Share

Manti City considering annexation

that would add 438 acres to city

 

James Tilson

Staff writer

7/26/2018

The Manti City Council is proposing annexation of 438 acres on the north and east side of the city. The area to be annexed (in white) stretches from north of the cemetery, to north and east of Temple Hill, and takes in a swatch along the city’s eastern edge going south to approximately 300 South. The city’s buffer zone is in orange.

            MANTI—Local citizens voiced concerns over property taxes and zoning for a new annexation proposed by Manti City at last week’s council meeting.

            Manti proposed an annexation of 438.37 acres of land on the north and east sides of the city, stretching from north of the cemetery and Temple Hill and going around the eastern edge of Manti to approximately 300 South.

            Prior to the regular council meeting, citizens were invited to voice their opinions at a public hearing on the annexation. Prior to the hearing, Mayor Kory Soper read a statement to the audience.

            In part, it said, “There have been some concerns raised that the city may have to pay for street and utility infrastructure for the proposed annexation area. That is not the case. It is the policy of the city that private development pays for its own street and utility infrastructure, which must comply with city standards. Once new infrastructure is placed to the city’s satisfaction, the city assumes ownership and maintenance of those streets and utilities.”

            However, other concerns were raised by the audience. Linda Nielson, local business owner and real estate broker, said she was “not opposed, but I think this annexation is premature,” and “the zoning of the annexed properties be clearly identified.” Nielson believes the annexation will have minimal positive impact on the city’s residents as a whole, versus the greater positive impact for the annexed property owners and the city government.

            According to Nielson, 25 percent of the city is exempt from property tax. She said 50 percent of the annexed property would be exempt, and the other 50 percent would be zoned “greenbelt” (which taxes the property at a lower agricultural rate). Nielson requested an accounting of the financial impact of the annexation on the city.

            Steve Allred, property owner, asked the council when the zoning for the new annexation would be settled. The concern is that the zoning is currently unknown, and there is sentiment to expand the city’s commercial/business zones along U.S. 89 in the annexation area. Mayor Soper told Allred the planning commission would consider the issue at its next meeting on August 7.

            Kris Jorgenson, a landowner within the annexation area, stood to voice his approval. “Cities grow, or they die,” was his sentiment. Jorgenson said the city needs areas for single family homes, and the area would eventually be part of the city anyway. Annexing the property sooner would lead to better planning.

            The council tabled the annexation until the council next meeting, in order to consider all the comments by the public.

            Wes Alexander, with the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (DWR), presented a proposal from the DWR for a new deer control program. In response to deer problems “all along the Wasatch Front,” the DWR has instituted a “lethal removal” programs for cities up and down the Wasatch Range.

            According to Alexander, to qualify for the program a city would have to enact a no feeding of deer/elk/moose ordinance, show the damage that deer had done in the city and carry a $1 million liability insurance policy. Having done that, the city would apply to the state for a Certificate of Registry (COR) to begin the removal.

            The city would then contract with someone to carry out the program, which would include hunting the deer from an elevated stand within the city limits, luring the deer to the stand with feed and shooting them with a crossbow. The hunting would occur from Aug. 1 through Dec. 15.

            The only costs to the city would be the insurance policy, the contract with the hunter and the cost of deer disposal.

            Alexander informed the council that although several other Utah cities had begun using the program, only Herriman had been using the program for any amount of time. However, Herriman had reported a dramatic drop in vehicle impacts with deer while using the program.

            The council did not take action on the presentation, and said it would consider the information.