Trending
SALEM -- Discussions about how best to resolve the temporarily halted mandated annexation of properties with deed restrictions on Beechwood Road, Countryside Drive and Hampton Place began in earnest Tuesday.
The enforcement of city ordinance 850305-34, and the mandated annexations of 33 Perry Township homes into the city in a domino effect as their neighbors annexed into the city and their property became contiguous with the city as a result, was halted for a six-month period beginning July 5. The temporary halt in enforcement was called by city council to allow for time for a more mutually beneficial, long-term solution to be negotiated between the Salem and the township.
Those discussions began in earnest in a meeting of the economic development committee. Councilman and Committee Chairman Jake Gano said the intention of that meeting was to begin discussing possible solutions to the matter, as well as providing a space where any questions or concerns could be addressed ahead of further meetings.
"The idea of tonight's meeting is to have a general discussion on ways we can possibly lay this out. I know we've discussed inter-governmental agreements going forward, I don't know what can be done for what is currently going on with Perry Township and the homes up there; but the point is we want to work to make this a doable, clear path forward," said Gano.
Gano also said that the primary issue with a potential exemption for the embattled properties is the existing legal precedent set by past properties with similar restrictions which completed their mandated annexations.
"The concern is if we take exception for what's going on with the homes at Hampton Place and Beechwood, is that there have been dozens of other properties that I've been informed of that had the same deed restriction and had to annex already. Which makes it a very difficult question as to why they had to annex, and this neighborhood does not," said Gano.
Perry Township Board of Trustees Chairman Steve Bailey asked if there was a complete list of properties with similar annexations that council and the trustees could review, noting that while previously annexed properties with the deed restrictions set a precedent, the same could be said of any properties with those restrictions that became contiguous with the city and had not been forced to annex.
"I think that's important based on what you were talking about, based on past precedents and older properties have been annexed in that became available or had that deed restriction that's one side of it, but if there's any properties that have not been annexed in the past that have a deed restriction, then it becomes why is this property being pushed to be annexed in if others have not through the years," said Bailey.
Utilities Superintendent Butch Donnalley said that he believed the utilities department would have a record of all the properties that had received city water since the ordinance was passed and would have the deed restrictions as a result. Gano said the information would be reviewed for any potential past cases of properties with similar deed restrictions being exempted from the mandated annexation.
Trustee Tony Ierepoli suggested a modification to the deed restrictions themselves, which removed the language mandating annexation, and Gano asked City Law Director Brooke Zellers if such a modification to a deed restriction once it was already in place was possible with the consent of both parties. Zellers said that while it would be possible to do so, it would require negotiations, with the city receiving something in the place of the increased population and revenue the annexations would provide.
"It could be revised; it is in essence a contract. Obviously, it would take some give and take. I understand the township would like that language removed, but the city would need to get something in exchange for that," explained Zellers. "We do have an obligation unlike a standard contract, though, to our citizens. Those were put in place for a specific reason, I believe the ordinance mentions, for the growth of the city, to increase the tax base, whatever it happened to be. So, if we were to give that up, as public servants we would have to receive something in its place, otherwise we would not be able to do that and live up to our oaths that we've all taken here to operate in the city's benefit."
Ierepoli argued that the affected residents already provided the city with an alternative benefit to annexation in the form of the 50% surcharge they pay for receiving city water outside of city limits. However, Councilman Jeff Stockman and Gano both argued that the money from the residents' water bills goes directly to the water department, and not to the city.
"When the sale of the water happens at that premium, the water department is its own enterprise. To make everyone aware, that money is not going to the city of Salem, that is going to the water department. That money can only be used for improvements, expansions, repairs, treating the water, distribution, things of that nature," said Gano.
Bailey suggested a mutually beneficial agreement for the sharing of property tax revenue between the city and township such as a cooperative economic development agreement, or a joint economic development district could be developed in exchange for the proposed modifications to the deed restrictions. Bailey also noted that the township has a significant amount of land that could be developed for residential purposes, which the city lacks.
"We need a lot of economic development in this area period. We haven't had a lot of growth -- industrial, residential or any of that -- for a while. I know there's a huge lack of residential houses, Perry Township has a lot of land that the city does not have, so I think there are some options that are worth looking at. In exchange for working on their deed restriction the city needs something, I think we would be able to come up with an agreement that would benefit both the city and the township to kind of cover that, which is going to help this area in general," said Bailey.
Gano agreed that there was significant need for development within the city and area at large, and that it would be "difficult and very expensive" to redevelop property within the city, so an influx of property from the township could be very beneficial. Gano also reiterated past desires for clarity in the process of annexations and any conditions in which an annexation may be necessary.
"It needs to be a very closely aligned partnership going forward, and I think the idea being with JEDDs, and CEDAs, or I think we can just do a basic intergovernmental agreement as well, that outlines when a property wants to annex or what the conditions are that they have to, that's out there, it's published, so people know up front, and it's all done at the time the annexation takes place, not when they become contiguous 20 years down the road," said Gano.
Gano also welcomed the township residents in attendance to offer their own ideas for a possible alternative to annexation; however, none of the residents in attendance had any ideas. Bailey suggested any township resident who has a suggestion contact any of the trustees and they could present their suggestion moving forward.
Bailey suggested that the city and township continue to meet and discuss the issue regularly moving forward, requesting another meeting in a few weeks after there had been time to review what was discussed and move forward.
It was ultimately decided to reconvene in another meeting of the Economic Development Committee at 6 p.m. Oct. 30.
mahart@mojonews.com