Loading...
Miscellaneous CorrespondenceKALISPELL FIRE DEPARTMENT 312 First Avenue East Randy Brodehl - Fire Chief ADO Kalispell, Montana 59901 Dan Diehl — Assistant Chief/Operations IN � � (406) 758-7760 FAX: (406) 758-7952 TO: Jim Patrick, City Manager 1 FROM: F. Ray Ruffatto, Fire Inspector t'�(\ DATE: February 22, 2007 RE: Glacier Village Greens Community Center As follow-up to your inquiry regarding the kitchen situation at the Glacier Village Greens Community Center, I provide the following information: This building was constructed under the 2003 International Building Code. Section 904.2.1 of the IBC states "Hood system suppression - Each required commercial kitchen exhaust hood and duct system required by the International Fire Code or the Intemational Mechanical Code (emphasis added) to have a Type I hood shall be protected with an approved automatic fire -extinguishing system installed in accordance with this code." Follows are the pertinent sections of the International Mechanical Code: 507.2 Where required. A Type I or Type II hood shall be installed at or above all commercial cooking appliances in accordance with Sections 507.2.1 and 507.2.2. Where any cooking appliance under a single hood requires a Type I hood, a Type I hood shall be installed. Where a Type II hood is required, a Type I or Type II hood shall be installed. 507.2.1 Type I hoods. Type I hoods shall be installed where cooking appliances produce grease or smoke, such as occurs with griddles, fryers, broilers, ovens, ranges and wok ranges. 507.2.2 Type II hoods. Type II hoods shall be installed where cooking or dishwashing appliances produce heat or steam and do not produce grease or smoke, such as steamers, kettles, pasta cookers and dishwashing machines. Exceptions: 1. Under -counter -type commercial dishwashing machines. 2. A Type II hood is not required for dishwashers and potwashers that are provided with heat and water vapor exhaust systems that are supplied by the appliance manufacturer and are installed in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions. (cont.) "Assisting our community in reducing, preventing, and mitigating emergencies. " Page 2 February 22, 2007 507.2.3 Domestic cooking appliances used for commercial purposes. Domestic cooking appliances utilized for commercial purposes shall be provided with Type I or Type II hoods as required for the type of appliances and processes in accordance with Sections 507.2, 507.2.1 and 507.2.2. Plan review comments (copy attached) dated December 21, 2004, from Jeff Clawson indicated to the contractor that hood systems would have to be installed in order to make the project compliant. I am not aware of the written response, if any, from the contractor to Jeff. Please let me know if I can provide additional information. Thank you. xc: Randy Brodehl, Fire Chief Craig Kerzman, Building Official "Assisting our community in reducing, preventing, and mitigating emergencies. " Date: December 21, 2004 Project Name: Glacier Village Greens Community Center Address: 195 West Nicklaus Contractor: Losleben Arch itect/Engineer: Reviewed by: Jeff Clawson Const Type: V-B Occupancy Classification: A-3 260 OL Number of Stories: 1 Basement: None Area Sq Ft: 2312 Fire Sprinklers: None DisabilitiesCompliance with the requirements of the state building code for Accessibility to persons with disabilities does not guarantee compliance with the Americans with i ,T of 1990 • orotherFederal, or Local laws that mandate accessibility to commercial buildings. This project has not been reviewed for compliance with ADA. It is the owner's responsibility to comply with i ) w In order to proceed with the permit process, please provide a written response to each of the following comments, explaining in detail how the project will comply with code. Supply additional drawings as required. Comments: 1. All exit doors to have panic hardware. 2. All exits to be signed 3. The exterior area immediately adjacent to the exit doors must have emergency illumination. 4. Provide emergency illumination within the community room. 5. Provide 2 handicap egress routes to the parking lot. 6. Provide a Type I hood over the cooking area. IMC507.2.3 7. Provide a Type II hood over the dishwasher. IMC507.2.3 248 3`d Ave East PO Box 1997 Kalispell, Mt 59903-1997. Phone (406) 758-7730 Fax (406) 758-7739 City p of Kalispell Post Office Box 1997 - Kalispell, Montana 59903-1997 - Telephone (406)758-7700 Fax (406)758-7758 May 4, 2004 Mark Owens Owl Corporation 500 Palmer Kalispell, MT 59901 Re: Final Plat - Glacier Village Greens Phase 14 Dear Mr. Owens: The final plat and Subdivision Improvement Agreement for Glacier Village Greens Phase 14 were approved by the Kalispell City Council at its regular meeting last evening. If you need additional information, please don't hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Theresa White City Clerk Cc: Sands Surveying, 2 Village Loop, Kalispell, MT 59901 Narda Wilson, TCPO, 17 2nd Street East, Suite 211, Kalispell, MT 59901 City of Kalispell Post Office Box 1997 - Kalispell, Montana 59903-1997 - Telephone (406)758-7700 Fax (406)758-7758 November 4, 2003 Mark Owens GO Development, LLC 500 Palmer Kalispell, MT 59901 Re: Final Plat - Flathead Village Greens Phase 16 Dear Mr. Owens: The final plat for Flathead Village Greens Phase 16 was approved by the Kalispell City Council at its regular meeting last evening. If you need additional information, please don't hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Theresa White City Clerk Cc: Tom Sands, Sands Surveying, 2 Village Loop, Kalispell, MT 59901 Tom Jentz, TCPO, 17 2nd Street East, Suite 211, Kalispell, MT 59901 City of Kalispell Post Office Box 1997 - Kalispell, Montana 59903-1997 - Telephone (406)758-7700 Fax(406)758-7758 October 29, 2001 Mr. Tom Reese, President Village Greens Homeowner's Association 162 West Nicklaus Avenue Kalispell, MT 59901 Dear Tom: On behalf of the City Council and myself I would like to welcome Village Greens and your Homeowner's Association to the City of Kalispell. It has been a pleasure to work with you toward this goal, and I hope you will become active in our community to help steer your City in the direction you would like to see it go. I have enclosed a list of our current Council Members for your reference. Also, I have listed a few other City numbers that may be of assistance to you in the future. Randy Brodehl, Fire Chief 758-7762 Frank Garner, Police Chief 758-7786 Jim Hansz, Public Works Director 758-7721 Amy Robertson, Finance Director 758-7755 If you ever have any questions or concerns that you will feel free to contact me at 758-7703. Again, my warmest welcome to Village Greens! Sincerely, C" A, Chris A. Kukulski City Manager City of Kalispell CAK/ksk Enclosure Confirmation Report— Memory Send Page 001 Date & Time: Oct-30-01 09:41am Line 1 Machine ID Job number Date To Number of pages Start time End time Pages sent Status Job number 393 393 Oct-30 09:39am B97554119 003 Oct-30 09:39am Oct-30 09:41am 003 OK *** SEND SUCCESSFUL *** City of K�7; spell POLL Otllco Aox 1997 — K+alaa.p<3I. MorstaraY 39903-1A97 — T<7<p]�or.4 (a06)758-7700 >�_ (a0677b8-7766 F A C S I M I L E T R A N S M I S S I Cl N FA?C NO: (406) 758-7758 FAX TO:—O.�c �EESE NO9 FROAZ: G'H,c /�. %luKcccsK G' ri tit f%a c L Number of page (iracluding Ibis one): Date: /0�30% ifyou have any questions, ploase telephone (406) 758-7700_ E. %t M. N• a i DC 20510-2603 .4 May 3, 2001 Ms. Patty Arnold Public Administrator Flathead County 800 S Main St. Kalispell, MT 59901-5435 Dear Ms. Arnold: COMMITTEES: APPROPRIATIONS COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES SMALL BUSINESS SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON AGING One of my constituents, Mr. Bill Margaris, has forwarded the enclosed letter to me regarding his: concern about the annexation of the Glacier Village Greens subdivision of Flathead County, North of Kalispell. Due to the nature of this problem, you may be better qualified to make inquiries regarding his specific concerns. I know that you welcome the opportunity to learn about problems the people of Montana are having with their state government. To expedite matters, I would appreciate it if you would work directly with Mr. Margaris. Additionally, I ask a copy of your response be forwarded to my office. You �. may direct the copy of correspondence to: A U J Senator Conrad Burns'? Attn: Kathy Marsh 222 North 32°d Street u % 'oil'y Billings, MT 59101 _�4 406-252-0550 - FAX: 406-252-7768 Toll Free: 800-344-1513 E-Mail: kathy_marsh@burns.senate.gov TI alui­ ax, Thank you for your prompt assistance. Your services are always appreciated. United States Senator CRB\kem Enclosure C000633005 RELENA MISSOULA BUTTE BOZEMAN GLENDIVE KALISPELL (406)449-5401 (406)329-3528 (406)723-3277 (406)586-4450 (406)365-2391 (406)257-3360 GREAT FALLS BILLINGS TOLL FREE (406)452-9585 (406)252-0550 1-800-344-1513 http://burns.senate.gov Date: 5/2/2001 3:40 PM Sender: Senator Burns To: Mike Brown; Kathy Marsh Priority: Normal Subject: From Senator Burns' Webpage Forward Header Subject: From Senator Burns' Webpage Author: nobody@wl.senate.gov at Internet Date: 5/1/2001 6:38 PM <APP>SCCMAIL <PREFIX>Mr.