- Santaquin City wants to annex portion of Juab County
|
By Myrna Trauntvein
Times-News Correspondent
Santaquin City is planning to annex some of Juab County, that portion at least, that borders the growing Summit Ridge Communities, a development close to Rocky Ridge.
Santaquin City Planner Dennis L. Marker sent notice of the intent to Juab County Commissioners and invited them to a meeting to be held on March 27 at 7 p.m. where the city’s planning commission will discuss an amendment to the city’s annexation policy plan and policy plan.
“The city’s policy plan area is being amended to include properties which have recently petitioned the city for annexation,” said Marker.
“Santaquin City also intends to amend its General Plan: A Community Prospering in Country Living, to address inclusion of these same properties into the city.”
The meeting is to be held in the city council chambers located at 45 West 100 South in Santaquin.
The portion of Juab County the city would like to annex is located near the new subdivision known as Summit Ridge Development and is located mostly in Utah County.
A small portion overlaps into Juab County near Rocky Ridge.
On December 11, 2000, a 565-acre parcel located immediately south of Santaquin, was sold to Summit Ridge Development, LLC (Summit Ridge) for combination with adjoining acreage to be developed by Summit Ridge into a
2,200-acre master planned community.
“The developers and city representatives came to talk to the county commissioners of the time (in 2000) and they gave their approval,” said LuWayne Walker, commissioner.
Walker had one concern, however, and that was whether the county would still collect property tax if that portion of the county was to be located in Santaquin City limits.
Val Jones, commission chairman, said the property owners involved in the annexation should still pay property tax to Juab County. The home was still physically located in Juab County because county boundaries were not being changed.
City property taxes would go to Santaquin.
Developers met with the Juab County Commission a few years ago and received permission to cross the county line with the development which was supposed to be a golf course surrounded by deluxe, upper-scale homes.
The deluxe, upper-scale home have materialized and the subdivision, built in phases, is continuing to expand as planned though the development had a rough go in the beginning.
Summit Ridge Communities failed to obtain $18 million in financing to build roads, sewer and water lines and, in October 2003, the Summit Ridge development went into foreclosure, was auctioned and re-assumed by the lender. Then in October 2004, a Las Vegas businessman, Brian Seager, gambled on the $50 million project.
Seager came in as a creditor when the project went into foreclosure. He owns Summit Ridge Communities now.
Plans were thereafter approved for the development’s first phase—600 homes. Commercial development, if everything goes according to plan, would take place between the third and sixth year.
On June 20, 2007 Santaquin considered the acceptance or denial of the Summit Ridge-Exit 242 Annexation Petition and agreed to the request.
Marker sent a letter to all entities which will be affected by the Juab County annexation of property.
“We need to let Rocky Ridge city council know about the proposal,” said Walker. “They were upset earlier that the new development was going to be so close to their city.”
The master planned acreage, including the 565-acre parcel, was annexed by Santaquin in 2000. The property inside Juab County was not annexed.
Jared Eldridge said communities throughout the United States end up doing this type of annexation. It was nothing new or unheard of.
“This is a policy issue not a legal issue,” said Jared Eldridge, county attorney.
Eldridge said that Utah Code allowed, as did many other state codes, annexations of a city across a county boundary. House Bill 278, which was supported by the Utah Association of Counties, was passed and signed by the governor on 21 March 2003.
The legislation did not deal with annexations from one county to another but only municipalities seeking to annex across county lines. The resulting resolution did protect property rights, provide for better growth, foster better relations between local governments, and address infrastructure and jurisdictional problems in advance.
The legislation also requires resolution from local government.
|
