OCR Text |
Show Wo Bountiful Loses Bid : Bv TOM BLSSEI.BERG North Count) Ed. lor FARMINGTON -- The grass always seems greener over the next hill. OR AT LEAST to West Bountiful and Woods Cross, that grass along 5th South near 1 100 West has seemed mighty green as they've both gone to bat. seeking the right to confirm con-firm annexation or future annexation. The two cities "locked horns" in the form of a hearing before the county's boundary commission last week, the second of two such meetings that resemble court hearings, complete with attorneys and city officials. BUT FOR now, at least the grass will wave fairer for Woods Cross, with the boundary bound-ary commission waiving West Bountiful's plea-based largely on economic hardship that might be incurred if the city can't gain 5th South frontage that could some day mean new business. "I'm sympathetic to West Bountiful, but legally and morally, mor-ally, how can we penalize Woods Cross," said Alternate Member Norm Sant, referring to Woods Cross' receipt of an annexation request from two of the three affected property owners. By state law, an area must request annexation before be-fore a city can take action. "NO ONE said everything was going to be fair from city to city," said Neldon Hamblin, a member and Clearfield Mayor, referring to situations that often develop where one city gets the "upper hand" in obtaining commercial property. proper-ty. Mayor Sant of Sunset noted "aggressive" action by Woods Cross that outweighed Wet Bountiful, perhaps, in peed to action, comparing activities by Laylon and Roy that have impacted commercial commer-cial development for Sunset and Clearfield for example. In supporting unanimously the motion against West Bountiful. Boun-tiful. Chairman Ned Roucche of Kaysville asked Mayor Lawrence L'rry of Woods Cross if he would meet with Councilman Samuel Allman about a possible compromise on 5th S. that might give each city at least one side of a portion, por-tion, with the two meeting immediately im-mediately after adjournment. THE CRUX of the matter seemed to center on potentially potential-ly lost sales and property tax revenue by West Bountiful, with $300,000 collected as of June, 1982, for the preceeding year by Woods Cross vs. about $130,000 for West Bountiful. Property tax, based on assessed asses-sed valuation, shows $15 million mil-lion for Woods Cross vs. $12 million in West Bountiful. Population-wise, the city's aren't far apart, either at about 4,500 West Bountiful residents to 5.200 in Woods Cross. IN PRESENTING West Bountiful's case, Attorney Michael Deamer said that city's ci-ty's council was "shocked" when Woods Cross annexed the 150 acres under protest because be-cause of a "gentleman's agreement" agree-ment" that had left that parcel for future West Bountiful annexation. Mayor Urry said that agreement-admittedly unwritten-was formed with a previous Woods Cross council. Concern about providing future fu-ture water lines to the disputed area was made by both sides, with George Fadel speaking for Woods Cross. Both cities have water lines extended near the area but no sew er service is provided, residents utilizing instead septic tanks. ALTHOUGH Mr. Allman stressed the limitations for commercial growth imposed on West Bountiful if it loses that 5th South area. Mayor Norm Sant said that should be virtually eliminated by passage pas-sage of a legislative bill earlier this year. Intended to help those cities with a smaller commercial base, such as Clinton, West Point and Sunset, in addition to West Bountiful, two-thirds of one percent sales tax w ould be divided up to cities by population, popu-lation, helping reduce the worries wor-ries some cities have expressed express-ed over the years, often annexing annex-ing "cherry stem" configurations configura-tions of small strips leading to the cherry--or commercial area that would add tax dollars. dol-lars. ALTHOUGH West Bountiful Bounti-ful claims the disputed land was included in their future annexation proposal it currently cur-rently isn't contiguous. Chairman Chair-man Roueche noted, with West Bountiful disputing Woods Cross' revised annexation annexa-tion plan, saying their boundary' bound-ary' extended 70 feet beyond original intentions, taking in all of 5th South. Previously, West Bountiful annexed an adjoining 17.5 acres on the south side of 5th South near 1 1th West that was challenged by Woods Cross with the boundary commission favoring West Bountiful. Woods Cross took the issue to court and it was fuled in favor of Woods Cross. |