</PREFIX> <FIRST>Bill</FIRST> <LAST>Margaris</LAST> <ADDR1>129 Trevino Drive</ADDR1> <ADDR2></ADDR2> <CITY>Kalispell</CITY> <STATE>MT</STATE> <ZIP>59901</ZIP> <HPHONE>406-257-2078</HPHONE> <WPHONE></WPHONE> <EMAIL>baso@digisys.net</EMAIL> <MSG> Senator Max Baucus 511 Hart Senate Office Building Washington, D.C. 20510 Dear Senator Baucus: I live in Glacier Village Greens, a Subdivision of Flathead County, just North of the City of Kalispell. In approximately 1982 when this subdivision was created. In order for the Developers to be able to connect to the City of Kalispell's sewer system they were coerced into signing and agreement which roughly stated that "if allowed to hook up to the City's sewer system, Glacier Village Greens would not protest when and if the City should decide to annex their Subdivision. Supposedly many of the lot purchasers signed a similar agreement when they purchased their lots. However, many of us did not sign such an agreement. On September 13, 2000 the City of Kalispell published a Legal Notice that "NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council on the 5th day of September, 2000 passed Resolution No. 4581 declaring an intention to annex certain real property comprising property which is more particularly described in Exhibit "A" (which gives the legal description of Glacier Village Greens). The notice gave us 20 days to express approval or disapproval of the annexation from the registered voters re siding in the area pro The Glacier Village Greens Association hired attorney William E. Astle (whom we were told was an expert in City Annexations). At his direction we prepared proper protest petition forms and obtained valid registered property owners signatures in protest of the annexation by a majority of the residents living at Glacier Village Greens. These protest petitions were presented to and recorded as having been received by the City Clerk and were to be considered by the City Council. However, the City Council declared the protests invalid based on the agreement made by the Developers some 18 years prior. To me this is Taxation without Representation.(a Developer is easily coerced into an agreement such as this just so he can get his project off the ground), In addition, there exists another Subdivision between Glacier Village Greens and the City of Kalispell known as Hillcrest Estates which is not in the City, nor is it being considered to be annexed. Glacier Village Greens has all of it's infrastructure in, roads, sewer, water, utilities, everything. Hence, the City of Kalispell can add Glacier Village Greens to it's tax rolls and not expend one penny to do it. Hillcrest Estates is on Septic Tanks and if they were taken into the City, the City would have to install and pay for a sewer system, so they don't want it. There must be a way for the residents of Glacier Village Greens to Stop this Annexation. Any help you can give will be appreciated. Bill Margaris (406) 257-2078 phone 129 Trevino Drive (406) 257-9078 FAX Kalispell, Montana 59901 E-mail: baso@digisys.net </MSG> <TOPIC>Other</TOPIC> </APP> Received: from mailsimsl.senate.gov ([156.33.203.10]) by imaexch.senate.gov with SMTP (IMA Internet Exchange 3.13) id OOOA4703; Tue, 1 May 2001 18:50:58 -0400 Received: from www.senate.gov ([10.2.0.19]) by mailsimsl.senate.gov (Sun Internet Mail Server sims.3.5.1999.07.30.00.05.p8) with SMTP id <OGCO006JSI8EAX@mailsimsl.senate.gov> for senator_burns@burns.senate.gov; Tue, 1 May 2001 18:53:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from nobody@localhost) by www.senate.gov (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) id SAA25137 for senator_burns@burns.senate.gov; Tue, O1 May 2001 18:38:11 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 01 May 2001 18:38:11 -0400 (EDT) From: nobody@wl.senate.gov Subject: From Senator Burns' Webpage To: senator burns@burns.senate.gov Message-id:y<200105012238.SAA25137@www.senate.gov> MIME -version: 1.0 Content -type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII X-Sun-Internet-MTA: Lines longer than SMTP allows found and truncated. City of Kalispell Post Office Box 1997 - Kalispell, Montana 59903-1997 -Telephone (406)758-7700 Fax(406)758-7758 March 15, 2001 Mr. Duane Bitney 116 West Nicklaus Avenue Kalispell, MT 59901 Dear Mr. Bitney: It was interesting speaking with you and Rod regarding the Glacier Village Greens golf course over the last several months. Your mention of Village Greens Golf Course and the potential for the City of Kalispell to become involved in the golf course business caught our attention. However, for us to explore the possibilities we need to be more informed of the process and mechanism that would qualify this undertaking. When you get a break from your busy schedule, would you please draft a preliminary proposal for the City to review. Obviously, this would only be a preliminary draft that will allow us to explore the possibility of owning and managing the golf course. The draft may outline the avenue of transfer, the components of the asset, and / or path of implementation. I have shared your interests with Mike Baker, our Director of Parks and Recreation. We both agreed that we would like to learn more about the project. Please fell free to call either Mike or myself if you have any questions. I will be looking forward to hearing from you. Sincerely, Chris A. Kukulski City Manager Michael M. Baker Director of Parks & Recreation February 13, 2001 Bill Astle Astle & Astle 705 Main Street Kalispell, MT 59901 Re: Glacier Village Greens Annexation Dear Bill: I am enclosing correspondence from you dated October 31, 2000 and a corrected Deed/Dedication prepared by the Public Works Department. Once the Deed/Declaration is signed it is my understanding that your office will retain the document pending annexation on or about November 1, 2001. I have also discussed the proposed meeting with the City Manager. I would advise that your clients contact Mr. Kukulski to arrange for a meeting. Please advise if we need to do anything else to end this matter. Sincerely, Glen Neier City Attorney pc: City Manager greendedication.wpd ASTILLIEd' and ASTLE ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW 706 MAIN STREET KALISFELL, MONTANA 39901 DAVID L. ASTLE WILLIAM E. ASTLE October 11, 2000 Glen M. Neier, City Attorney Office of the City Attorney Kalispell City Hall P.O. Box 1997 312 - 1st Avenue East Kalispell, MT 59903-1997 Re: Glacier Village Greens Annexation Dear Glen: TEL. (406) 752-7393 FAX (406) 267-3268 The Board of Directors of Glacier Village Greens Home Owners Association (GVGHOA) voted to agree to covenant with the City of Kalispell not to challenge the intended Annexation (Resolution No. 4581) on the following conditions: 1 That any city taxes, resulting from the Annexation, not be assessed/levied on any of the annexed property prior to the tax year 2002;and, 2. That the Annexation Resolution/Extension of Services Plan require that the City of Kalispell own and maintain all streets within the area annexed. If the above two conditions are satisfied by the Annexation Resolution in consideration thereof, the undersigned and GVGHOA covenants not to contest/challenge said Annexation/Resolution by any judicial action whatsoever. Very truly yours, Date: November 29, 2000 To: Glen Neier, City Attorney From: Fred Zavodny, Kalispell Public Wor Re: Glacier Village Greens Roadway Dedications I have reviewed the information from Astle and have the following comments: ® Phase VI does not exist. ® Phase VII was not annexed. ® Replace Nicklaus Avenue with East and Nest Nicklaus Avenues. ® Suggested Wording — streets shall be dedicated to the City of Kalispell for the use of the public forever. For Value Received GLACIER VILLAGE GREENS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., a Montana non-profit corporation, of Kalispell, Flathead County, Montana 59901, does hereby convey, release remise and forever quit claim unto THE CITY OF KALISPELL, a Montana municipal corporation, the following described premises in Flathead County, Montana, to -wit: All of the streets and roadways of 91acitr Village Greens Subdivision, Phase I, II, III, IIIA, IIIB, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, and X, according to the map, plats and amendments thereto, recorded among the land records of Flathead County, Montana. Said streets more particularly designated on said plats and amendments thereto as Pjiel(Ia� A...ime,... Palmer Drive, Ritzman Lane and Trevino Drive. To have and to hold, the above described streets and roadways, unto the said CITY OF KALISPELL, expressly dedicated forever as public streets to be owned and maintained by said CITY OF KALISPELL. DATED this day of 2001. GLACIER VILLAGE GREENS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION President STATE OF MONTANA ) : ss. County of Flathead ) On this day of , 2001, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public for the State of Montana, personally appeared President, , known to me to be the person whose name is subscribed to the foregoing instrument and acknowledged to me that he executed the same. (Seal) Notary Public for the State of Montana Residing at , Montana My Commission expires: ASTLE AND ASTLE ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW 705 MAIN STREET KALISPELL, MONTANA 59901 DAVID L. ASTLE WILLIAM E. ASTLE October 31, 2000 Glen M. Neier, City Attorney Office of the City Attorney Kalispell City Hall 312 - 1st Avenue East Kalispell, MT 59903-1997 Re: Glacier Village Greens Annexation Dear Glen: PHONE (406) 752-7393 FAX (406) 257-3268 Referencing the above matter, please find enclosed a rough draft of the Deed/Dedication for your review. As I indicated to you in our telephone conversation, once the City of Kalispell approves the format, it will be necessary that the Board of Directors of Glacier Village Greens Home Owners Association (GVGHOA) schedule a meeting of