Saturday, May 18, 2024
50.0°F

Annexaton 2.0 draws fire

by Laura Roady Staff Writer
| December 21, 2012 8:00 AM

BONNERS FERRY — Resounding opposition was voiced at the public hearing for the second attempt of annexation by the city of Bonners Ferry on Tuesday, Dec. 11.

Community members held paddle signs expressing opposition as the public hearing went forth. No one spoke in favor of annexing the 76 parcels into the city limits after the initial annexation was found invalid by 1st District Judge Jeff M. Brudie on Nov. 26.

The annexation was invalidated because the City Council failed to set forth express findings in their minutes.

Attorney Fonda Jovick, representing the Annexation Opposition Group, stated, “Express findings must tell citizens how the annexation is necessary for the orderly growth of the city.”

“We have yet to hear one valid justifiable reason for the annexation,” said Jovick. “Forcing taxation without representation and abusing government power.”

“No reasons have been given,” said Tremain Albright. “The vote of the citizens has been a resounding no.”

Albright also stated that the city attorney, Will Herrington, couldn’t give benefits at the October Planning and Zoning meeting. Likewise, Loretta Hunsaker said city administrator Stephen Boorman said nothing to the question “What are we getting from this?”.

In a question and answer handout given to attendees of the public hearing by the city, the city listed an answer to ‘Why annex?’ The answer reads:

• So growth in our community can be dealt with in a comprehensive manner and services like water, sewer, roads, electric and emergency services are planned for and provided in as efficient manner as possible.

• City services, including emergency police and fire services, are currently provided in the annexation area without compensation to the City. The existing City residents are paying the costs for these services for the residents in the annexation area.

• Fairness and equity--The residents in the annexation area will have the same rights of representation in their voting over the elected officials who make the police, fire, road, water, sewer, and electric service decisions.

Attorney Jovik pointed out that “These people [of the proposed area] pay their fair share for services.” The water and sewer they receive are fee-based and with the annexation there will be no change to the infrastructure, Jovik also stated.

“They get nothing except for more restrictions,” said Jovik. “Forcing a 36.6 percent increase in fees and taxes for a $150,000 property value.”

In a second handout at the public hearing entitled “City of Bonners Ferry 2012 Annexation Plan,” the fee increase for all property owners in the annexed area would be $66.72, which would include an increase for garbage pickup, a reduction in the electric base rate and a reduction in the solid waste fee.

The tax increase would be $425.07 for a $150,000 property value and $212.54 for $75,000 property value.

“Everyone in the county in affected situation,” said Ruth Sutton, coordinator for the Annexation Opposition Group.

Property owners in the Paradise Valley Fire District are affected with higher taxes. In a letter from Orrin Everhart, PVFD Commissioner, read at the meeting, he wrote about how the $6.2 million value of the annexation impacts their budget when removed. The rest of the fire district’s property owners compensate for the loss with higher taxes, around 5.7 percent.

“It’s not fair to take 76 parcels out of PVFD and re-allocate what they pay to the rest of the district,” said Jovick, who also pointed out the tax situation. “Trying to figure out the tax situation...putting a burden on the county to figure out the taxes...is fiscally irresponsible.”

“Planning and working together is what makes a city prosper,” said James Fritzche, who spoke neutrally for the annexation and works for the Bonners Ferry Fire Department. “The City and Paradise Valley Fire District have a mutual agreement...they work together in the proposed annexation area.”

“We want to trust our city government,” said Hunsaker. “Nobody wants to go through this again. The way this was pushed through is a shame.”

“We ask you to govern by the voices of the community,” said Albright.

“I strongly encourage you not to go forward with another annexation,” said Jovick, who also mentioned that the public hearing was 18 days after the public notice, not 28 days as is required.

• The Bonners Ferry City Council did not vote after the public hearing. They will discuss and vote on the annexation ordinance at the next city council meeting on Tuesday, Dec. 18 at 7 p.m. The location is at the City Hall unless posted otherwise.