Mahomet Annexation

A contentious local item for Mahomet revolves around what happens when unincorporated parts of Champaign County are annexed by a municipality. For residents this can affect their taxes, services, and regulations. For governments this can affect revenue, budgets, and intergovernmental agreements based on population, etc.

The Mahomet Daily had an article laying out the potential changes to the Mahomet annexation policy and had a nice overview of what annexation could mean to those County residents annexed into the village:

All tax dollars coming from Mahomet residents spread per the tax rate between the Mahomet-Seymour School District, Champaign County Government, Parkland College, Cornbelt Fire District, the Mahomet Public Library, the Champaign County Forest Preserve, Mahomet Township, Mahomet Road and Bridge and Mahomet Permanent Road.

Residents living within the Village of Mahomet are also subject to a Village of Mahomet tax.

Village Administrator Patrick Brown said that the Village tax rate is currently similar in dollar amount and percentage to the Champaign County tax rate on a property tax bill. A currently unincorporated property annexed into the Village would see a property tax increase of a similar amount.

Properties annexed into the Village would also be subject to Village ordinances, such as the leaf, and brush burning, which prohibits the practice, and construction and driveway permits.

Brown said that those annexed into the Village would receive Village services such as service from the Mahomet Police Department instead of the Champaign County Department, snow plowing, brush and limb pickup and those residents would not have to pay the out-of-Village fee for Mahomet Parks and Recreation programming.

Unlike some other municipalities, annexation in Mahomet is unique in that there are two water districts that serve residents and it has an abundance of parks, waterways, and interstates.

Full article with more information here. Last month these changes became a focal point of opposition to the annexation of the Briarcliff subdivision. From the News-Gazette after a village trustees vote in favor of annexation:

In opposing annexation, numerous residents have said they don't believe there are enough benefits to being part of the village to warrant added taxes, and many have said they wish to preserve the rural lifestyle they enjoy outside village limits.

The annexations approved this week will add about 300 people to the village's population.

Prior to the regularly scheduled meeting, about 20 people held signs in opposition to annexation outside the Cornbelt Fire Protection District training facility on Main Street. The session was moved to the Cornbelt facility in anticipation of a larger crowd than most trustee meetings, and the move was warranted. Dozens of people filled the training facility room for the meeting.

More details at that full article here. Some were threatening to sue to block the annexation before and after the vote. The News-Gazette explored the legal issues in a Law Q&A article this week:

Can a city or village forcibly annex your property, thereafter subjecting you to city real estate taxes?

Generally, a city can only forcibly annex property if it is adjacent to the city's boundary and is wholly bounded by one or more cities or is wholly bounded by cities and the state line (including being bounded by rivers or lakes in counties of certain larger sizes).

Forcible annexation can also be done when the territory to be annexed is wholly bounded by municipalities and a forest preserve district or park district.

However, annexation cannot be had to the surrounded territory if it is more than 60 acres. Thus, if your house lot is surrounded by other house lots, and the sum of the size of the encirclement of all the house lots is more than 60 acres, you are safe under the current legislation in Illinois...

The public policy behind forceful annexation is to prevent enclaves arising which might interfere with the orderly growth of cities because of the geographic disruption to the flow of city infrastructure and services.

It's tit for tat. While you may start paying higher property taxes because of the annexation, you will get city police and fire protection, and possibly sanitary sewage service. But the argument against forcible annexation is the American sanctity of land ownership free from the unwanted intrusions of the tyrant king. Hence the 60-acre exception is a policy counterbalance...

The objection raised by the owners adjacent to the East Central Illinois village has to do with whether the unincorporated territory is properly wholly bounded under the requirements of the annexation statute.

Full article with more information here. What's next? It depends on if there's a lawsuit. From the previous trustees meeting:

The subdivisions in question are said by Mahomet leaders to be either completely surrounded by, or partially touching, village boundaries, making them eligible for annexation.

"Essentially, what happens next is going to depend on the area subdivisions," village President Sean Widener said.

The Tuesday vote doesn't mean the subdivisions will be immediately considered within the village limits. Widener noted that the village must file paperwork with the Champaign County Clerk's Office and finish the process of official annexation.

I'll leave it to the lawyers to figure out the odds in fighting it.