Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Annexation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission discusses Jensen annexation, finds little immediate benefit to town
Summary
Midway planning commissioners reviewed a proposed ~97-acre Jensen annexation and concluded, based on terrain, infrastructure costs and limited water capacity, that the parcel likely offers little fiscal or service benefit to the town; county postponed action 90 days to allow town review.
The Town of Midway Planning and Zoning Commission discussed a proposed annexation of roughly 97 acres by the Jensen family during its May 14 meeting, and several commissioners said the parcel offers little immediate benefit to Midway.
The issue was introduced by the chair, who said the county postponed action for 90 days to allow town review. A commissioner summarized the county review and said the applicant is seeking parcelization into 5-acre lots; “if we annex it into the property, it will immediately go to 5 acre lots, because that's what our land use ordinance says,” the commissioner said.
Commission discussion focused on buildability, utilities and fiscal tradeoffs. Commissioners noted steep slopes and gullies that limit buildable land; one commissioner estimated “maybe 2 homes” could fit on the lower flat spot. On water, a commissioner said the well on the parcel has a permit for about 17 acre-feet and is only about 55 feet deep, and added that “we can't use it as a municipal well unless it's at least a 100 feet” (meaning the well would need to be deepened or rights transferred to be usable by the town). Members discussed that connecting the parcel to town services would likely require the subdivider to construct roads and sewer extensions and that those improvements could be costly.
Commissioners also compared easement and road-width standards: the panel heard the existing easement is about 30 feet while county practice would typically require 60 feet and the town would require 66 feet with 24 feet of asphalt. That difference would add cost to any subdivision under town jurisdiction.
On fiscal impact, the commission cited very small projected additional property tax revenue — commissioners referenced figures in the low thousands annually — and several members concluded there was “no reason to annex” given the likely infrastructure burden and limited tax benefit. One commissioner summarized the consensus: the town has little to gain unless a clearer, larger public benefit is demonstrated.
No formal recommendation or vote on the annexation was taken at the meeting; the county’s 90-day postponement gives the town time to examine technical details and the commission said it will continue to review the file and the general plan implications.