the lot owners and by vote and resolution authorize the President to execute the Deed/Dedication to the City of Kalispell. In addition, my clients have requested a meeting between the GVG Annexation Committee and the City Manager, at his earliest convenience, to discuss other miscellaneous matters relating to an orderly transition of this annexation. I trust you will discuss this with the City Manager and let me know of a convenient meeting date. Very truly yours, /_[ go WEA/Ico For Value Received GLACIER VILLAGE GREENS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., a Montana non-profit corporation, of Kalispell, Flathead County, Montana 59901, does hereby convey, release remise and forever quit claim unto THE CITY OF KALISPELL, a Montana municipal corporation, the following described premises in Flathead County, Montana, to -wit: All of the streets and roadways of Glacier Village Greens Subdivision, Phase I, II, III, IIIA, IIIB, IV, V, VI, VII, Vill, IX, and X, according to the map, plats and amendments thereto, recorded among the land records of Flathead County, Montana. Said streets more particularly designated on said plats and amendments thereto as Nicklaus Avenue, Palmer Drive, Ritzman Lane and Trevino Drive. To have and to hold, the above described streets and roadways, unto the said CITY OF KALISPELL, expressly dedicated forever as public streets to be owned and maintained by said CITY OF KALISPELL. DATED this day of STATE OF MONTANA ) : ss. County of Flathead ) 2001. GLACIER VILLAGE GREENS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION go President On this day of , 2001, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public for the State of Montana, personally appeared , President, , known to me to be the person whose name is subscribed to the foregoing instrument and acknowledged to me that he executed the same. (Seal) Notary Public for the State of Montana Residing at , Montana My Commission expires: Flathead Regional Development Office 723 5th Avenue East - Room 414 Kalispell, Montana 59901 October 20, 2000 George and Elaine Schulze 1377 Whitefish Stage Road Kalispell, MT 59901 y.- Phone: (406) 758-5980 Fax: (406) 758-5781 Re: Recommendation for Initial Zoning of Property Annexed with Glacier Village Greens Dear Mr. and Mrs. Schulze: This letter is being sent to you to ensure that you are aware of the recommendation this office has made to the Kalispell City County Planning Board for the zoning on your property at the northeast corner of West Evergreen Drive and Whitefish Stage Road. As you know the property you own on this corner is part of the area being annexed by the Kalispell City Council along with most of the platted areas of the Glacier Village Greens golf course development. The property you own that we are referring to can be described as Assessor's Tract 5 located in Section 32, Township 29 North, Range 21 West, P.M.M., Flathead County, Montana. Part of the annexation process requires that when the property is moved from the County to the City jurisdiction, that a City zoning designation be assigned to the property. This goes to the planning board for consideration and they forward a recommendation to the city council for final approval. This matter went before the Kalispell City County Planning Board at their regular meeting of October 10, 2000. They held a public hearing on the matter of an appropriate zoning assignment for your property and for the properties proposed to be annexed in Glacier Village Greens. The board postponed the matter until they were certain that you were aware of the pending change in zoning that is part of the annexation process. The planning board will take up the matter of a recommendation for the zoning for this area at their next regular meeting of November 14, 2000. I am enclosing a copy of the staff report that went to the planning board with a recommendation from this office that the Glacier Village Greens area be zoned City R-4, Two Family Residential, and that the property you own be zoned RA-3, Residential Apartment / Office. The staff report outlines the specific reasons that these zoning designations are being recommended. Basically, the County R-5, Two Family Residential, zone currently on the Glacier Village Greens property is very similar to the recommended City R-4 zone. Your property is also zoned County R-5, but this office would be recommending a City RA-3 zone which allows a mix of uses that are similar to the City B-1, Neighborhood Buffer District, that was assigned to your property to the south, Village Plaza. Also enclosed is a copy of the City RA-3 zoning regulations. Providing Community Planning Assistance To: • Flathead County • City of Columbia Falls • City of Kalispell • City of Whitefish TO: i' FROM: " SORENSEN, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR i ! 2000 SUMMARY OFATTACHMENTS I have attached a number of maps to this memo, many of which have their own attachments. Each of the phases which have gone to final plat have the plats included. Attached to each plat are the consents, applicable covenant language, and other related information which are relevant to annexation. You will also notice that I placed checks on the lots which have homes either constructed or under construction. There is also a summary on each plat of the number of lots, the number of lots with homes or homes under construction, the percentage of lots with homes or homes under construction, and the approximate percentage of area which has been developed to its intended use (including roads, parks, etc)_ I did not include a map of the golf course, which may be included in the annexation proposal - There is also a summary map which shows the all phases and is color coded to show (a) areas which have filed consents; (b) areas which have executed consents that have not been filed; (c) areas which have filed covenants stating that consents have been executed, but for which no such consents could be located, and (d) none of the above. Additionally, I have included a copy of the sewer district agreement and relevant portions of the Montana Code sections on annexation. NEED TO BE CONTIGUOUS Although Village Greens is close to the City, it is not contiguous. Therefore, we will need to include an area outside of Village Greens to make the connection regardless of which method we choose to use. There are various options. Perhaps the most straight forward is annexing a portion of Tract 5 (and perhaps 5A) along West Evergreen Drive. We could also use West Evergreen itself (which would then involve a separate annexation procedure for contiguous government land). We could take in property along the southern side of West Evergreen (even though it is separated by the road, it is still considered contiguous under Sec. 7-2-4301 and Sec. 7-2-4704(l) ). We could also do an end -around by taking in property on the east side of Whitefish Stage to connect with Village Greens Phase IV. After our conversation, I checked with the plat room and the Secretary of State. Kal- Mont Dairy still owns Tract 5. James and Karen Holmquist o m Tract 5A. George Schultz is still shown as an officer and member of the Board for the Dairy, and most of the other people associated with the business appear to be family members. Since he has been a key individual in the Village Greens development, we would not be bringing in someone foreign to the matter. The land, however, is not part of the sewer district and does not have a consent on file. If you chose not to take in Tract 5 and did not want to entangle yourself with property owners not associated with Village Greens, the only other viable option is the annexation of West Evergreen Drive. If we were to annex the road, we will need to take a two-step approach. First, we would annex the road through annexation of contiguous government land. Then, we could annex Village Greens by annexation of contiguous land. INCOMPLETE RECORDING OF DOCUMENTS One of our primary obstacles is the inconsistent execution and recording of consents to annex. As you can tell from the summary map, not all of the area to be annexed is directly subject to a recorded consent. However, all but two lots have some sort of notice in the chain of title that indicates that the developer consented to annexation, either with the consent itself being recorded or by mention in the covenants. A breakdown of the numbers is as follows: Filed Consent: Phases I, II, IIIA, IV, IX: 159 lots (including sublots) Unfiled Consent: Phases VII, X: 29 lots (including sublots) Covenants Only: Phases III, V, VIII: 86 lots (including sublots) Nothing: Phase IIIB: 2 lots Including sublots, there are 276 lots within Village Greens, plus designated common area, the golf course with the clubhouse and other associated lots, and any parcels necessary to make the area contiguous. We should have more than 50% of the lots covered with filed consents, depending upon the exact Iots which are included. A final count should be done once the lots are determined to ensure we have the majority of lots covered with recorded consents. We may also have an additional 115 lots covered because, even though there was not an express written consent filed, there is notice in the chain of title that the developer consented to annexation and that the lot is subject to annexation. If the developer did not actually sign a consent, I believe it can be argued that the developer gave at least implied consent when (a) a condition of the preliminary plat is the execution of a consent; (b) the representation is made to the County