04-03-86 Annexation Committee• April 3, 1986 ANNEXATION COMMITTEE 4:00 P.M.
Chairman Hafferman and Councilman Manning in attendance. Attorney Neier,
Surveyor Zavodny, Building Official Jackson and Nick Verma of FRIO also present.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - Attorney Neier approved this going to the Council
and recommended adoption by resolution, which he has drafted.
KALISPELL MOTEL - A public hearing date needs to be set by Attorney Neier.
Surveyor Zavodny asked if there was an agreement in writing from the owner
and the answer was affirmative. The Committee felt that the Fire Department
needed to address the question of adequate fire hydrants.
LARSON ANNEXATION - a Resolution of Intent is ready for Council.
BOUNTIFUL DRIVE AND CLAREMONT STREET - Surveyor Zavodny presented a letter
from the County indicating approval for the City's plan to annex, but without
a quit claim deed. He recommended that if the City cannot obtain the quit
claim deed they should not pursue this annexation. Mr. Verma said he spoke
with the County and explained the need for the deed and he will pursue obtaining
it. A Resolution of Intent will be prepared for the Council.
HIGHWAY 93 NORTH ADJACENT TO THE COLLEGE PROPERTY - Surveyor Zavodny said
that while compiling a letter to address this he realized that the same situation
exists on the south side of the property along Grandview Drive. The College
owns half of the "declared" road. Half of this road is still not in the City.
If the City's reasoning for annexing is to provide traffic control and orderly
growth then the City should also annex the portion along Grandview. He went
on to question whether the City wanted anything to do with Grandview Drive.
The consensus was that the City does not want the responsibility for Grandview
Drive at this point in time. C. Manning suggested that this area be left as
County until further development comes to the area. The Committee will review
this project in six months.
TRACTS 7EH AND 6DB - A letter was sent. Spence Rider has no problem as
long as the City will waive the fee and pay for the legals. Surveyor Zavodny
will contact the Lutheran Home again for a response.
ANNEXATION PROCEDURES - The discussion was concerning the three forms
of annexation worked out between FRIO and C. Hafferman and C. Manning in an
effort to simplify the process of annexation. Attorney Neier felt that the
review by the Annexation Committee should come directly after the staff review
and before the preparation of the extension of services plan by the Director
of Public Works, rather than later in the process to allow any problems to
be known up front. He also felt that more time and effort should be taken
on extension of services plans so that it would be on the record for any future
questions. He indicated that this is noc being done. The extension of services
plan should be reviewed and approved by the City Council according to the State
statute. He went on to say that a site plan showing sewer and water lines
and information on how the developer is going to finance the extension should
• be a part of the extension of services plan. He felt that this information
needed to be available for review two weeks before the public hearing according
to the statute.
ANNEXATION COMMITTEE
• April 3, 1986
Page 2
Attorney Neier also brought up the timing between readings. The statute
now gives 45 days protest period after the public hearing. The effect of this
is that either the city cannot annex during that period or different verbage
must be used to extend the effective date, or the City should not have the
second reading until 45 days from the date of the public hearing. In the end
of this duscussion it was felt that the effective date of annexation must take
into account the 45 day protest period.
For annexation by petition Attorney Neier would like to give notice at
least twice, even though only a public hearing is required.
C. Manning asked if it was fair to charge simple annexations the same
$175.00 fee when the administration costs are nil?
Mr. Verma pointed out that protest can be only in the proposed district
to be annexed. Using the Larson Addition as an example that means that the
neighborhood would have no say because the lot itself would be the proposed
district to be annexed and the Larsons made application for annexation.
The Committee felt that an insert reading "Effective date of annexation shall
be no less than 45 days after the public hearing" should be made.
EXTENSION OF SERVICES - There was a variety of discussion about what the
extension of services should be based on - actual use of the land being annexed
vs. potential of the parcel according to zoning, fairness to individuals, etc.
This is an issue that needs to be addressed and Attorney Neier said he would
discuss it with DPW Hammer.
ajg
•