My Fault?

At last Monday's meeting, when county commission voted to take legal action against Lenoir City's illegal annexation, newly elected 2nd district commissioner, William Jenkins, was the only person to speak in support/defense of the city's actions. At the end of his debate with the county attorney, his final bite at the apple was to point out that I had known of the city's intentions to violate the law since October and that if I had just brought it to commission's attention sooner, all this "heartache and waste of money" could have been avoided. Really?

Jenkins is exactly right. My first email to the city manager, Amber Kelso, was on October 25th to inform her that the city would be in violation of state law if they annexed the property outside the Urban Growth Boundary, UGB. So the city knew they were violating the law three weeks before they voted for the annexation. Didn't seem to bother them at all.

Then on November 8th, the county attorney sent out a memorandum on the annexation to all commissioners, including commissioner Jenkins. So Mr. Jenkins was aware of the illegal annexation well before it happened also. As far as I know, he did nothing to try to stop it.

City officials, knew well in advance they were perusing an illegal annexation and nothing was going to stop it. Does commissioner Jenkins really believe that anything was going to stop mayor Tony Aikens illegal actions?

Below are the relevant emails between myself and city manager, Amber Kelso, warning of the violations of the law.

October 25, 2022

Ms. Kelso,
 

I understand the city council voted last night to annex a certain parcel of property, 009 111.00, off Hwy 70 west. According to the UGB map, this property is not in the city UGB. 
 
If I remember the Public Chapter 1101 regs correctly, city's can only annex property within the UGB.
 
Maybe I misunderstood which property was involved but this was the map and parcel that was given to me.
 
Please advise.
 
Thanks
 
Van Shaver 
October 25, 2022

Mr. Shaver,

 
We are looking into this today and will let you know.
 
Thank you,

Amber Scott Kelso

11/13/22

Ms. Kelso,

Just an FYI, neither a public notice of re-zone for the Hwy. 95 property nor a public notice to provide a plan of services for property to be annexed on Hwy. 70 were in the November 2nd News Herald as stated in each of the resolutions from October 24th. 
 
Relative to November 14th council agenda pertaining to the annexation of property off Hwy 70, the question remains, how can the city annex property outside the city's urban growth boundary based on PC 1101 and the court approved interlocal agreement between the county and the city, City of  Lenoir City Resolution No. 2005-4-11-1678A? and Loudon County Resolution No. 040405-A?
 
Please advise.

Thanks

Van

11/14/22

Amber,
 

At this point I know we're just splitting hairs, but the resolutions specifically stated the notice would be in the News Herald.
 
What of the issue of PC 1101 and the 2005 interlocal agreement as it pertains to the Hwy. 70 annexation?
 
Van
 

11/14/22

Mr. Shaver,
 
Good morning. As you know, the Daily Edition is also a newspaper of general circulation, where it was published on October 28th.
 
The Public Hearing for this item is scheduled for 5:50 PM this evening.  You are welcome to attend.
 
Thank you,

Amber Scott Kelso

11/14/22

Amber,

The October 24 resolution says what it says. Moving on from that, what of the issue of PC 1101 and the 2005 interlocal agreement between the city and county as it pertains to the Hwy. 70 annexation? Both would prevent the annexation of property outside the UGB without certain conditions being met, none of which have been.

 
Van
11/14/22

Mr. Shaver,

 
We believe that the certain conditions have been met.
 
Once again, there will be a Public Hearing on the Ordinance at 5:50 PM this evening.
 
Thank you,
 
Amber Scott Kelso
 

Annexation of the property in question was approved by the city council at their meeting on 11/14/22

 

BACK
2/13/23