|
Residents oppose annexation by Webster
By Rose Hooper
Thanks, but no thanks, residents of Rivercrest Subdivision told Webster town board members May 28 at a public hearing on annexing their 25.49 acres.
“As a neighborhood we’ve discussed this. We’re not opposed to being a part of Webster per se, but we are concerned about services – and the cost associated with them,” said Sylva town manager Richard McHargue, a Rivercrest resident who presented a petition opposing the annexation signed by 11 of the 20 Rivercrest households.
The petition stated:
“We acknowledge that Webster is a beautiful residential community and that Rivercrest would seem to be, in the town board’s view, a natural fit. However, we the property owners do not feel being annexed by Webster is in our best interest at this time.
“Perhaps in the future, when Webster is able to offer a concrete plan for providing the expected, needed services our community feels it would benefit from, might annexation of Rivercrest be seen as a positive for our neighborhood.”
In an involuntary annexation, a municipality must extend the same services it currently provides to the newly-annexed property. The municipality must also establish the method for financing the extension of those services.
Currently Webster provides street lights, zoning and contracted fire protection, according to Mayor Steve Gray.
“In Sylva we’ve gone through projects that zapped us, primarily related to past annexation, such as Moody Bottom,” said McHargue.
When Moody Bottom properties were annexed in 1996, residents expected water and sewer, McHargue said, even though the town no longer provides those services which had been taken over by Tuckaseigee Water and Sewer Authority.
Last year – seven years later – when failing septic systems in that area caused serious health risks, the town paid $600,000 to extend the sewer lines.
“At some point, Rivercrest will need public utilities. I’ve got one place in my yard for a drain field. After that, what? My question, and my neighbors’ question is, who’s going to pay for it?” McHargue said.
“The cost would put a strain not just on Rivercrest, but on all the residents in Webster,” he told board members.
Webster’s tax rate is 8 cents per $100 assessed valuation. Gray projected that total revenues from annexing the subdivision would generate $2448 annually.
Rivercrest would also like to have its road paved, McHargue said, and asked board members about that possibility.
Board member Kirk Stephens said he had estimated the length to be paved as 500 yards.
Previous estimates on paving a similar road in Webster exceeded $12,000, Gray said.
“We had Powell Bill funds for the project, but we couldn’t get everybody to sign over right of way,” Gray said, indicating Rivercrest residents would also have to give right of way before their road could be paved.
McHargue said he wouldn’t object to annexation if Webster provided “well laid-out plans detailing services and estimates of cost.”
Until such plans exist, he and other property owners oppose annexation, McHargue said.
“We hear your concerns and appreciate your candor,” board member Louise Bedford told McHargue.
McHargue, who along with his wife, Jackie, were the lone Rivercrest representatives at the public hearing, said fellow petitioners “understand that Webster wishes to act in the best interest of its community.
“At Rivercrest we must do the same,” he said. “That’s why we oppose this proposed annexation and ask that Webster show that it is a true good neighbor and withdraw its intent to annex us.”
Board members tabled action on the petition until their June 17 meeting.
|
