9/10/2009 10:59:00 PM Reaction mixed to incorporation proposal
Committee: It is feasible to incorporate Williamson Valley
Matt Hinshaw/The Daily Courier
Williamson Valley resident Mike Affinito yells out during the incorporation committee's first public meeting Thursday evening at Abia Judd Elementary School in Prescott.
Courtesy
The Town of Williamson Valley Incorporation Committee provided this map to show the proposed incorporation boundaries.
The incorporation of Williamson Valley into a town is economically feasible, according to figures the Town of Williamson Valley Incorporation Committee reviewed at its first public meeting last night.
About 400 people turned out to learn about the incorporation at Abia Judd Elementary School with the Williamson Valley Community Organization as host.
Cal Turner said he believed most people were against the incorporation when they came to the meeting.
"I think they left as maybes or having more questions," he said.
Bill Robert, the incorporation committee treasurer, presented figures showing that if Williamson Valley incorporates it could expect to receive $1,980,650 in state revenue with expenses of $1,663,944. This would leave a surplus of $316,706.
He said committee members used Dewey-Humboldt's budget to project what expenses would be.
Mike Hecht, an incorporation committee member, and Robert stressed that this is not a proposed budget, just an illustration of what residents could expect if the area incorporates.
Robert added, "These figures show the town would be able to operate successfully with these projected revenues."
Ken Minio, WVCO president who emceed the meeting, said incorporation is a wise option because it lets Williamson Valley residents secure local control and gain a meaningful voice in government.
He said he has a letter from the county's Public Works Department stating that the county will maintain control of Williamson Valley Road even if the area incorporates.
Georgene Lockwood, incorporation committee president, said the committee's attorney said the county must turn over all its roads in the affected area to the town if the area incorporates.
District 1 Supervisor Carol Springer, who attended the meeting, said, "there's a difference of opinion" on the issue and referred the question to Deputy County Attorney Jack Fields.
He was unavailable at press time.
The committee, in its presentation, said the some reasons the area should incorporate include:
• To give it and its residents more power.
• Residents being able to dictate the level of service they want.
• Residents having local control of planning and zoning.
• The mayor and council members will live in the area and will know its needs.
• Local sales tax will stay in town.
• A town would get state revenue that unincorporated areas don¹t receive.
Some reasons the committee gave against incorporation, included:
• The fear property taxes may increase. Committee members said residents must vote to impose a local property tax.
• The area's rural lifestyle would be under threat. Committee members said it is under threat now.
Robert said it will cost $20,000-$40,000 to incorporate Williamson Valley. That money must come from individuals. The committee has raised $5,250 so far.
Tom Belshe, deputy director for the League of Arizona Cities and Towns, said for an area to incorporate into a town it must have 1,500 residents. He projects that 5,000 people live in Williamson Valley area inside the proposed boundaries.
Also, the area must be urban in nature. Looking at Dewey-Humboldt and Star
Valley, Belshe sees no problem meeting that requirement.
He also told the crowd that if the proposed incorporation area's boundaries are within six miles of any incorporated town or city it must get an approval from that town.
Lockwood said that Prescott and Chino Valley have assured the incorporation committee they have no interest in incorporating Williamson Valley.
Belshe said to incorporate; the committee can circulate a petition of incorporation. Once it receives the signatures of two-thirds of the residents the area is incorporated.
The second way is to get 10 percent of the residents to sign an incorporation petition with an election and then present it to the Board of Supervisors.
If the signatures are valid the board calls an election and if 51 percent of the area's registered voters who vote approve it, the area is incorporated. Otherwise it fails.
Either way, proponents only have 180 days to collect signatures on the petitions.
In the questions session, one resident asked if the area becomes a town and the revenues are not sufficient, what happens. Belshe said it would be up to the residents to decide if they want to vote for additional money.
Another resident asked where the sales tax would come from with only one visible business. Lockwood said, "We know there will be some commercial growth."
She added, "I guarantee we will have commercial growth if we don¹t incorporate."
By incorporating, she said residents will have a voice about where commercial development goes.
The committee will have its next public informational meeting on Nov. 12.
Posted: Thursday, September 17, 2009
Article comment by:
concerned
I'm sorry but I can't see how maintaining Williamson Valley Road fits into the "presented" best case scenario.The maintenance and upgrading of that road is a huge chink in the armor of the supporters of incorporation.But somehow they choose to avoid discussion on this issue. More government means more hassles and more money from the taxpayers, period.
Posted: Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Article comment by:
The TRUTH About Property Taxes
To correct some misinformation being spread here. A direct quote from an email from Pam Pearsall, our Yavapai County Assessor, on whether county property taxes go up upon incorporation: "Whether a property is located in an incorporated area or not has nothing to do with how the Assessor’s Office determines the value of the property." Secondly, Tom Belshe, the Deputy Director of the League of Arizona Cities and Towns, cited at the meeting that no municipality that has incorporated since the 1980s has imposed a property tax. The VOTERS must VOTE to put one in. And last, looking at Yavapai County, only three municipalities have a property tax, which were voted in years ago by the VOTERS: Prescott, Clarkdale and Jerome. The rest of the cities and towns are operating WITHOUT property taxes and have been doing so since their inception. Please get your facts straight!
Editor's Note - I would say the same thing, get it straight. A few of Belshe's opening words were that 53 percent of cities and towns in Arizona have a property tax.
Posted: Monday, September 14, 2009
Article comment by:
No New Government Parasites
It has never ceased to amaze me when I hear the 'logic' for incorporation. "We don't like the government control that exists, so we are going to add another layer of government control". It would make much more sense to fix the government we already have. The situation in D-H isn't what I want to recreate in Williamson Valley. Georgene, if you think you have all the answers, why not make another run for Supervisor and let the people decide. Please NO INCORPORATION. We cannot afford it now.