Commissioners by FRDO that consents have been executed without contradiction by the developer; and (c) final plat is granted based in part upon that representation. There is not much precedent which addresses this situation, although the argument is given a boost by the recent Whitefish decision that recognized a form of implied consent to annex. It may be a moot point, since there would be a majority of lots with consents in any case, but if the above implied consent argument fails, there may be a basis to argue that the continued receipt of city services provides implied consent. It would definitely be a fallback position, and I can put together an argument for it if necessary. A MAILABLE METHODS OFANNEXATION Under the Montana Code, there are several potential methods of annexation, annexation of contiguous land, annexation of contiguous government land, annexation of wholly surrounded land, annexation by petition, and annexation with the provision of services. For your reference, I have included the code sections for each method. For this particular matter, annexation of wholly surrounded land and by petition do not apply. Annexation of contiguous government land will apply in the event that we need to annex West Evergreen Drive, but only to the extent that the right-of-way would be involved. That leaves us with two options: annexation of contiguous land and annexation with provision of services. I believe that the contiguous method is much more straight forward and would accomplish our time objectives, while the provision of services method is more complex with additional elements which may not meet our time objectives. Although you should certainly coordinate with Narda since she would be the person to process the annexation, I believe that the contiguous method best serves our present needs. Annexation of Contiguous Land Annexation of contiguous land is governed by Title 7, ch. 2, part 43 of the Montana Code. Under that part, a city can annex contiguous land that has been or may be platted (the map or plat of which is filed with the clerk and recorder) or unplatted land that has been surveyed and for which a certificate of survey has been filed. Sec. 7-2-4311. The first step is a resolution of intent by the city council under Sec. 7-2-4312. Once it has passed, we need to immediately notify all registered voters in the area to be annexed. We will also need to publish notice in the paper once a week for two successive weeks. The notice must provide a period of 20 days after the publication of the first notice that the city clerk will accept written comments from the registered voters in the area. Sec. 7-2-4313. At the first regular meeting after the expiration of the 20 day comment period, the comments are to be forwarded to the council for its consideration. Sec. 7-2-4314(1)(a). If 300 or more parcels are included, the matter must be referred within 45 days to the voters after approval by the council. Sec. 7-2-4314(1)(b) and (c). If there are fewer than 300 parcels, the council may adopt a resolution approving the annexation without such a vote. Sec. 7-2- 4314(1)(d). We will have close to 300 parcels, but should be under it. Once we determine the precise lots to be annexed (eg to make the area contiguous), we should double check that we remain under that figure. If a majority of the real property owners in the area to be annexed disapprove the annexation in writing, the annexation attempt would be defeated. Sec. 7-2-4314(l)(d). As indicated above, there are a sufficient amount of recorded consents to prevent a majority of the area to validly protest the annexation. Our time table would begin with the passing of a resolution of intent on September 5 and forwarding the application to FRDO by September 11. We could then publish notice on September 13 and 20, with a deadline of October 3 for comments (the publication would be in addition to notice by ). The matter would then be before the planning board for the meeting on October 10. The Council could address the annexation and initial zoning with a first reading on October 16 (usually FRDO would wait until November, but this schedule would allow us to comply with the letter of the law), with the second reading on November 6. With a 30-day effective date of December 6, the annexation with the initial zoning could be complete by the end of the year. The time table should be confirmed with Narda. Annexation with Provision of Services Annexation with the provision of services is covered in Title 7, ch. 2, part 47. It allows the annexation of contiguous land. Sec. 7-2-4705. The first step, as with contiguous land, is a resolution of intent by the council, with a public hearing set 30-60 days away. Sec. 7-2-4707. There is a 45 day period after the public hearing during which property owners have the opportunity to protest. Sec. 7-2-4710. As mentioned above, there are enough consents to prevent a defeat of the annexation by protest. The statutes are a little unclear at this point, stating that the council can pass an ordinance of annexation 7-60 days following the public hearing. Sec. 7-2-4711. The language appears to allow the passage of the ordinance well before the end of the protest period, which seems counter -intuitive to me. Perhaps it can be explained by the fact that the ordinance can set an effective date at any time within 12 months from the date of the passage of the ordinance, Sec. 7-2-4712 and 4713, which would allow the council to pass an ordinance with a later effective date to encompass the protest period. This method also entails a number of provisions which do not appear in other methods. For example, no part of the area to be annexed can be within the boundaries of any fire district under certain circumstances. Sec. 7-2-4734(4). There are also several specific provisions for judicial review. The time table would begin with a resolution of intent on September 5. The planning beard could look at it on October 10, which may also satisfy the public hearing requirement. We could also certainly have a public hearing at the council level at some time as well. There would be a 45 day protest period after the hearing, which would place us at November 24. The key for the time table would be when the ordinance of annexation could be passed. If we are comfortable doing so shortly after the public hearing, we could do two readings by November 6 or 20. In that event, we could have a 30-day effective date before the end of the year. If we wait until after the 24"', the second reading would not take place until December 18. The City Code states that all ordinances shall have a 30-day effective date, so we could not have an annexation with initial zoning completed until January 17. EXTENSION OF SER VICES PLAN Under either available method, we will need to have an extension of services plan prepared under Sec. 7-2-4305 and Sec. 7-2-4732. The recent VVhitefish decision does not address the aspect of that case relating to their plan (it only covered Count I of the Complaint), so it does not give us any guidance on this aspect. I do believe that it is important for us to be as comprehensive and detailed as we reasonably can be in order to head off a challenge based on an insufficient plan. SEWER AGREEMENT In 1982, an agreement between the City and the North Village Sewer District (later referred to as the Village County Sewer District) was executed to address a sewage collection system in an area to the north of town. The agreement was supplemented in 1992. The supplemental agreement does not directly affect annexation issues. I would, however, direct your attention to paragraphs 9, 11, 17 and 18 of the initial agreement. Paragraph 9 deals with a number of ramifications of annexation. Paragraph 17 is a waiver of the right to protest S.I.D.s. Paragraph 18 requires individual owners to waive the right to protest annexation if they hook-up to the sewer system or "contribute to the flow"(virtually nobody actually did so, which might be an opening to play hardball with the continuation of sewer services if such a tact becomes necessary). Paragraph 11 contains the clause against annexation until "development within the portion to be annexed reaches 80% of the approved plan development of the area to be annexed." The application of paragraph I 1 will ahnost certainly be a topic of discussion, and its interpretation will be critical to the annexation effort. The key issue is 80% of what exactly? Are we talking about physical square footage, number of lots, or something else? It is also important to note that the 80% limitation only applies to annexations attempted under Section 7-2-4312 (contiguous land). In my discussions with Glen,he has indicated that prior annexations subject to the agreement viewed final plat as the event to be deemed "development." Under that approach, if an area has gone to final plat, it can be annexed. This method is by far the simplest, and would open the door to the annexation of at least all of the platted phases of Village Greens. There would still be a question of how to treat the golf course, since there has not been a subdivision affecting the majority of it. Another approach deals with a percentage of the actual physical area. We could interpret it to mean that 80% of the square footage of the area to be annexed needs to be developed (or substantially developed) to its intended use. In this scenario, finished roads and the golf course would be included, because they have been developed to their intended use. Parks would also be considered developed for the same reason. We