[ back ]
Burton pushes annexation for water, sewer services
(by Joan Demirjian - July 14, 2010)
Burton pushes annexation for water, sewer services
By JOSEPH KOZIOL JR.
Burton Village Council voted Monday to establish a policy for property owners outside the village who would like to use its water and sewer services.
Council voted 4-2 to require that owners of properties outside the village who want those services first request annexation into the village.
The decision came after officials heard a request by Mary Lambert for the extension of water and sewer services for two parcels along the western border of the village in Burton Township.
Mrs. Lambert said the two undeveloped parcels easily could be connected to a sewer line that was brought to the area in 1991. Without the hookups, she said, septic systems would have to be built that would destroy large trees that provide beauty and privacy screening for village residents on Spring Street.
The request met opposition almost from the start.
Curt Johnson, a member of the village's board of public affairs, which oversees water and sewer operations, said the issue was discussed a week earlier before that board.
"It puts another pair of horns on this dilemma," Mr. Johnson said. He said the board questions how many other properties outside the village would continue to request the services, to the disadvantage of village residents.
"It could very well be a bad practice," Mr. Johnson said.
He said village residents continue to support the utility operations with income taxes. Those outside the village receiving the services only pay 25 percent more than village residents for tap-ins to the service and then the quarterly service payments.
He said it may be fairer to establish a sewer district if the village continues the practice of allowing hookups outside its boundaries.
Mrs. Lambert argued that homeowners would pay for what they receive and would not burden other village services, such as police.
Councilman Craig Ronyak said the village would get "minimal receipts" from that arrangement, which would leave it with more properties to service without tax receipts. "There's not much benefit to us," he said.
Although Mrs. Lambert cited state law, which references a mandate to tie in for those within 200 feet of a sewer, village Law Director Todd Hicks said the village still has the right to refuse service in this case.
Councilman Gerald Rouge said the village, historically, to its detriment, has passed on chances to annex properties into the village. "We give up our rights, we give up our future, so someone can conveniently tie in," he said.
He said many of those lost chances to annex other properties were simply to avoid conflicts with the township. "When do we finally start thinking about the people of Burton and not worry about someone else's feeling in the township?" he asked.
"I'm concerned that, step by step, we're closing down the future of Burton," Mr. Rouge said.
Councilman Jeff Coleman said he did not want to get into the history of annexations but only consider the request before council. While he said he believes the village should annex the whole township, in this case, the property owners would pay for what they get, as well as pay a+ tap-in fee that is 25 percent higher than those within the village pay.
But Mr. Rouge said every time the village makes an exception, it gives people a reason to continue the practice.
He said the first step for Mrs. Lambert is to request the parcels to be annexed.
Mrs. Lambert said she doesn't want to tread into the controversial issue of annexation. "I'm not into taking sides in political battles," she said.
"It's controversial for us to change just for you," Mr. Rouge replied.
Mr. Hicks said the board has the right to say yes or no to the request or request that the properties be annexed.
Village business owner Matthew Mesarchik agreed with Mr. Rouge that people outside the village could enjoy its benefits without sharing an equal portion of the tax burden.
Initially, Councilwoman Dianne Lillibridge proposed a motion that the village is not interested in annexing the properties or providing services to those outside the village. That motion died for lack of a second.
Mr. Rouge's motion then was approved 4-2, with council members Jeff Coleman and Linda Swaney dissenting.
Mrs. Lambert also produced a letter from Burton Township Trustees that said they would not support and would fight an attempt to annex township property, indicating that could not be a condition for the hookups.
[ back ]
