Dear editor:

Upon reading the last article about Mike Birdsley’s desire to deannex his business property, my conclusion is that his request has merit. If he stays in the city limits and proceeds with his plans to develop the acreage further, he will be required to install a lift station to get city sewer service at a cost of between $350,000 and $400,000. Also, he’ll be required to install curb and gutter to align with city requirements. The problem here is that he has absolutely NO need for city sewer services for his business (it’s not a housing or business offices development). Why on earth, then, would he be required to install the lift station? If he is deannexed, he will still be required to pay taxes (I’m assuming) to either the county or city or state, so he will be paying his dues.

He’s been pursuing this idea since November of 2020 and the council minutes reflect that he would need to deannex both the western and eastern lots to prevent the western lot from being a rural island in the city. Birdsley acquired the eastern lot last year so he renewed his mission with the council, whereupon one councilman felt he’d been taken off guard. (How?? Birdsley had been attempting this process for five years!). And as Troy Bray stated, “…given that Birdsley’s parcels are on Powell’s far edge and lack sewer service, ‘there really isn’t any reason to force somebody to stay in the city.’” Does the city have any plans to install sewer in that location? Birdsley has already paid his dues to the council by paying the $2,000 to get his request before the council.

Sometimes, it’s a good idea to put yourself in someone else’s place. If this were your property and you had the same issues as Birdsley, would you want the council to override your desires (which he has responsibly, legally and financially submitted to the council) when his property has absolutely no need of the upgrades required of him if he continues developing his storage business (no sewer needed)?

Mike’s attorney, Scott Lewis, has a great point. Instead of worrying that this action will set a precedent, make sure any future deannexations should be considered case by case.

I say allow Mike Birdsley to deannex his property.

Toby Sheets

Powell