should be well in excess of the 80% number under this interpretation unless we were to include large areas not yet developed as part of the golf course or for home construction. A third approach looks at a percentage of lots which have been developed. Only about 196 of the 276 residential lots have been built upon (this ratio does not include the golf course, parks, or adjacent property). The percentage is only 71 %. If this standard is applied, our present effort would need to be scaled back or gerrymandered, and it could delay annexation of the whole area for years. Jim Hansz, Public Works Dept. City of Kalispell P.O. Box 1997 Kalispell, MT 59903-1997 Re: Sewer Lift Station at Glacier Village Greens Dear Mr. Hansz: Thank you for reporting what you found on site at our lift station. I trust the charcoal filter will eliminate some, if not all, of the odor now being caused by emission of Sulpher Dioxide. I was pleased when you said you would go yet another step and initiate washing -down the wet well in the event something is stuck there. I'd appreciate being kept abreast of what you find out. We are very grateful that you took our request seriously and tried to find a solution at once. We will be pleased to advise the residents here that being "in the city" really does have advantages. Most sincerely, Lois Lyford, Pres. Cc: Jo Mahoney, Sec./Treas. Mark Salisbury, Gen. Mgr. BOARD OF DIRECTORS Lois Lyford, Pres. & Social Committee Stan Gronley, Architectural Committee Ron Slusher, V. P. & Covenants Committee Fritz Andres, Parks & Grounds Committee Jo Mahoney, Sec/Treas. & Park Reservations Mark Owens & Don Peterson, Developers City of Kalispell Post Office Box 1997 - Kalispell. Montana 59903-1997 - Telephone (406)758-7700 Fax(406)758-7758 September 7, 2000 Narda Wilson Flathead Regional Development Office 723 5th Avenue E. #414 Kalispell, MT 59901 Dear Ms. Wilson: The Kalispell City Council, at its regular meeting September 5, passed a Resolution of Intention to annex the Glacier Village Greens area. Attached is a copy of Resolution 4581 including the legal description of the property in question. I have also enclosed a copy of the memo I wrote to the Council concerning background material . Please place this matter before the Planning Board at its meeting October loth. If you need additional information please do not hesitate to phone and thank you for all of your help. Sincerely, Chris A. Kukulski Kalispell City Manager Attachments: Resolution 4581 Exhibit A - Legal Description Council Memo dated August 31, 2000 ON of Kalispell Post Office Box 1997 • Kalispell, Montana 59903-1997 • Telephone (406) 758-7700 • FAX (406) 758-7758 REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council FROM: Chris A. Kukulski, City Manager SUBJECT: Resolution of Intention to Annex the Glacier Village Greens Area, Northeast of Kalispell, Contiguous to Whitefish Stage and West Evergreen Drive MEETING DATE: September 5, 2000 BACK GROUND: In response to direction that was given at the August 28th Council work session, we have prepared the attached Resolution of Intention to Annex Glacier Village Greens, Phases I, II, III, IIIA, IIIB, IV, V, VIII, IX, X and Tract 5 which is located in NW 1/4 and SW 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of Sec. 32, T29N, R21 W. Because there is not a Certificate of Survey on record for the golf course, I recommend that we hold off on this portion of the annexation until a later phase of the development. This decision also removes Phase VII and the club house site because they will no longer be contiguous to the proposed annexed property. I have added those issues which were brought up during our work session, along with the results my meeting with the Glacier Village Greens Homeowner's Association Tuesday evening. I've also committed myself, Frank Garner, Ted Waggener and Jim Hansz to attend the Glacier Village Greens Annual meeting which will be held September 12th. In 1982, the City entered into a Sewer District Connection Agreement with the North Village Sewer District (Glacier Village Greens Development). Paragraph eleven of the Agreement is as follows: 11. The District by this agreement waives the right to protest annexation to the City of Kalispell, on all or any part of the District, provided, however, that the City shall not initiate annexation procedures under Section 7-2-4312 until development within the portion to be annexed reaches 80% of the approved plan development of the area to be annexed. Section 7-2-4312. Reads as follows: Section 7-2-4312. Resolution of intent by city or town — notice. When, in thejudgment ofany city or town council, expressed by a resolution that is passed and adopted, it is in the best interest of the city or town and the inhabitants of any contiguous platted tracts or parcels of land or unplatted land for which a certificate ofsurvey has been filed that the boundaries of the city or town be extended to include the platted tracts or parcels of land or unplatted land within the corporate limits of the city or town, the city or town clerk shall. Page 1 of 6 (1) immediately notify, in writing, all registered vows in the territory to be embraced; and (2) cause a notice to bepublished in the newspaperpublished nearest the platted tracts orparcels of land or unplatted land far which certificate ofsurvey has been filed, at least once a week for 2 successive weeks. 18. No owner of any parcel of land within the District shall be allowed to hook-up to, or to contribute to the flow of the sewer main connected to the City's Sewage Treatment System unless and until said owner has furnished to the City a watver of right to protest annexation In Addition to the Agreement, each of the 276 parcel owners have been aware of their "waiver of right to protest annexation" in two ways. First, 274 of the property owners were notified through the Covenants that are attached to their deed. Second, Consents to Annex and/or Petitions to Annex have been signed on Phases I, H, IIIA, IV, VH, IX, and X of the development. For some unknown reason Phases III, IIIB, V and VIII (88 of 276 total lots did not sign petitions) Therefore, it is conclusive that the property owners were sufficiently aware of the City's intention to annex Glacier Village Greens. This opinion is further strengthened by the recent ruling in the Whitefish annexation case. What is the impact to the City in providing services to Glacier Village Greens? Currently, Glacier Village Greens has 276 residential lots. Of the 276 lots approximately 225 have single family homes or condominiums. By removing the golf course and phase VII from the proposed annexation we are only removing one house and 16 vacant lots. The Dept. of Commerce estimates that there are 2.7 occupants per household within the US, however, because of the demographic make-up of Glacier Village Greens we would suggest that it is closer to 2.0 per house hold. This gives us a range of 450 to 600 residents within the development. After discussing this estimate with the Association we feel strongly that 450 is a good estimate. It was indicated during our conversations that there are a number of single occupant properties. See the attached location map and plat map of the development. The following is a description of services the City of Kalispell will provide the residents of Glacier Village Greens development upon annexation. Police Coverage - In preparing the plan we examined the call -load ratio for the region, the demographic features, the population base and the inherent architectural features related to safety. We analyzed the call -load ratio for the area from our records and those of the Flathead County Sheriff's Office to help determine a calls -for -service need. This area is in our zone number 4 which generally runs north of US-2 and east of Main Street. Zone 4 is the lowest calls - for -service area in the city with approximately 1400 calls per year. The Flathead County Sheriffs Office indicated the calls -for -service in the area was very low. The subdivision is flanked on the east by Stillwater River and on the west by steep ridges. The area has only two access roads on the south side of the property with fencing between the ridges and the river. The area receives very little transient traffic that is not connected to the golf Page 2 of 6 operation because there are no through avenues. The subdivision is well lit and the homes are in close proximity to each other. These features suggest that there will be a very low law enforcement caseload. There is some floodplain concern that would require law enforcement services if a flood required an evacuation of the area. In conclusion, the low calls -for -service ratio of the area, along with the absence of a significant call load in the subdivision, suggests that the demand on our services will be low. The demographic profile of the area, that of adult middle income families, is generally one with a low calls -far -service profile. The population numbers suggest that the area will require approximately .8 officers based on the low population estimate of 450 residents. That figure is based on the "Law Enforcement in Montana" survey which rates law enforcement ratios in cities of our size in the state at 1.8 officers per 1000 residents. (x/450 residents = 1.8/1000 residents). We must also anticipate some impact on our dispatch services that will require that we budget additional money for part- time staff. We also anticipate a very small caseload on our animal warden services. It is our opinion that we can extend services