Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Annexation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council splits on annexations: Calvert Mesic fails, Tarragon passes
Summary
Council declined the Calvert Mesic annexation (resolution 18-76) after discussion, but approved the Tarragon annexation (resolution 18-77) with a 5–1 vote. Staff recommended modifications to both proposals and noted applicants offered to help pay review costs.
The Uniontown City Council on May 11 considered two separate annexation petitions and reached different outcomes: council rejected resolution 18-76 (Calvert Mesic) and approved resolution 18-77 (Tarragon).
Staff told the council that Calvert Mesic (resolution 18-76) originally included two parcels and staff recommended modifying the petition to add nine additional parcels for an 11-parcel annexation of roughly 20 acres. Chris Bass reported the 2026 county assessor valuation for the area was almost $5,000,000 and explained that annexation would require the area to adopt city zoning and assume any bonded indebtedness. After committee discussion about staffing costs and geography, a motion to approve 18-76 failed.
On Tarragon (resolution 18-77), staff reported the petition (filed 03/24/2026 by Chad Perdue on behalf of Tarragon) included three large vacant parcels and staff recommended modifying it to six parcels (about 18 acres) with an estimated 2026 valuation of roughly $4,000,000. Staff noted stubbed water and sewer connections are available and that the applicant offered to help cover city review costs; Bass said processing an annexation can require a consultant and can involve substantial staff time (he cited consultant processing costs in the $20,000–$30,000 range and 100–150 staff hours). Council Member LaFleur moved to approve resolution 18-77, seconded by Council Member McBrayer; the motion passed with five yeses and one no.
Both annexation discussions included a staff recommendation to modify petition boundaries so city limits are more regular and a reminder that annexations adopt the city’s future land-use and zoning designations. No rezoning decisions were made at the meeting; staff noted changing zoning away from the default (R-2) would likely require a comprehensive plan amendment.
