Today's Weather

Click for Sierra Vista, Arizona Forecast

Homepage » News

Annexation on minds of SV officials

They start working on a proactive policy

By Laura Ory
Herald/Review
Published/Last Modified on Sunday, Aug 17, 2008 - 05:23:22 am MST

Print this story Email this story

Font Size

SIERRA VISTA — County enclaves look like the city, feel like a part of the city, and city officials are hoping to convince those property owners to join the city.

Getting county enclaves, or islands, into the city has been a challenge in the past, but the City Council and city staff are ready to try again.

It’s time for a proactive approach, rather than a reactive one, said City Manager Chuck Potucek.

A steering committee with representatives from city departments could help prioritize which county enclaves to approach first, such as areas with increasing crime, said Jeff Pregler, a city planner who presented a draft annexation policy to the council on Thursday.

(Graphic by Lynanne Gelinas-Herald/Review)

To annex an area of land, the city needs the consent of 51 percent or more of the property owners, with 51 percent or more of the area’s total property value.

So, if two out of three agree and have a majority of the property value, all three properties can be annexed, said Mary Jacobs, assistant city manager.

City officials have typically waited to hear from property owners who want to annex, but now they might put some more work into reaching out to other property owners.

It isn’t always easy.

Al Byrd, a homeowner in the Montebello neighborhood east of the Fry’s Food and Drug shopping complex, petitioned to have the neighborhood annexed about eight years ago.

“We’re a small area and a very large county,” Byrd said.

He hoped that by joining the city, the neighborhood would have better police response and other benefits.

“The taxes were lower, by about $230 a year … there’s better services and more of a comfortable living,” Byrd said. “When you live in a city, you’ve got regulations that govern close living.”

Jacobs said the county rules and services are designed for a rural community that doesn’t fit the mold of Sierra Vista.

Most of Byrd’s neighborhood was for the annexation, but commercial property owners with land along Highway 90 couldn’t be convinced and the annexation was dropped, he said.

Some people believe they have more freedom from government by living in the county, but Byrd doesn’t see that logic. He is still in favor of joining the city.

“I think it would be a better situation for everyone,” he said.

Jacobs said Byrd’s neighborhood is one of the areas they would like to annex so the area doesn’t deteriorate and property values don’t decrease.

Now, rather than stop the whole plan, the city could redefine the boundary but still annex the property owners in favor, Jacobs said. Though they would like to keep service areas continuous for police, fire and emergency workers, they also want to bring in enclave areas when possible.

The city has annexed some commercial enclaves in order to connect to the city’s sewer system as an incentive, which is also being considered for the policy.

Councilman Bob Blanchard was in favor of bringing back grant-funded incentive programs, such as reduced sewer hook-up rates.

The annexation policy will be redrafted with the suggestions from the council and brought back to the council for approval sometime this fall, Jacobs said.

The plan also includes areas of annexation for growth, including state land to the east and Vanderbilt Farms, formerly Bella Vista Ranches. Katchina Trail would be a likely boundary to the south for the city, Jacobs said.

John Williams is one of the property owners in the county enclave in the Foothills Drive area who has recently talked with city officials about annexing.

“Both do an adequate job. … As far as getting improvements done, I think the city would be quicker to act,” Williams said.

He said this could be especially true in improving Foothills Drive an Highway 92 intersection.

But he also sees an advantage of being in county, which would allow zoning for the property to be both a residential and commercial space.

County residents can continue any legal uses on their land. It would be grandfathered in, but city code would apply if any changes to the property or use are made after the annexation, Pregler said.

REPORTER Laura Ory can be reached at 515-4683 or by e-mail at laura.ory@svherald.com.

BY THE NUMBERS

Cochise County versus City of Sierra Vista: A few differences between the county and city living.

2007 Property Taxes (Per $100,000 of assessed value)

- City: $1,181.01

- County: $1,349.23

Sales tax

- City: 1.75 percent

- County: 0.5 of a percent

Real property rental tax

- City: 1 percent

- County: N/A

Annual Sanitation/Sewer and Recycling

- City: $372.90 or less

- County: $448.20 or more

Police response times

- City: 2 minutes, 23 seconds

- County: 5-30 minutes

Source: City of Sierra Vista and Cochise County

Print this story Email this story

Font Size

Use the form below to post a brief comment to this story, or respond to other readers. Please use the word count tool to assist you in keeping your remarks to 100 words or fewer.
Comments appear once they are approved. Your thoughtful contribution to the online discussion is appreciated.