to this area without the addition of any employees through increased efficiency and zone response. We feel we can generally provide excellent service to the area because of its proximity to existing service areas and the inherent low calls -for -service overall profile of the area. We must stress that the cumulative affect of annexations such as these will result in a need for additional full-time staff and proportional funding for support staff. Fire/Ambulance Coverage - The Kalispell Fire/Ambulance Department made an inspection of Glacier Village Greens Subdivision in order to determine the impact annexation would have on the fire department. Our present manpower to population ration is 1 fireman per 800 population. Consequently, this annexation would cause the fire department to require 0.56 fireman based on the 450 estimated residents. The distance from our station to the last house in this subdivision is 3.8 miles. We estimate our response time at six to seven minutes. There are currently 23 fire hydrants for the Evergreen Water Department in this subdivision. We are charged $60 per year rent on these hydrants, so that would be a cost to our budget of $1380 per year. We have served this subdivision since it's beginning with our E. M.S. System. It is our opinion, that since we already serve this area with E. M. S., and since it is a new subdivision built to current building and fire codes, the run volume for fire should be quite low. We would like to point out, however, that this subdivision is on the Northeast edge if our city limits, where a substation is a consideration at this time. We would not propose hiring additional manpower as a result of this annexation, however, the cumulative effect of growth and annexation will create a demand for additional manpower in the future. I am working with the Department of Revenue to accurately calculate the annexation's impact to the Evergreen Rural Fire District. I am also working to find out how the over all growth in Evergreen has impacted the department's revenue. I will be meeting with Chief Verkes of the Evergreen Volunteer Fire Department Friday afternoon. I am optimistic that a positive relationship can be developed however, I know from experience that this will not happen overnight. Public Works - Our review of the street system is based on the assumption that the Homeowners Association would want to dedicate the streets to the City. This is not required, and is a separate Page 3 of 6 action from the annexation that must be taken by the Association and the City council. I would recommend that we accept the streets if asked by the Association. Streets are in generally good condition and appear to meet the City's standard cross section with curb and gutter. The first phase portion of Nicklaus Drive is the exception. It is constructed to the City's alternate cross section design that does not include curb and gutter. The other exception is that sidewalks have not been installed in the development. The condition of the streets appears to be good with no obvious deficient areas. It is our opinion that overlay is not needed, but that the streets should be placed into the regular maintenance program to bechip-sealed as soon as possible in order to maintain their good condition for as long as possible. We would further recommend improving Nicklaus Drive (phase 1) to add curb and gutter to match the rest of the development and improve drainage. It is my understanding, per my conversation with the homeowners association president, that the developers have a responsibility to upgrade Phase I. At the time of the memo I was not able to verify this obligation. Storm drainage facilities have been installed and there are no obvious deficiencies. Potential catch basin and piping improvements may be needed if curb and gutter is added to Nicklaus Drive in order to ensure proper function of the system. Evergreen Drive from Whitefish Stage Road to the Whitefish River is a County maintained road. It appears to be in generally good condition and appears to meet County standards. There are no obvious immediate improvements needed for this section of Evergreen Drive that would place a burden on City resources. Because our sewer line is not within the Evergreen Drive right-of-way I am not advocating that we annex any portion of Evergreen Drive at this time. It is difficult to determine the personnel requirements to serve this area. Routine snow plowing is the greatest obligation. This would add about six man-hours of workload per event. Sweeping would impose a somewhat smaller burden ofapproximately four man-hours per event. Other road maintenance would be fitted into the current schedule as necessary. Water maintenance is done by Evergreen. There would be no changes in sewer system maintenance because this is being done at present by the City. Storm drainage maintenance is estimated to be nominal and not of significant impact. We were able to identify a statistic that identified the need for 2.5 public works employees for every 1,000 residents in order to perform ALL public work responsibilities (streets, water, sewer, solid waste, storm sewer, support staff etc.) Utilizing this figure, you would estimate the need in public works to be approx. 1.1 employees, however, as I mentioned above we already provide sanitary sewer, water is Evergreen's, solid waste is a minimum of five years out and so we are estimating an overall impact of 0.5 employee. Sewer Service - Sewer system facilities are reasonably new and were installed to Montana standards. They are currently the property of North Village County Sewer District. We have a contractual arrangement with North Village to operate and maintain the facilities and will become owner of the facilities when bonds for cons on have been paid. There are no apparent infrastructure needs for this system and annexation will involve no changes to City operations. As a result of the annexation, sewer users will no longer have to pay the out -of -city sewer rate which is 25% higher than the in -city rate. This will save each user approx. $50 per year and cost the sewer fund approx. $11,250. Water Service - Water system facilities are reasonably new and were installed to Montana standards and are the property of the Evergreen district. There would be no obligation on the City to operate or maintain this system. This is identical to the situation in Buffalo Stage where the development is in the City but water is provided from Evergreen facilities. Solid Waste (Garbage Collection) - The City will not provide solid waste disposal services to the annexed area for a minimum of five years, consistent with the provision of 7-2-4736, M.C.A. Parks -There are no publicly owned parks within the Glace Village Greens development. The developers chose to meet their parkland requirements by designated their park areas as homeowners association parks, green space and open areas. Therefore, the City will have no additional service commitment as a result of the annexation. After discussing this issue with the Association I would be surprised if the City is asked to consider making them public. I would be reluctant to accept the parks'as public city parks if asked by the Association. I believe that making them public parks would neither be in the best interest of the City nor the residents living within Glacier Village Greens. Recreation - Residents within Glacier Village Greens are currently eligible to participate in any of the City's recreational programs. Therefor, the only impact pertaining to recreation is that the participating residents will no longer have to pay the higher "out of city" fee. This is expected to have an extremely minimal effect on recreation fees. Urban Forestry - Public right-of-ways are 60 feet within the development. This offers ample space for boulevard trees. Glacier Village Greens will be prioritized with all other neighborhoods within the City for both the planting of new trees and the maintenance of their current boulevard trees. What tax revenue will be derived by the annexation? The Glacier Village Greens development will generate $64,947 in general tax revenue based on 1999 assessment numbers (Dept. Of Revenue. spreadsheet). Of the 259 lots within the development, the majority are 65' x 100' equating to 6,500 sq. ft. There are a number of lots that are smaller, and some that are larger, but for purposes of estimating I utilized the average size of 6,500. In addition to the millage revenue generated, property owners will be subject to three assessments. The Street Maintenance assessment will generate an estimated $7,575; the Storm Sewer assessment an estimated $4,623; and the Urban Forestry assessment will generate an estimated $1,134. Therefore, the total revenue generated from Glacier Village Greens is estimated at $78,279 per year. This breaks down to approximately $302 in City taxes and assessments for each lot within Glacier Village Greens. Can the City provide services to the Glacier Village Greens development without raising taxes? Yes. See the following chart which is derived from the narrative above. The manpower estimates have not been altered based on the removal of Phase VII and the golf course, however the revenue numbers have been reduced. Department Manpower Total Cost Police Officer 0.8 $36,547 Fire Personnel 0.5 $21,214 Hydrant Rental $ 1,380 Public Works 0.5 $18,103 $77,244 Administration (3%) 2,317 $79,561 Revenue Generated $78,279 Page 5 of 6 After analyzing all of the information pertaining to this annexation, I recommend we exercise