Residents say ‘no’ to Newberry annexation

Alachua County Supervisor of Elections Pam Carpenter, her staff and canvassing board members tally the results of Newberry’s annexation elections Tuesday evening.

In overwhelming numbers, voters turned down referendums, which, if approved, would have annexed their residences into the City of Newberry’s corporate limits.

The referendum election follows what has been a nearly two-year process, Newberry Planning Director Lowell Garrett said, just before hearing the results Tuesday evening.

Taking suggestions from the County officials, Garrett said the City of Newberry was attempting to clean up some of the pockets of land, commonly referred to as enclaves, surrounded by properties within the city.  After results came in Tuesday, it became clear that cleaning up the city’s boundaries isn’t likely to happen anytime soon.

Shortly after 7 p.m. Tuesday, Alachua County Supervisor of Elections Pam Carpenter and her staff unsealed the ballots, ran them through the tabulation machine and brought the results to the canvassing board for review and certification.

Of the 110 votes cast across the three referendums, 100 were against the annexations.

In Annexation area 1, located along the Gilchrist County line, voters stood up 49 to 3 against the measure.

Located in the northwestern most portion of Newberry, Annexation area 2 also failed with every one of the 21 votes cast, nixing the annexation.

Annexation area 3, which runs across the north and south sides of State Road 26, east of Hitchcock’s Market was also defeated with 30 votes against and only seven in favor of the annexation.

Reacting to the results, County Commissioner Paula DeLaney joked, “You know what I say, the solution: 10 MSTU mills, stay as long as you want,” referring to the maximum possible tax rate paid on unincorporated land in the County.

Residents living within the area considered for annexation had expressed concerns at Newberry City Commission meetings in recent months.  Among their concerns were possible tax implications and being restricted by some of Newberry’s local ordinances.