Joe Worden wrote on Mar 10, 2009 11:12 AM:

" I have lived in the Montebello area for 34 years. When the question of annezation came up 8 yrs ago there was a problem with the water lines, I believe it was, not being up to city code. If this is the case, would the homeowners be financially liable for improvements?
Joe Worden "

Wrong Location wrote on Aug 28, 2008 9:20 PM:

" The Red lobster, Cirkle K, Dollar General, tatoo parlor, and strip mall are going at the west end of Choctaw and Yaqui. These big businesses would know better than to build in the floodplain in the wash and the end of Kachina, which is more than you can say for the City of Sierra Vista. "

To built it annex it wrote on Aug 28, 2008 6:36 PM:

" Don't you wish. You forgot the orginal, "I'd like an emergency heliport in the park too." "

Build it annex it. wrote on Aug 25, 2008 3:58 PM:

" End of Kachina...isn't that where the new Red Lobster is going to go next to the new 24 hour Circle K? I hear it will be nice next to the new park, a riverfront view and large pond, just like San Antonio. Maybe a tatoo parlor could be added later, and a strip mall, and a Dollar General would be great. "

Note wrote on Aug 23, 2008 3:26 PM:

" Note the priority property annexations on the map with this articel has three shopping areas: Haymore Plaza, SV Flowers and Cold Stone Creamery Shoping Plaza. Mary Jacobs adds the Kachina area which has not one commercial development. Why is the city so inter-rested in adding this county area to their city? "

City voter wrote on Aug 22, 2008 9:27 PM:

" Some of the council members should have getting re-elected on their minds instead of annexation and added taxes. "

To Empire wrote on Aug 22, 2008 9:30 AM:

" It appears that the city wants to add the latest Castle and Cooke development to their empire along Cherokee. Is this why they city thinks they can make the 51% marks? "

Questions wrote on Aug 21, 2008 9:31 PM:

" Mary Jacobs spokesperson for all the city officials at this time suggested Kachina as a boundary. Is this the north side of Kachina, the middle of the road or the south side of Kachina?
If the south side of Kachina, how far south? "

Susie wrote on Aug 21, 2008 8:37 PM:

" Right on Sam. If we were annexed, the next owner could not have a horse on two acres. Mary Jacobs has been quoted in the SV Herald,"No horses are allowed in the city". Just between us, I think she meant except for parades. "

TO Say NO wrote on Aug 21, 2008 2:29 PM:

" Sorry Mr., Mrs. or Ms. NO, we in the Kachina area are not asking the city for anything, but to go away and leave us alone. We do not lack for service except for Supervisor Call standing up for us. Keep your money. Fry Fire Department is great! The county takes care of our portion of Kachina. The others on dirt roads maintain their own. We help pay for the library, Sierra Vista City Schools and the college. We don't need your sewers. "

Sam wrote on Aug 21, 2008 2:08 PM:

" This article talks like everybody would want to be annexed. So what is wrong with the City's old policy of waiting until asked? If I could benefit myself, I would ask today. But as it is, I just see forfeiting my freedom to a bunch of City ordinances designed for City living when I bought a large lot in the County for increased freedom. All for some hypothecial non-guaranteed faster police response or the hand shake promise of lower taxes. Give me a break! "

Empire wrote on Aug 21, 2008 2:00 PM:

" You know something is up when the City creates a sales plan to promote annexation. If the people wanted it, they would ask for it. So when the City comes knocking, I start getting suspicious. Funny how this comes right when City management is looking a the prospect of no cost of living increases (hey, let's stick our raises to those County folks that we normally don't give a crud about). I'll stay County, but thanks for the offer! "

Say NO wrote on Aug 21, 2008 8:32 AM:

" With the budget downturn as it is, the city would be better served to let the county freeloaders continue to complain about their lack of services for the next few years.

It costs money to provide services, with a 12 cent per $100 property tax, they must be nuts or using some of that new math. Fatten their coffers?
Not hardly. Police, Fire, Trash, Sewer, Streets it will cost the city millions, IMO better spent IN the city.

