West Fork council passes annexation ordinance after resident objections; measure will go to November ballot

The West Fork City Council voted to adopt Ordinance 2026-541 on third reading, approving the annexation of contiguous territory near the I‑49 corridor and adopting an emergency clause so the annexation will appear on the November ballot.

During public comment, several residents urged the council not to adopt the ordinance. John Smith, who identified himself as from the Campbell community, told the council he was "just really confused" and asked whether the annexation was "just for taxes" and whether residents would face a roughly five‑mill property tax increase. The mayor responded that "on average, the city gets about a $100 per home per year" from the property‑tax millage and that sales‑tax gains from expanded commercial development would be modest.

Other speakers raised practical concerns. Tim Amundsen said he discovered property on Pearson was included on the annexation map and asked how the annexation would affect easements and landlocked parcels; the council attorney and mayor said state real‑estate code and long‑standing use can establish access rights and that annexation would not automatically resolve private easement disputes. Clay Sullivan, a property owner who said he does not yet reside on his land and therefore cannot vote, urged the council to consider representation and the effects of removing areas from prior planning‑commission jurisdiction.

Council members said the annexation aims to protect the city’s ability to require construction and infrastructure standards near a major highway corridor rather than allow county rules to determine development. The mayor told residents the city’s stated objective is to ensure future development meets certain standards for streets, curbs and drainage and to preserve the city’s planning boundary that previously covered the corridor.

After public comment the council made a motion to pass Ordinance 2026-541 and conducted a roll‑call vote. The council then moved and approved a separate motion to adopt the ordinance’s emergency clause so the item can be submitted to the county in time for the November ballot. Council members encouraged residents to attend forthcoming zoning‑ordinance workshops and hearings where the council said it will consider specific limits — for example, allowing safe shooting areas in agriculturally zoned land rather than an across‑the‑board acreage exemption — if the annexation passes.

The ordinance’s passage means the annexation question will be placed on the ballot in November for voter approval. The council’s stated immediate fiscal estimate was modest: roughly $100 per annexed home per year and approximately $8,000 annually from the roughly 80 homes the mayor referenced; council members said most additional revenue would likely be allocated to operational needs such as fuel for police, fire and roads rather than major new programs.

The council moved on to new business after the vote; it also urged continued resident participation in the zoning discussions the council said will follow if the annexation is approved by voters.