, is located
south and west of the freeway. That property will likely
become residential.
The property east of the freeway is being considered
as possible commercial development property.
"Utah Power & Light (which lies east of the
freeway) wanted to be included in the annexation," said
Lynn.
"What advantage does the city have by annexing the
water tanks?" asked Doran Kay. "What level of protection
will the city gain that they do not already have?"
Allen Pay, city water master, said the city needs to
have the tanks annexed into the city to give them greater
control over the culinary water source protection.
The county does have a source protection plan, said
Kay.
Nevertheless, said Lynn, the city council just thinks
it is to the city's advantage to have the tanks be included
in the annexation.
"The Water Tanks Annexation is just a name," said Cory
Squire, council member.
Walker pointed out that the large annexation would
make room, roughly, for 1,000 half-acre lots.
"The county does not have an impact fee," said
Walker.
Therefore, he wondered what the plans were for making
certain that citizens of the county did not have to pay for
the impacts that may be caused by so many homes being
built.
"One effect that will occur is in the landfill," he
said.
Landfills and some other solid waste facilities are
subject to location restrictions, design and operating
criteria, ground water monitoring and corrective action
requirements, closure and post-closure care requirements and
financial assurance requirements.
The landfill is getting closer and closer to having to
meet more stringent requirements. For example, it may be
pushed to the point of having to add plastic liners in order
for solid waste to be deposited.
Squire said that was a good point.
"We are not approving the annexation tonight," he
said.
Maybe the council needs to have a transitional holding
zone and require all those making proposals for subdivisions
or for commercial development to apply for rezoning.
"You have leverage, as a city, prior to annexation.
The time to address those issues is now," said Kay.
The council is just agreeing to accept a petition for
annexation, said Squire. A public hearing to be held will
allow the public and the council to address some of the
questions prior to the annexation becoming final.I have
looked over the application and find it meets the
requirements of law for the State of Utah.
"If the council accepts the petition/application, or
is considered to have accepted it, you shall forward the
petition to me, city clerk for certification of the petition
according to Utah law," said Lyla R. Spencer, city clerk and
recorder.
"Within 30 days I will consult with the county clerk,
Patricia Ingram, to determine whether the petition meets the
requirements of law, certify the petition and deliver or
mail written notifications of the certification to the
council, the contact sponsor (Hal Newton) and the county
commission."
The certification letter will be available at the next
city council meeting on February 13, 2007. The city council
will then continue the process for the Water Tanks
Annexation at that time.
|
