Papillion annexation

The Political decisions of Omaha.

Moderators: Coyote, Omaha Cowboy, Brad, nebugeater

User avatar
Coyote
City Council
Posts: 20519
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2003 11:18 am
Location: Three floors down
Contact:

Papillion annexation

Postby Coyote » Sat Jun 20, 2015 10:03 am

With all the residential developments going along the 370 corridor, expect to see an aggressive annexation by Papillion in the next few years, including the ballpark and business tax revenue developing alond Hwy 50 and Schramm Rd.
Image

User avatar
jessep28
Planning Board
Posts: 2348
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 4:10 pm
Location: Omaha Metro Area

Re: Papillion annexation

Postby jessep28 » Sat Jun 20, 2015 10:51 am

Verbum Domini Manet in Aeternum

MTO
City Council
Posts: 7866
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 11:49 am
Location: Dundee

Re: Papillion annexation

Postby MTO » Sat Jun 20, 2015 8:19 pm

Why doesn't Papillon just annex Springfeild and be done with it!
15-17, 26, 32

User avatar
Garrett
Parks & Recreation
Posts: 1759
Joined: Wed Nov 26, 2008 6:29 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: Papillion annexation

Postby Garrett » Sat Jun 20, 2015 8:26 pm

MTO wrote:Why doesn't Papillon just annex Springfeild and be done with it!

I think only Omaha and Lincoln have the power to unilaterally annex other cities, Omaha with a 10,000 limit and Lincoln with a 3,000 limit.
From Omaha to Chicago
From Axel to Garrett

Still the same guy

User avatar
Coyote
City Council
Posts: 20519
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2003 11:18 am
Location: Three floors down
Contact:

Re: Papillion annexation

Postby Coyote » Sat Jun 20, 2015 8:29 pm

Garrett wrote:
MTO wrote:Why doesn't Papillon just annex Springfeild and be done with it!

I think only Omaha and Lincoln have the power to unilaterally annex other cities, Omaha with a 10,000 limit and Lincoln with a 3,000 limit.

I don't know about that. I was talking with a former Papillion mayoral candidate who suggested that they should have annexed La Vista when they had a chance....
Image

User avatar
Garrett
Parks & Recreation
Posts: 1759
Joined: Wed Nov 26, 2008 6:29 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: Papillion annexation

Postby Garrett » Sat Jun 20, 2015 8:48 pm

Coyote wrote:
Garrett wrote:
MTO wrote:Why doesn't Papillon just annex Springfeild and be done with it!

I think only Omaha and Lincoln have the power to unilaterally annex other cities, Omaha with a 10,000 limit and Lincoln with a 3,000 limit.

I don't know about that. I was talking with a former Papillion mayoral candidate who suggested that they should have annexed La Vista when they had a chance....

So I just looked up the statutes about annexation, and it looks like Papillion never had the opportunity to annex La Vista after it was incorporated. First Class cities can only annex Second class cities or villages if they completely surround them. Plus, La Vista and Papillion have always been on the same level of city status.
From Omaha to Chicago
From Axel to Garrett

Still the same guy

bigredmed
Parks & Recreation
Posts: 1905
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2011 12:45 pm
Location: Omaha Metro Area

Re: Papillion annexation

Postby bigredmed » Sun Jun 21, 2015 9:24 pm

They should have annexed them back in the 60's when LaVista was a small collection of houses.

User avatar
Coyote
City Council
Posts: 20519
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2003 11:18 am
Location: Three floors down
Contact:

Re: Papillion annexation

Postby Coyote » Mon Jun 22, 2015 10:41 am

This would haven been in the early 80's, before La Vista went after a land grab, and Papillion just hut 10k, but they had a conservative Businessmen City Council then and wanted to be good neighbors.

