Annexation Best Way To Lessen Burden On Residential Taxpayers
People tend to vote in their own enlightened self-interest, when given all the facts and when issues are presented in a straightforward manner on the ballot. Thanks to confusing ballot language and an attempt to put out false and misleading information, some issues on this April’s ballot promise to be anything but straightforward.
Let me start by giving everyone a “cheat sheet” to help you with the ten annexation issues on the ballot Tuesday. Vote nine times YES and the last time NO. Of course, you only have to remember this formula if you’re planning on voting in your own self-interest.
The first nine annexation areas are “pockets”, some nearly surrounded by our city limits. They are mainly commercial and undeveloped properties. I won’t test your patience trying to write a legal description of each of the proposed annexation areas. Besides, the legal descriptions already ran in a lengthy (multiple page) legal notice required by law. It was so riveting you probably couldn’t put it down.
The easiest way to tell what areas we’re talking about is to look at any map of the City. See those gaping holes that look like someone got tired of coloring in the map? The commercial and undeveloped properties in these areas, are what the ten ballot issues are all about.
One of these pockets is St. Andrews Plaza, just West of Zumbehl on Interstate 70. Most people aren’t aware this retail area isn’t in the City of St. Charles. Yet you have to drive past it to get to our City Limits at Cave Springs. Once in the City of St. Charles, these commercial areas will help expand our tax base. That’s good for residential property owners like you and me. The more commercial, office and industrial property we have paying taxes and supporting municipal services, the less of a burden there has to be on residential property tax payers.
Another important factor is the City of St. Charles will have more to say about what type of development occurs on these properties. It is an opportunity for the City of St. Charles to control its own destiny. Currently we’re forced to play Let’s Make A Deal with developers as they decide whether or not it is in their economic interest to annex into our community. If they don’t come into the City, they develop under County standards, which are less strict than those in the City. For example, the County still allows metal buildings and puts no restrictions on used car lots. What develops around the City is important because it affects people’s image of our community and impacts our property values.
This is one of those issues where the Mayor, City Administrator and majority of the City Council agree. There was some false and misleading information circulated in an attempt by some opponents (mainly County residents) to derail our annexation issues. A ridiculous estimate for raising a two lane road was put into a draft report. I say ridiculous because for about a four block stretch of road, this person had estimated it would cost $10.5 million. What’s more, we never agreed to raise the road and the property owners along the road never asked for it to be raised. All they wanted was a larger culvert and some street lights on existing telephone poles…a minimal cost.
This report had never been approved, or signed off on, by the City Administrator. It was never accepted by the City Council. So we have a horribly inflated and inaccurate figure, about a non-existent project nobody wants, asked for, or authorized, being the subject of two articles in the local press. The mind boggles.
Which brings me to the reason you should vote NO on the tenth, or final, annexation issue. This is one of those instances voters universally hate…the notorious “opposite” of what you mean ballot language. You know the kind I’m talking about, where YES means NO and NO means YES.
The final annexation ballot issue concerns the St. Charles Golf Course. A YES vote would repeal the voluntary annexation of the property into the City of St. Charles and keep it in the County. A NO vote expresses your desire for the property to be in the City of St. Charles.
I say “expresses” your opinion because the voluntary annexation agreement this refers to was withdrawn and the development that prompted citizens to circulate petitions for this vote, was also withdrawn. Meanwhile, a new developer, with far less density and far greater public support from neighbors of the development, has petitioned to the City for voluntary annexation.
While in fact, the issue being voted on is probably null and void, your NO vote will be a positive statement in support of a developer who went to great lengths to accommodate neighbors. In some instances, adjacent property owners were given up to 25 feet of additional property to add to their own backyards as a buffer.
City Councilman Mark Brown, whose ward the development would be located in, also negotiated a tough, but fair, deal where the citizens of St. Charles will be given a ten acre public park complete with amenities. This is a $2 MILLION GIFT to the taxpayers of St. Charles in an area of the City badly in need of additional public park land.
In addition, the developers agreed to front the City’s portion of the extension of Fairgrounds Road South to Friedens Road. For anyone who has tried to get to the Family Arena or travel North or South on Arena Parkway at rush hour, this project will be a great reliever road for traffic. Finally, this developer has set aside a large portion of the land for commercial development, including a new grocery store, badly needed by residents in that area of the City.
St. Charles Golf Course is closed and will not be reopened. Voting YES (against annexation of this property) will not bring back the golf course. Voting NO (against repeal of the annexation) is in the self-interest of all taxpayers and residents of St. Charles. These new residents, who will use our parks, drive on our streets and use other City services, should be in the City, paying City taxes and sharing those costs with you and me.
All we have to remember Tuesday is to Vote nine times YES and the last time NO. And, as always, watch out for hanging chad.
