Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Annexation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Uniontown council splits on two annexation petitions; Tarragon annexation approved, Kazer Mezic fails
Summary
The Uniontown City Council voted down Resolution 18-76 (Kazer Mezic annexation) and approved Resolution 18-77 (Tarragon annexation, modified to six parcels). Staff cited boundary-regularity and utility availability; Tarragon offered to cover review costs.
At its May 11 meeting, the Uniontown City Council rejected one annexation petition and approved another after staff recommended geographic modifications.
City staff reported that the Kazer Mezic petition (Resolution 18-76) would have added roughly 20 acres on the west side of town and cited a 2026 County Assessor valuation near $5,000,000. Staff told the council the preliminary filing dated March 19, 2026, asked for a small area but that staff recommended including additional parcels to create a more regular boundary. After committee discussion and a council roll-call discussion, the motion to approve Resolution 18-76 failed on a voice vote and the annexation was not adopted.
By contrast, staff presented the Tarragon petition (Resolution 18-77), received March 24, 2026, and recommended modifying the applicant’s three-parcel request to six parcels (about 18 acres) to better align with the city boundary and roadway inclusion. The applicant offered to help pay consultant and processing costs. The council approved Resolution 18-77 by voice vote; the mayor recorded the tally as five yeses and one no.
Chris Bass, the staff member presenting the plats and annexation materials, told the council that water and sewer stub-outs exist near the Tarragon area and that the staff modification was primarily intended to make the municipal boundary more regular and to anticipate the boundary review board’s likely expectations. “Staff is recommending we modify the area to ensure the city boundary is a little more regular,” he said.
Alex Campbell, a resident who lives outside the city, spoke in favor of the Tarragon annexation and emphasized extending utilities and road networks and reimbursing the city for review costs to avoid overburdening staff. A Tarragon representative reiterated an estimated per-unit revenue figure and the developer’s willingness to pay consultant fees.
What’s next: For approved annexations, state law requires the legislative body to set a date within 60 days to meet with petitioners and determine whether to accept, reject or geographically modify the proposal and whether to assume applicable comprehensive-plan designations and indebtedness. For the failed petition, the council took no further action at this meeting.