Looks like Papillion Mayor Black will be running for State Senate, because of term limits hitting the incumbent, so it will be interesting to see how far this annexation will go, and how the next mayor may follow up. Remember they tried to annex a few years ago with Mayor Blinn but got sued because they didn't follow state procedures, but thus time they will be...
Image

User avatar
Garrett
Parks & Recreation
Posts: 1759
Joined: Wed Nov 26, 2008 6:29 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: Papillion annexation

Postby Garrett » Mon Jun 22, 2015 2:35 pm

A first class city has 5000 or more residents, and can't be annexed by other cities except for Omaha up until that 10,000 mark. There was only one possible opportunity for La Vista to be annexed by Papillion, in 1970 when Papillion had just crossed the 5,000 threshold, and La Vista was at 4,800, making it still a second class city. However, Papillion would have had to have completely surrounded La Vista, which would not have been possible due to annexation laws.

On a slightly unrelated note, I wonder if another Sarpy city will crop up in the next 20 years or so, like maybe Chalco.
From Omaha to Chicago
From Axel to Garrett

Still the same guy

User avatar
RNcyanide
Planning Board
Posts: 2747
Joined: Thu Mar 28, 2013 10:37 am
Location: Chalco

Re: Papillion annexation

Postby RNcyanide » Mon Jun 22, 2015 5:30 pm

I don't think it's likely. Other than some older suburbs and some industrial type businesses and Werner, there's not much here.
When fortune smiles on something as violent and ugly as revenge, it seems proof like no other that not only does God exist, you're doing his will.

The Bride

User avatar
RNcyanide
Planning Board
Posts: 2747
Joined: Thu Mar 28, 2013 10:37 am
Location: Chalco

Re: Papillion annexation

Postby RNcyanide » Tue Jun 30, 2015 1:30 am

Looks like this land will end up in Papillion's hands.
When fortune smiles on something as violent and ugly as revenge, it seems proof like no other that not only does God exist, you're doing his will.

The Bride

User avatar
Coyote
City Council
Posts: 20519
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2003 11:18 am
Location: Three floors down
Contact:

Re: Papillion annexation

Postby Coyote » Fri Jul 03, 2015 9:38 pm

Papillion City Council votes 7-0 in favor of disputed annexation plan

Emily Nohr: World-Herald staff writer wrote:Th annexation will take Prairie Queen Recreation Area into Papillion city limits and extend the city’s zoning control west to Interstate 80 and south to roughly Capehart Road.

The annexation will add 1,000 acres to city limits and 3,700 acres to its zoning authority.

Papillion city officials have called access to Interstate 80 crucial for the city’s future growth.
Image

MTO
City Council
Posts: 7866
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 11:49 am
Location: Dundee

Re: Papillion annexation

Postby MTO » Sat Jul 04, 2015 5:48 pm

Good. Then some day they can grasp Springfield and Gretna if they're smart.
15-17, 26, 32

Louie
Library Board
Posts: 400
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2011 4:23 pm
Location: Maplewood

Re: Papillion annexation

Postby Louie » Sun Jul 05, 2015 2:47 pm

It's too late to annex Gretna, right?

User avatar
Coyote
City Council
Posts: 20519
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2003 11:18 am
Location: Three floors down
Contact:

Re: Papillion annexation

Postby Coyote » Sun Jul 05, 2015 3:18 pm

Louie wrote:It's too late to annex Gretna, right?

Gretna is under 6k, but by the time Papillion city limits would ever make it out that far they would most likely be too large to annex...
Image

MTO
City Council
Posts: 7866
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 11:49 am
Location: Dundee

Re: Papillion annexation

Postby MTO » Sun Jul 05, 2015 5:10 pm

Can't they just annex faster? Or bigger tracts?
15-17, 26, 32

User avatar
Coyote
City Council
Posts: 20519
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2003 11:18 am
Location: Three floors down
Contact:

Re: Papillion annexation

Postby Coyote » Sun Jul 05, 2015 5:35 pm

MTO wrote:Can't they just annex faster? Or bigger tracts?


