Nevada County Picayune and Gurdon Times Newspaper Archive

Annexation Approved; Appeal Possible (cont) (cont)

Patrick Hale, Gene's brother, Walker said, is in favor of the annexation, saying it's necessary in order to sell the land. "It's not being used as agricultural land," she said. "No hay is being cut."

Walker also stated the growing trend in communities is to develop along the interstate because the land is adaptable for commercial use.

Gene Hale said he is not against progress, but was in court to discuss the agricultural land and wanted it to be excluded from annexation. He showed the court a ruling from White County in which the Arkansas Supreme Court upheld a decision allowing a section of land to be removed from annexation in the center of a portion of properties which were annexed.

Vasser argued this was illegal. He said legally the borders can't be annexed without the center. "The middle makes it contiguous," he said. "That's state law."

Vasser said the interior sections may develop after the exterior portions are developed, but the entire area must be annexed together.

Jim Wingfield, who owns property in the area to be annexed, said he had no problem with others around him being brought into the city, but he wants to be left out. "I can't see the wisdom of it other than taxation now," he said. "I don't know what the city would do for me. The proposed poultry plant's drainage would come down Garland Creek onto me and could affect future development. The effluent alarms me and should be considered. My land is agricultural. I'm against the taxation of the land in the center (of the annexed area)."

John Brannan, president of the Bank of Prescott, said there were misconceptions about the poultry plant which has talked about locating in Prescott. He said the plant which may locate in the annexed area is not a rendering plant, but plans to fry chicken breasts which would be put in TV dinners. It will not actually process any chicken.

He also said any drainage into the creek must first meet EPA standards. The other prospect, Brannan said, is also environmentally sound.

Dana Pittman, who, with her husband, has purchased land in the area to be annexed for agricultural use, said when Mayor Taylor contacted her, she misunderstood what was going on. "I thought they would only take a little bit (of land) to run utilities on," she said. "We want to move back here someday, but if this annexation goes through, we'll have to sell an acre a year to pay the taxes."

Pittman said she saw no reason to annex all her property into the city where she and her family can't afford to pay the taxes or return to Prescott to live.

Vasser said until development is complete and unless the area is zoned to where cattle can't be raised, there should be no problem with her family raising cows on the land. He said the zoning won't be done for years and shouldn't interfere with pre-existing use.

In closing, Vasser said the thrust of the annexation is the city showing vision for the future of Prescott and its residents. "I understand what may be considered agriculture is not at test here," he said. "The city is incumbent with having a game plan to attract business and industry. The revenue will make it possible to do further developments."

Vasser told the court the petition for annexation met all legal requirements in that more than half the landowners signed and more than half the land in question would be included in the annexation. He said there could be no void left in the middle of the properties.

Hale again cited Palmer v. Conway, in which the county approved an annexation, and the supreme court excluded properties within the annexed area. He told Barham he could do what he wanted and the land would still be contiguous if the center was excluded.

He argued the majority of the land is used for agriculture and the owners want it to remain that way. Hale said Taylor told him only the front of his property would be annexed, but this changed and all of his land is to be included.

Hale said he has helped the city, but the city has never returned the favor. "If you can't exclude us," he said, "give us a solution that will be good for everyone. Let us stay out."

Barham recessed the court for lunch, while he deliberated on the issue. Shortly after 2 p.m., he reconvened the court with his decision to allow the annexation. Barham based his decision on the fact all requirements for annexation were met. "I did what the law stated shall be done," he said.

"If the county is to survive, it must have industry. I made my decision on what is in the best interest of the people of Nevada County."

Vasser said he was pleased with Barham's decision and the annexation will be good for the area's economic future.

Hale, on the other hand, has promised to appeal the decision. "We want it overturned," he said. "I plan to go to circuit court and it may have to be decided by the supreme court."

Hale said he made the city be honest and if it doesn't do what it said he will file suit.

"It was a good hearing, well attended. I enjoyed it. They presented everything I've been trying to get out of them."