The City of Foley held a public meeting on Monday night to discuss the proposed annexation by legislation of property located along the east and west sides of U.S. 98 north of Birch Avenue and south of the Foley Beach Express.

Members of city government, along with 12 concerned property members attended the meeting, which was rescheduled from last year. Alabama Sen. Tripp Pittman and state Rep. Steve McMillan were also present to hear concerns of their constituents before introducing the annexation in Montgomery later this year. 

All property owners who will be impacted by the proposed annexation were notified of the public hearing prior to the hearing.

Foley Mayor John Koniar opened up the hearing asking for those gathered to share any concerns or comments.

“What we are here for is to answer questions and get your input on this annexation. This will be a legislative annexation, being that you are not contiguous to the city so it will take a legislative act to do it,” he said.

Koniar also outlined some of the perks which would come with being part of the city.

“You would be getting police protection, garbage pickup, you already have fire protection, we already do that out in the police jurisdiction, but we would be adding zoning protection. You will have the right to get your property zoned, that will offer you some protection in terms of your property value,” said Koniar.

The property owners were presented with a list of benefits that would come with being within the city limits of Foley. The benefits included garbage pick up twice a week, roadside litter pickup, mosquito control, street cleaning, maintenance and repair and recycling pick up. If property is annexed into the city limits it will also gain services from the police department, including patrols, traffic enforcement, alarm response, domestic response and motorist assists, along with other services offered by the police department.

Along with the increased services, property owners would also have increased responsibilities. There will be a 1 percent sales tax increase, a property tax increase, and an increase in the price of purchasing a license tag. Newly annexed property will also fall under the laws and ordinances governing Foley.

Any property owners who do not wish to be annexed into the city limits were given the option to formally opt out and remain in the county.

“We are not highjacking,” said Koniar. “We are not kidnapping anybody. We want you to come in on your own accord.”

According to Councilman Ralph Hellmich, one of the reasons for the proposed annexation is the city’s comprehensive plan.

“One of the things identified in [the plan] is that Foley should work with its commercial corridors like (U.S.) 98 and (Alabama) 59 and the Foley Beach Express. It was important that it be part of Foley because it is the commercial corridor that we thrive upon. That is what we are doing, trying to follow through on our comprehensive plan…not just going out and grabbing things all over the place.”

One of the major issues brought up at the hearing dealt with zoning. Many of the property owners were concerned their property would be zoned in a manner they didn’t agree with.

“We work to be sure that the landowner gets the zoning he wants where it makes sense,” said Koniar.

Miriam Boutwell, city planner for Foley, reinforced that sentiment. She recommended a B1A zoning for the property to be annexed because the zoning would allow for commercial and residential use.

Some property owners also expressed concern the signs currently in place at their places of business would be too large under Foley’s sign regulations. Boutwell said the sign regulations are based on the square footage of the building, and any signs already on the property would be grandfathered in. 

The council also heard from property owners who did not wish to join the city. Three property owners, including the owner of the Foley Implement Company expressed their wishes to opt out of the annexation. 

“I own Foley Implement Company and I would just like to stay where I am now, out in the county. At one time we were under the city as far as police jurisdiction and then all of the sudden, boom, I had to put in security cameras and alarms. I have already put them in place. What it is going to do to me, I am going to have to collect extra sales tax and these poor old farmers they are going to fuss,” one property owner said.

Another told the council, “I feel the same way about the situation. Once we get in then there are going to be other rules and regulations put on us, like there have been before. Right now, the way the situation stands, I am just opposed to it.”

The final property owner told the council he already relocated once to get out of the City of Foley, and he did not want to be in the city limits again.

Even if some property owners opt out of the annexation, other property owners can still come into the city. The annexation may create “islands” of property, which is not in the city limits amongst property that is included, but according to Koniar, islands are legal and already exist in Foley.

“We have islands as they are called, it is perfectly legal. We just have to let the police department know and 911 know that the property is not in the city so if there is a problem they will have to call the sheriff not the city police,” he said.