Pre Annexation Agreements
The city requires water customers from outside the city to file a “Petition to Annex” when the city notifies them or face water shutoff within 30 days.
I have no problem with requiring water customers to annex in return for water service. What I have a problem with is the system that has been put in place to accomplish this. The clause at the bottom of the water agreement isn’t explained to the customer and many either are not reading it or not understanding it.
I agree, there is a responsibility for the home owner to read and understand the form they are signing. But there is a greater responsibility for the city to make sure they do so. It is not right for the city to not explain the agreement in hopes that they sign it without questions, and then play gotcha when we are ready to annex them.
It is also not right for the city to wait years after the properties qualify for annexation to act on them. Some of these properties have qualified for three years. There should be an automatic trigger that forces these to be acted on as they become available. It is not right for the city to sit on their hands for years until it becomes convenient for them to annex. Whether that convenience is the census or a city official needing their property within the city limits.
I would be in favor of the city adopting a system of “pre-annexations agreements”. These agreements would be separate documents from the water service agreements and acted on by the council. They would state that in return for water, the city will annex your property once it qualifies. Once the council approves the “pre-annexation agreement” it becomes a binding contract between the city and the home owner. If the city fails to pass the annexation once the property qualifies, they would be in breach of that contract.
This system takes away the human element of the process. Certain steps are required at certain times from the parties involved. Everyone is aware and involved every step of the way so nothing appears to be taking place behind close doors. There are no surprises, and no perceived bully tactics.
Once you take feelings and people out of the decision, is about what is best for the city. Is it better for the city to gain the tax revenue from the newly annexed properties? Or is it better to fight against a system that gives the impression of sneaky tactics and leads to good ole boy politics? I am not comfortable putting my name on a system that I feel is broken.
I have no problem with requiring water customers to annex in return for water service. What I have a problem with is the system that has been put in place to accomplish this. The clause at the bottom of the water agreement isn’t explained to the customer and many either are not reading it or not understanding it.
I agree, there is a responsibility for the home owner to read and understand the form they are signing. But there is a greater responsibility for the city to make sure they do so. It is not right for the city to not explain the agreement in hopes that they sign it without questions, and then play gotcha when we are ready to annex them.
It is also not right for the city to wait years after the properties qualify for annexation to act on them. Some of these properties have qualified for three years. There should be an automatic trigger that forces these to be acted on as they become available. It is not right for the city to sit on their hands for years until it becomes convenient for them to annex. Whether that convenience is the census or a city official needing their property within the city limits.
I would be in favor of the city adopting a system of “pre-annexations agreements”. These agreements would be separate documents from the water service agreements and acted on by the council. They would state that in return for water, the city will annex your property once it qualifies. Once the council approves the “pre-annexation agreement” it becomes a binding contract between the city and the home owner. If the city fails to pass the annexation once the property qualifies, they would be in breach of that contract.
This system takes away the human element of the process. Certain steps are required at certain times from the parties involved. Everyone is aware and involved every step of the way so nothing appears to be taking place behind close doors. There are no surprises, and no perceived bully tactics.
Once you take feelings and people out of the decision, is about what is best for the city. Is it better for the city to gain the tax revenue from the newly annexed properties? Or is it better to fight against a system that gives the impression of sneaky tactics and leads to good ole boy politics? I am not comfortable putting my name on a system that I feel is broken.
posted by Unknown | 9:23 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home