4/10/1984 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

APR 10 1984 BOOK 56 PACE 676 our park property. He did believe the agreement is legal and did not want to break it. The Chairman believed that some individuals in the area have asked for their cards back and that they have been returned. In any event, he would like to ask for the County park to be removed from the annexation area and actively work towards this. The Chairman continued that he would like to have a Resolution clarifying our position, and stated that he personally was in opposition to the annexation. Commissioner Bird concurred with Commissioner Lyons that at the time we agreed to send in the card, the County was trying to let the democratic process work and not interfere with it. We -also were trying to be cooperative with the City since there are so many areas where we need to cooperate, and it is only the taxpayers who suffer when we aren't able to. Since that time, however, it now appears that a large majority of the people in the South Beach area want to stay in the County, and this makes him feel proud. He also felt that Commissioner Wodtke hit it on the head when he pointed that this area is a vital part of our tax base in the MSTU fund with some 246 million in property values. Commissioner Bird did feel that we have the ability to accomplish providing services to the remaining part of the South Beach area and stated that he would support the concept of asking the card to be returned in a spirit of cooperation, and if this can't be done, he would at least like to see the County's portion of the property deleted from the area to be annexed. Commissioner Lyons emphasized that whether or not we get the card back, if the City does include our acreage, it would be annexed with or without our permission, and that was one of the reasons for the card and the agreement so that we retain some control over our property. He then raised the question of when is an enclave an enclave, noting 4