our option under paragraph eleven of our agreement with North Village Sewer District and our authority under State law pertaining to annexation of contiguous lands. In doing so, we need to approve the attached Resolution of Intention to Annex Glacier Village Greens Phases I, II, III, IIIA, IIIB, IV, V, VIII, IX, X and Tract 5. The proposed timetable associated with the annexation is as follows: September 5 - Resolution of Intention September I I - Application submitted to FRDO September 13 - Publish notice September 20 - Publish notice October 3 - Deadline for comments October 10 - Annexation is presented to the Planning Board October 16 - First Reading of annexation and zoning before the City Council November 6 - Second Reading of annexation and zoning before the City Council December 6 - Annexation and zoning change becomes effective RECOMMENDATION: The City Council approve the attached Resolution of Intention Annex the Glacier Village Greens Area, North East of Kalispell Contiguous to Whitefish Stage and West Evergreen Drive. FISCAL EFFECTS: The cost of services as compared to the revenue produced by the annexation are almost identical. Please note that we will not be hiring additional personnel as a result of this annexation, however, the cumulative effect of growth and annexation will eventually result in the need for additional personnel and/or contracted services. ALTERNATIVES: Respectfully submitted, I AN Chris A. Kukulski City Manager As suggested by the Council. Report compiled August 31, 2000 ,ANDS SURVEYING, INC. 1995 Third Avenue East Kalispell, MT 59901 406-755-6481 Fax 406-755-6488 September 5, 2000 P.J. Sorensen Zoning Administrator City of Kalispell Box 1997 Kalispell, MT 59903 Dear P.J. As per your request, the following is our proposal to provide you with surveying services on the Village Greens Project: We will provide you with legal descriptions of the golf course area for a fee of $1140.00. It will take us about 3 weeks to get this complete. We will provide you with a certificate of Survey of the golf course property with legal descriptions for a fee of $4260.00. This will take approximately 5 weeks to complete. Let me know if we can be of further assistance. Professionally, Tom Sanas, P.L.S. LLINGSN LAW OFFICES MONTANA BUILDING 33 SECOND STREET EAST KALISPELL, MONTANA 59901 (406)756-7180 FAX: (406) 752-7144 December 19, 1991 Glen Neier City Attorney City Hall Kalispell, MT 59901 I'I�Ttes-no Jeffrey D. Ellingson Attorney -at -Law Karen S. Burgess, PLS Office Manager Enclosed is an original and copy of the final agreement. I have changed Section 9 regarding the abstract of the agreement to specify what that would consist of. I have also added a notary acknowledgement for Mayor Rauthe and Amy Robertson. As we discussed, it is my intention to have the agreement signed at the next regular meeting of the Village County Sewer District, which will be the second Wednesday in January. Once you have the Mayor's attested and notarized signature, please return the original agreement to me, and I will procure the appropriate signatures from Village County Sewer District. I will then send you a copy of the agreement and forward the original for filing first with the County Clerk and Recorder and then with the Secretary of State. If you think that duplicate originals would be a good idea I assume you will send me more than one copy signed by the Mayor. I assume you will call in the meantime with any questions. Otherwise I will expect to receive the agreement back from you within the next few days. Yours truly, ELLINGSON LAW OFFICES EC Jeffrey U. Ellingson JDE:cm Enclosure cc: Ken Yachechak H. t //-�✓ f 1 LLINGSON LAW OFFICES MONTANA BUILDING 33 SECOND STREET EAST KALISPELL, MONTANA 59901 (406) 756-7180 FAX: (406) 752-7144 November 22, 1991 Glen Neier City Attorney City U1all Kalispell, MT 59901 Jeffrey D. Ellingson Attorney -at -Law Karen S. Burgess, PLS Office Manager Enclosed is a revised agreement incorporating the changes we discussed. Under the terms of this agreement the City would keep all usage fees (being 100% of the City's regular rate as to property within the City and 125% of the City's regular rate as to properties outside the City). The City would have the right to veto any further incurrence of bonded indebtedness. The City would also have the obligation to make any necessary capital repairs to the improvements from the date of the agreement forward. Please discuss this agreement with Bruce and the city council as soon as possible. The board of directors of the sewer district has asked me to file the appropriate legal action if we are not able to execute an acceptable management and operations agreement by the middle of December. Obviously this matter needs to be resolved before the end of the calendar year. The District needs to maintain its right to ask that the annexation be voided if we cannot arrive at an agreement which takes care of the District's obligation to its bondholders and association properties. I will be in trial next week. If you know of any required amendments to this agreement, please give me the information in writing so that I can pass it on to the board. Thank you. I look forward to hearing from you soon. Yours truly, ELLINGSON LAW OFFICES B � - Jeffrey D. Ellingkod JDE:cm Enclosure cc: Kit Smith Ken Yachechak Roger Jacobson Tony Talbot Terry Anderson H bEF-U2-;"UU3 'I'M U8:38 RM TXI I;IIY FLHNNINU M NU. 4Ub IN Iijbts r, U/ IWW-T ; IMUMM IIA I 34RIMA3MI&If -#T#X_W_#Vj P.O. Box 5173 - Kalispell, MT 59901 TO: Kalispell City Council From: Jim Connolly, President Glacier Village Greens Homeowners Association Based on an over 75% approval of the property owners of Quier Village Greens (GVG) subdivision, we am asking the City Council to approve the amendment to flie CC&R's and Plan of Phase MA ofThis allneadment: will cwhide a portion of the parkland along the East side of East Nicklaus. The am is north of lot 159 Phase MA and south of Lot 1, Phase, EK. We win U= subnut a preliminary subdivision for approval draft this are✓a wto four single-family residential* lots. LW MILOW-71-=r.f • I I I .. : 4A I I This will allow us to have a community center with no mortgage and no increase in annual dues - This is very kqxmnt as we have many refired members on fiKed income who would like a community cariter but don't want an increase in annual dues. We understand your approval of the amendment is needed before we can advance to the preliminary subdivision stage. Please consider this as the application for the amendment approval. BOARD OF DIMTORS Tun Conrially, Pnsidw Tom D=harn, ArcWtectmal Committee Pat Brvm, VP and ftica & R=4W- Rmn Slushw, Covauu" Co=iv- I* Mdxmq, SOWTreas & Social Committee Mark Owe= & Don Petcnor6 D-blopm 0"I W- CVVV I VL VU -JQ F11 I 11.1 VI I I I U11111 I JW 1-11n JIV, 4VU I;jI IOUU F. V'-) Following is a series of events which led to our coming before the City Council. 1. October 2002. During the Glacier Village Greens Homeowners Board of Directors raceting the idea of a community center was raised. Tom Denham and Jo Mahoney were appointed to research the possibility. 2. Aftr several meetings with the two appointed board members and the developer, a plan evolved which would provide 9w community with a center with incurring a mortgage nor increasing annual dues. Annual dues are S120.00. 3. A pica of ground designated asp and owned by the Homeowners Association, couW be divided into four typical Village Greens lots- This land is not used as a park but is used by.people nearby to walk their dogs and not pick up after them Viewed from the street it is brown fescue and looking across it is a view of Plum Creek. It would be much more eye appealing with four single family homes with attractive landscaping. 4. A ballot was prepared by an attorney aftr he reviewed the CC&R's and the. plat. 5. A cover letter Wong with a ballot and a stamped return envelope was sent to all property owners of the Village. A copy of these is included. 6. 'The ballot is a consent and amendment to be signed and returned by those in favor of changing the parkland into four single family lots to be exchanged for a completed community center. 7. May 28, 2003 the annual mating of the Homeowners Association was held and community center questions and answers were heard. 8. June 9, 2003 a special meeting of the Eloard was held for the purpose of certifying the baUot count Them were 236 ballots in favor of the proposal out of a possible 312. This i over 75% in favor. 9. By August 1, the cut off date for receiving ballots, the number had risen to 240 in favor, 77%- 10. Active opposition to the plan is from three of the six homes across the street ftorn the park to be subdivided. When the smoke clews, they are not against the conummity center, but against changing the land to four lots. However 240(77*/o) of our property owners want the change. 11. A question and answer sheet was recently sent to all property owners to clarify false information being circulated and rumors. A copy is included. 12. We have many residents of the Village who are an fixed income and cannot afford an increase in dues. They want a community center and this is the only way it can be done without an increase in dues. A financial projection for the community center overhead is included. These funds would come from existing annual dues, no increase to the property owner BOARD OF DUMTORS -rnu C=MAIY, Preawnt Tom DcWWni, ArOWWOMI ComUittft Pat Brown, VP and Pub & Reacation Rau Slusher, Covamo Committee Jo hfihonoy, Sec/Trem & SoGial Committee Mark Owem & Don Pawn, Developuis VI..I Vc. LVVJ IVL VvIJV nil 8111 VI I I Lnllllll r rr1n 1W. 4VU tot 1000 r, U9 A special meeting of the GVGHOA was called to order by Vice President, Pat Brown. Present were: Pat Brown, Tom Denham, Mark Owens, Ron Slusher, and Jo Mahoney. The board met and certified the ballot count regarding the proposed community center project. Ron read names off the ballots, and Jo -checked against the list of homeowners. 