Manning City Council’s regular meeting on Monday night began with Country Club Estates residents Charles James and Ned McIntosh presenting council members with a petition with 129 names on it.
The men and the other signatories are opposed, James said, to their subdivision being annexed into Manning city limits.
City Council held a workshop Feb. 20 to discuss the “pros and cons,” Mayor Julia Nelson said, of the annexation of two county properties just outside city limits.
“But Country Club Estates was never part of that discussion,” Nelson said. “(Neighboring property) Shannon Greens was the property discussed, and then only because a developer asked about being annexed into the city were he to build homes on that property.”
Nelson and Councilwoman Sherry Welle seemed surprised at the gathering of residents from Country Club Estates and Pine Knoll, which was discussed along with Shannon Greens at the February workshop. A portion of Pine Knoll currently sits within city limits.
“I’ve made it a mission since I was elected to be very transparent,” Nelson said. “This was just a discussion. We could never annex a property just by a workshop. There are state laws when it comes to annexation.”
Administrator A. Scott Tanner told The Manning Times in February that there were three different methods of annexation under state law:
All property owners – 100 percent – sign a petition asking to be annexed, after which council members accept the petition and pass an ordinance notifying the state Secretary of State and the Department of Transportation and Public Safety. With all homeowners on board, no public hearing is necessary.
Three-quarters of property owners owning at least 75 percent of the assessed property value petition council members, who then hold hearings, identify services to be assumed, and determine tax revenues and the burdens and benefits of annexation.
One-quarter of property owners known as “qualified electors” present a petition, after which the Clarendon County Election Commission conducts an election and certifies results.
“This was not some discussion we tried to have in secrecy,” Nelson said. “I can assure you that we will not do anything illegal as far as annexation.”
Pine Knoll residents living outside city limits have preemptively started a petition of their own as well.
Council recently annexed two parcels of property close to the old Walmart at an apartment complex. Those annexations were made with property owners’ approval, Tanner said in February.
Pine Knoll has been looked at before for annexation.
“That was, of course, before I was here, and I’m sure how long ago that was, or exactly what happened or how far that went,” Tanner said. “I do know that there are some new property owners there who were asking about annexation.”
He said annexing the properties would, obviously, increase the city’s tax base and, therefore, its overall annual revenue.
“As far as the citizens go, it provides local police and fire protection, which typically provides better homeowners insurance premiums,” Tanner said. “They would get that benefit. At the same time, there would be a tax difference. They would pay county and city taxes.”
“There are some pluses and minuses,” Tanner said.
Nelson said that residents of any area considered for annexation would have ample opportunities to explore the “pros and cons” with council members.
“We would present that to all of our residents,” she said. “Again, we’re not going to do anything against the wishes of residents who don’t want to be annexed, and we’re not attempting to do anything in secrecy.”
Nelson said, however, that workshops are necessary to foster discussion.
“We have to be able to get together to have discussions so we can figure out the pros and cons of various ideas,” she said. “We can’t not make plans for the city of Manning because we might ruffle feathers by ideas. These workshops are just to consider ideas and discuss them. Nothing can be made final in a workshop. It’s speculative.”