Ask the previous Mayor, after he got sued for trying just that...
Image

User avatar
jessep28
Planning Board
Posts: 2348
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 4:10 pm
Location: Omaha Metro Area

Re: Papillion annexation

Postby jessep28 » Sun Jul 05, 2015 7:47 pm

I'm pretty sure that Papillion has a boundary agreement with Gretna, but not Springfield. That's why Springfield has been complaining so much as of late.
Verbum Domini Manet in Aeternum

MTO
City Council
Posts: 7866
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2005 11:49 am
Location: Dundee

Re: Papillion annexation

Postby MTO » Sun Jul 05, 2015 8:17 pm

Coyote wrote:
Louie wrote:It's too late to annex Gretna, right?

Gretna is under 6k, but by the time Papillion city limits would ever make it out that far they would most likely be too large to annex...


Makes one feel greatful for Omaha's unique authority..
15-17, 26, 32

User avatar
Garrett
Parks & Recreation
Posts: 1759
Joined: Wed Nov 26, 2008 6:29 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: Papillion annexation

Postby Garrett » Sun Jul 05, 2015 10:49 pm

Coyote wrote:
Louie wrote:It's too late to annex Gretna, right?

Gretna is under 6k, but by the time Papillion city limits would ever make it out that far they would most likely be too large to annex...


No, Papillion can't annex Gretna even now. Gretna became a first class city after it passed 5k, and only Omaha can unilaterally annex first class cities.
From Omaha to Chicago
From Axel to Garrett

Still the same guy

User avatar
iamjacobm
City Council
Posts: 8820
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 6:52 am
Location: Midtown

Re: Papillion annexation

Postby iamjacobm » Tue Jul 07, 2015 6:43 pm

Found this to be a fascinating situation that has arisen from the annexation.

http://www.omaha.com/news/metro/a-farmland-tax-surprise-in-papillion-s-annexation-a-sixfold/article_05a27dc6-bf12-5eb7-abd0-fef7a86ebc48.html

As Papillion annexes west, the Weiss land will be brought into Papillion city limits and will no longer qualify for the greenbelt tax break.

Without the greenbelt designation, property taxes on the 153 acres owned by Eleanor Picconi of Elkhorn and her siblings, Ann Wiechert and Dean Weiss, are set to increase sixfold — from $12,700 annually to an estimated $76,000 a year.

Picconi said that the taxes will be 2½ times what the family makes from renting the land to a farmer and that it’ll be pushed into selling.
“This has really been sprung on us,” said Picconi, 75. “Our taxes are going to be out of this world.”


Of course all the comments are along the lines of "greedy government." I would need to do a lot more research to know about this greenbelt tax break to make a strong argument either way. Just my first reactions are about how much drastically lower of a rate than many others in the county must be paying compared to their property value that this family has been able to benefit from for decades now. Plus this land is going to be worth a lot of money, they could sell for a pretty penny and not have to worry about those taxes. Obviously being in the family that long makes selling tougher.

I do feel bad that this was sprung on them so quickly though. It sounds like there was terrible communication about how much the taxes would actually increase by being in the city. I hope if they do decide to sell they can find a fantastic broker that can help them make the money they deserve to off of this land. Hopefully they can get out of the unexpected tax burden and make a good profit for their families. Papillon on the other hand can then get some nice prime land that could become productive for their tax base.

User avatar
Coyote
City Council
Posts: 20519
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2003 11:18 am
Location: Three floors down
Contact:

Re: Papillion annexation

Postby Coyote » Tue Jul 07, 2015 7:00 pm

They were paying $83 per acre in taxes? And it was being farmed? Sounds like they had a sweet deal...
Image

User avatar
HR Paperstacks
Parks & Recreation
Posts: 1694
Joined: Fri Aug 04, 2006 7:39 pm
Location: Midtown Crossing

Re: Papillion annexation

Postby HR Paperstacks » Tue Jul 07, 2015 7:20 pm

It makes me wonder how much we in Omaha (and other urban areas) subsidize people throughout rural Nebraska. Don't get me wrong - we certainly need our friends out west - but why do they get such a substantial discount while everyone here has to pay high property taxes? Maybe if it weren't for these tax breaks we all could afford lower taxes.