236 ballots have been received as ortoday, June 9. 234 ballots returned would be 75% of the homeowners balloted. It was decided to go ahead with Sterling Title Company to amend the covenants of Phase ILIA as per ballot. (see attached). Tom Sands would be contacted to divide the land into 4 lots. The cost was estimated to be between $5000 - $7000. An appraisal will be done by two realtors, not associated with Glacier Village Greens. Pat Brown moved to proceed with Sterling Title to amend the covenants of Phase II1A, and to also hire Torn Sands to proceed with the division of the land into lots. Tom Denham seconded the motion. Motion passed. The Fall Fling will be held August 24,'2003. It was decided that NO business items would take place at that time. However, Tom would have an easel there with proposed plans for the center. The board felt that the Fall Flint; should remain a social event for all homeowners. A social committee needs to be appointed. Jo would check into this. Meeting adjourned. spectfully sub fitted, oney, Sec.ITr VGHOA a,,eunnv i rue avv. 'tut) f UI IUUO r, uo 0 Miffs I 14 WN A11914 tl-R it # IN To: Glacier Village Greens Property Owners Fran Homeowners Association Hoard of Directors Subject: Community Center The nwnber of residents inquiring about the possibility of a community center has been increasing over the past several years to the point that the HonvNwmers Board appointed a committee of two, Jo Mahoney and Tom Denham, to look into tie possibility. Several nheetuigs have been held iiicludiub those with the Tri-City Planning Office and ft Village Greens new owners. The feWbaack froln boll• was extremely positive. 'What was uccdcdwas a Quay to accomplish this without putting a financial Hardship on our resieetts. We feel this has been accomplished. Tom Sands Surveying prepared an initial subdivision of tic columon area along the cast side of b Nicklaus just south of where it inects Rilan►an Lane. This divided very nicely into four lots. It is being proposed to trade these lots to $ contractor who will build a community center oft the area along West Nicklaus by the pond. We wwId dien have a community center completely paid for, no debt to service. It is conservatively estimated that only $1.50 of the ncondily $10.00 dues would be ccaic,d to cover the expenses of takes, insurance, utilities including gas„ electricity, telepimnc. water, setter and maintenance. As more lots are approved for sale this will result in more S 10.00 per n►onth fees being collected and will subsequently reduce the $1.50 to stxnetliinb less. We anticipate that three years froin now this anhount will be less than $1.00 per month of the $10.00 per month dues. When you consider the benefit to the many who would use do center, this is a very negligible amount. A volunteer will schedule Elio activity use of the center and will require a cleaning deposit in the event it is not properly cimu�uied after use. The deposit will then be used to pay for a cleaning service. The center will be for the exclusive use of the residents of die village. Some of the activities could be; billiards, bingo, pl►otography classes, quilting, card games, weddings, fancily reunions, wedding receptions, yoga and exercise classes, art classes, booed clubs, card lessons, investment club meetings, classes on rules of golf, bible study groups, dire. We believe the center would provide at least one activity of interest to everyone in the village. 'nianks to the cooperation of those involved we c:ui have a community center with no additional out of pocket cost to our residents, This is a win win for all of us, Included with this letter is a ballot needing your vote to approve t►e center. You will also find a self addressed stamped envelope for your convenience in returning the ballot. Please vote because a non -response is the same as a no. Glacier Village Greens Homeowners Association Board of Directors BOARD Or DIREXTORS Lois t.yford. Pres. & Smiat Cvmmiltee Toin Deoliain, Architec iurat Conunittec Rein $lusher, V. R & Covenants Committee ICaiyl Gasser, Nrks & Grounds Coinnhittce it) Mahc>tiey, Seclfreas. & Park Reservations Marts Owens & Don Peterson, Developerq vtt vt_ !—tl V.J tUt. Vu—tv fall till vt 1 t t WIIIIlat5v 1-nn 1W. NUU ful 14J0 r. UO The Hoard of Directors of Glacier Village Greens Homeowners Association, Inc. has recommended that the common area owned by the association located north of Lot 159 in Glacier Village Groans, Phase MA and south of Lot 1 in Glacier Village Greens, Phase IX be developed into four (4) single family lots and conveyed by the Association to third parties in exchange for construction of a Community Center for Glacier Village Greens to be built elsewhere in Glacier Village Greens. The undersigned owner(s) of a lot in Glacier Village Greens hereby consent to the development of thew lots and agree that the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions of Glacier Village Greens Subdivision (all phases) and the plat of Glacier Village Greens, Phase MA are amended to exclude the area described above from being common am or park land under the Declarations and plat. Phase No. Signature of Owner Address of Owner Print Dame Jcr-UC-euua Wt UO-LIU H17 IKI Lim rLHPiNINU hHx Nu. 4Ub IN Ibbb P, UY MOST FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS CONCERNING THE COMMUNITY CENTER Q) Where will the community center (CC) be built? A) West of the present shelter and baduoom. that is on the park on West Nicklaus. The exact location will depend on soil sampling. Q) What will be built on the four lots on East Nicklaus? A) The amendment specifies that they will be single family dwellings as are North, South and West of the parcel. Q) low will construction be fun A) The cost of construction will be assumed by the builder. Upon completion of the CC to the satisfaction of the association Board and the Community Center Committee, the Association will trade the four lots to the builder in exchange for the Community Center. Q) How much of our annual dues will be needed to mintain the CC? A) Based on cost estimates which include taxes, insurance, utilities, garbage, approximately $1.50/mo or $I8.00/yr. This amount will decrease as more dues paying lots are added by the developer. When fully developed with 500 residences we anticipate approximately -00/mo or S 12.00/yr. There would be no increase in annual dues. Q) Why can't we have the CC next to the pro shop? A) This is not a clubhouse associated with the golf course. It is a community center for the enjoyment of all residents. It must be built on Association property, not golf course property. Q) Who will have the right to use the CC? A) Any property owner of Glacier Village Greens. Q) How big will the CC be? A) The value of the lots will determine the value of the CC. The cost per square foot will then determine the size. This should be approximately 2500 square feet. Q) What facilities will be available in the CC? A) The CC will have two restrooms and a kitchen plus a divider to make two separate rooms so two functions can go on at the same time. We will accept donations of items such as chairs, tables, etc. Q) Who will be responsible for the management and maintenance of the CC? A) The Board of Directors will establish a standing committee to oversee the CC. Q) What are the responsibilities of the CC Committee now? A) This Committee has not met as yet and its responsibilities will be established by the Board. Q) What will be the parking requirements? A) The city code will establish this. The requirements will conform to city code. (over) nrr-ijc-cuu3 iun uo-4u 1111 1R1 vi 11 rLI1111Y11W rnn m. quo tui ioo0 r, u0 Present Income from $10.00/ month dues ($120.00/ yr) This represents 312 property owners There will be 35 new lots shortly at $10.00/mo Total income (broken y) 2003 & 2004 (347 lots) Spring of 2005, 35 new lots will be added Anticipated dues income in 2005 (expressed monthly) PROJECTED MONTHLY EXPENSES Assumes building completed spring 2004 2004 Taxes Insurance ]Electricity Gras Water Sewer Garbage 2005 'Taxes $3,120.00 350.00 $3,470.00 MIE a / 1t //� none 59.00 46.00 33.00 11.00 18.00 8.30 175.30 475.30 When looking at the utilities remember that we won't be taking showers, washing and drying clothes, running a dishwasher, running a freezer in the garage, having the treat up all day long, using the oven and range most everyday. Also, these are averaged over a twelve-month period. If $1.50 of the $10.00/mo. dues is allocated for the community center in 2004, anticipating completion spring 2004, (347 lots x $1.50 = $520.50). Our projected monthly expenses axe only $175.00 for that period, a difference of $345.50/mo below anticipated budget. In 2005, when we start paying , there will be an additional 35 dues paying lots added for a total of 382 dues paying lots. A $1.30 x 382 = $573.00 for maintenance of the community center. We anticipate expenses to be $475.30/mo or a difference of $97.70hw under anticipated budget. Our projections can be 20% off and we will still be within budget. __"C--LUUJ IUG U0.4U 1111 IRI VI I I FLIIMIIIIU MA Irv. 4uu ful luju U. Uo