Posted: Sunday, September 13, 2009
Article comment by:
Robert Burnett
If the WV area incorporates and takes over the roadways, then that incorporated city will be responsible and held liable for maintenance and engineering of those same roads. If the roads are adjudicated inadequate for the levels of traffic, due to improper maintenance or engineering, it would likely lead to lawsuits. The property owners would have to pay for any adverse civil litigation through their taxes. As a retired traffic commander I see a lot of potential on the existing roads in WV for this type of civil challenge. Sorry, but I say "NO" to incorporation!
Posted: Saturday, September 12, 2009
Article comment by:
Road to NOWHERE
No one mentioned as a "town" how the town would address SAFE YIELD or future water responsibility. Who will build a Library and City Hall? Will it all be a cesspool village or is sewer service even in the offing? Will you form an open space committee, and impose a tax to buy up all the open space to control growth? Remember not to use sales tax because there won't be any businesses to collect from. If all the projected building restrictions will be enforced a city staff will be required to run Planning and Zoning and how does the city staff get paid? Think folks, the "REAL" underlying reasoning for incorporation is flawed. "Protectionism" never works, it only strangles those imposing the protection. A huge responsibility comes with operating a city and I think those proposing such are living in a little Utopian bubble that does not exist.
I am appalled and in shock! As I read the letters I see that no one has any idea about what incorporation will do "for" our community. First of all, no one on the Incorporation Committee lives along Williamson Valley Road. They have nothing to gain. Second, it's the County that wants the road widened to eventually increase their commercial income. The community, via survey, wants to retain a rural lifestyle. We already know that. An incorporated sleepy little town could make sure we stay rural. We will elect our Mayor/Council who support that concept. We are going to get all the things we "don't" want "unless" we do incorporate. We need to protect ourselves from the County. It's that simple!
Posted: Saturday, September 12, 2009
Article comment by:
Cindy McCrae
Hi Dick, If I go to your meetings, where your people spend close to HALF an hour INTRODUCING just themselves, and I still come away not agreeing your group, can I be enlightened? Or must I have the same opinion as you to be considered enlightened? I believe that what was presented was a best case scenario. I don't believe that you can add another layer of government without raising the cost to the people somewhere along the line. There is no free lunch. Maybe the Town of WV doesn't raise our taxes straight away, but they will someday, regardless of the promises made today. Personally, I think the county does a good enought job of managing the area, after all, it was managed well enough you all wanted to move here and I never left. To the person complaining about the "ranchers", how did you know that they were ranchers? Or is that code for dirty- stinken-no-good-rotten-S.O.B-developer? Sorry you felt they were being rude.
Posted: Saturday, September 12, 2009
Article comment by:
David
Wow! The town isn't even incorporated yet and already the battle lines have been drawn! You're talking about having local control and you can't agree on what you want. What makes you think it'll magically get better with incorporation? I'll tell you what: Decide what kind of town you want to have first and if you can actually get widespread agreement, you deserve to incorporate!
Posted: Saturday, September 12, 2009
Article comment by:
Bill
Sounds more like the "Committee to Ruin Williamson Valley"
Posted: Saturday, September 12, 2009
Article comment by:
No name provided
Please don't let this happen! I lived in a similar rural neighborhood in Colorado and the same thing happened there. A few neighbors decided it was good for the community and pushed and pushed until it went through. All of the same arguments were made. Today (about 8 years later), crime there is through the roof. Residents have had to build block walls to keep out the noise and hide the eyesore from the back lots of all of the new businesses. The accident rate also is much higher because of the traffic. This is so sad. Don't let it happen here!
Posted: Saturday, September 12, 2009
Article comment by:
Andre
I vote no. I don't want to see my backyard turned into a strip mall. This is the same old story -- business people screwing with our community for their own financial gain. You can fool some of the people some of the time, but not all of them...
Posted: Saturday, September 12, 2009
Article comment by:
Karl Pope
Commercial development in Williamson Valley is a bad idea, plain and simple. Look at the individuals who want to do this and you discover they are developers, real estate investors, and business people. It may be cloaked as the community having a voice, but that's just bald faced lie.
Posted: Saturday, September 12, 2009
Article comment by:
Time to Break Away P.V. North of 89 ?
Looks like a fine idea. Maybe the folks North of Highway 89a in Prescott Valley could get out from under the land baron developers who run the pawns in Town Government and get services for all the folks , not just the Good Ole Boys at Civic center and the Entertainment district and the Arena. The IQ pool seems to be increasing and there will be change. Town services are basically non existant north of 89a except for the park at Viewpoint. The got us on the new water and sewer rates and we pay an awful lot of taxes which they then give, grant , incentive and squander away for their Develop or Die propaganda that really only makes them all money. ArmyVet
Posted: Friday, September 11, 2009
Article comment by:
Earth to Murray
What planet are you from Murray. Haven't you heard anything the committee said. You have it all backwards.
Posted: Friday, September 11, 2009
Article comment by:
School, Hospital, Grocery Store
We have lived clear out williamson valley for years and love it. We love getting out of town and coming to our peace and quite each afternoon. I personally would like to see a school, grocery store, and hospital out here. I think the Hunt family did a beautiful job with the old stage stop and if we had tasteful builders come out this way it would be great. A safeway or fry's would be very handy and a school is way overdue. 5 lanes? If its safer why not? Time goes on, things change, population is growing Prescott is growing and things will change regardless-