Raise my taxes to fix stuff for people who don't want or care for the city? I don't think so. "

Shell game wrote on Aug 20, 2008 9:07 PM:

" Is the city playing the old shell game or just on a fishing expedition? "

Sounds like wrote on Aug 20, 2008 4:28 PM:

" Sounds like the city and county are working together on this one. What is the real purpose to annex the rest of Kachina? "

Where is wrote on Aug 19, 2008 8:47 PM:

" Where is Pat Call again when he is needed out at the west end of Kachina? He represents the county tax payers the city wants to annex. Right, Call use to work for Sierra Vista city before his current office at Cochise County. "

No Incumbents wrote on Aug 19, 2008 6:34 PM:

" Where is our illustrious county supervisor when you need him most? Oh, I forgot, he doesn't represent rural interests. He represents city interests, or anywhere else where the most votes are. "

To Pauley from WOW wrote on Aug 18, 2008 9:44 PM:

" Pauley, you are wrong. This once-up-on-a-time ranch land was here before the Google Earth or the city of Sierra Vista was created. The west end of Kachina was paved as part of the agreement for Mountain Shadows Phase F to be built. The city also approved the CC&Rs for that area which is for single family homes and the CC&Rs travel with the land. We don't need or want your city to annex us, that is why we bought in the county. The county pays for the upkeep on the west end of Kachina. "

Home wrote on Aug 18, 2008 9:29 PM:

" Home owners at the west end of Kachina are not an "island" surrounded by the city of Sierra Vista....therefore, could Mary Jacobs, Mayor Strain and the rest of the city council and their employees just back off and let the county home owners out here alone? "

The Wool is Gone wrote on Aug 18, 2008 7:01 PM:

" Any judge can follow the timeline here of when CCRs were established (that run with the land), when land swaps occurred, and when the annexation policy was changed. Not smart enough, city council! "

Maybe wrote on Aug 18, 2008 5:44 PM:

" Maybe the city council and Mary Jacobs can hire McGann and Associates again to be consultants on why county folk might want to become city slickers. McGann can give the county folks limited choices so the county folk are forced to voted for the least odious choice. What part of "No thanks" doesn't the city understand? "

Easy to say no wrote on Aug 18, 2008 12:07 PM:

" This could be a tough sell for the City. Most of us in the county do not want street lights. We don't want to be forced to pay for sewage when we are on septic. This is all about the City trying to beef up their budget. Get the word out. Tell everyone that is "offered" to join to say no thanks. "

cr wrote on Aug 18, 2008 7:23 AM:

" I live in an enclave and I said it earlier and I will say it again. If I had wanted to live in the city, I would have bought in the city. I like the absense of street lights (astronomy). I like the large lots (1/3d acre or larger) and the spacing between houses. It is quiet. I have a septic. Going city means I have to pay to run a line to a city sewer. The city can buy my house if they want. Enjoy. "

Paul wrote on Aug 17, 2008 11:08 PM:

" You're in Sierra Vista "proper" so get over it, just look at Sierra Vista on Google Earth - you didn't even exist a short while ago. You want to take advantage of what our what our city has to offer then join our city - just ask the kind folk down 'yonder on High Knoll Road. "

WOW wrote on Aug 17, 2008 9:55 PM:

" The city limit is at Kachina Trails heading west from Hg 92, but leaves that street in a straight line at the curve and goes west to the fort fence. Is this another city try to make their illegal access at the west end of Kachina appear legal? The CC&Rs travel with the land whether it is "annexed" or not. No one ask me if I wanted to be annexed. I'm a county resident and I want to stay that way! "

city resident wrote on Aug 17, 2008 7:14 PM:

" What a piece of propaganda. Are the nicest neighborhoods in the area(ie south) looking to join the city? Maybe the extra traffic tickets you will get as a city resident should be included as a tax? Where do I go to be deannexed? "

InConsiderate wrote on Aug 17, 2008 9:55 AM:

" If people wanted to live in the city, they should have bought in the city, instead of dragging all their neighbors in that don't want to be there. "

Property Taxes wrote on Aug 17, 2008 6:19 AM:

" I hate to disappoint Mr. Byrd, but he will still pay a portion of the County property tax in addition to adding on City tax. "