User avatar
iamjacobm
City Council
Posts: 8820
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 6:52 am
Location: Midtown

Re: Papillion annexation

Postby iamjacobm » Tue Jul 07, 2015 7:39 pm

HR Paperstacks wrote:It makes me wonder how much we in Omaha (and other urban areas) subsidize people throughout rural Nebraska. Don't get me wrong - we certainly need our friends out west - but why do they get such a substantial discount while everyone here has to pay high property taxes? Maybe if it weren't for these tax breaks we all could afford lower taxes.


Farm subsidies are massive, but there is a place for them IMO. That being said our current system is incredibly flawed and will probably not be fixed anytime soon b/c "attacking" the American farmer is political suicide.

Candleshoe
Human Relations
Posts: 786
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2006 12:30 pm
Location: Grand Island, NE

Re: Papillion annexation

Postby Candleshoe » Tue Jul 07, 2015 7:58 pm

HR Paperstacks wrote:It makes me wonder how much we in Omaha (and other urban areas) subsidize people throughout rural Nebraska. Don't get me wrong - we certainly need our friends out west - but why do they get such a substantial discount while everyone here has to pay high property taxes? Maybe if it weren't for these tax breaks we all could afford lower taxes.


http://www.omaha.com/news/nebraska/repo ... 1f456.html

Nebraskans in the state’s most rural areas pay more property and state income taxes per capita than their urban counterparts due to dramatic increases in valuations of farm and ranch land in recent years, according to a report released Monday.

The disparity, which amounts to more than $1,000 per person in the counties compared in the report, should be a factor in the debate over property tax relief, said the executive director of the group that produced the report.

“As we look at property tax relief, that probably does need to be a consideration,” said Renee Fry of the Lincoln-based OpenSky Policy Institute.

The report comes on the heels of another paper, commissioned by the Omaha-based Platte Institute, that concluded unfunded state mandates on counties are important contributors to high local property taxes.

User avatar
jessep28
Planning Board
Posts: 2348
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 4:10 pm
Location: Omaha Metro Area

Re: Papillion annexation

Postby jessep28 » Tue Jul 07, 2015 11:33 pm

Coyote wrote:They were paying $83 per acre in taxes? And it was being farmed? Sounds like they had a sweet deal...


In context of input costs for a typical farm, that's a sizable amount.
Verbum Domini Manet in Aeternum

User avatar
Uffda
Planning Board
Posts: 3041
Joined: Sun Jun 12, 2005 9:52 pm
Location: Omaha

Re: Papillion annexation

Postby Uffda » Wed Jul 08, 2015 6:28 am

Farmers and ranchers receive some tax breaks that urban residents don’t — their land is valued for tax purposes at 75 percent of market value compared to 100 percent for residential and commercial property, for instance, and they pay no sales taxes on purchases of farm equipment, seed and agriculture chemicals.

Overall, farmers and ranchers paid about 6 percent of the total state income taxes collected in 2012, according to the State Department of Revenue.

But the OpenSky report said that while urban residents still pay higher income taxes per capita, a dramatic increase in ag land valuations has shifted the tax burden to rural areas.

Ag land valuations have seen double-digit increases in the state in each of the past seven years, including increases of 23 percent in 2013 and 29 percent in 2014, which has translated into much higher property tax bills. The report said that agricultural land in Nebraska saw a 116 percent increase in value for tax purposes from 2003 to 2012, while commercial and residential property each increased 45 percent.

That has reversed who pays higher taxes, according to OpenSky. Prior to 2007, the report said that urban Nebraskans paid slightly higher property and income taxes than rural Nebraskans.

User avatar
jessep28
Planning Board
Posts: 2348
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 4:10 pm
Location: Omaha Metro Area

Re: Papillion annexation

Postby jessep28 » Wed Jul 08, 2015 10:23 am

The ag inputs are directly used in the production of an end product. The "sales tax break" is not really any different than the manufacturing, machinery and equipment exemption. Also, the end product (corn/soybeans) is constructively going to be used as a downstream input for non-taxable goods anyways (food).
Verbum Domini Manet in Aeternum


Return to “Omaha Metro Area Government”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest